Talk:First partner Pokémon

Normal Starters

Should Pikachu be considered a 'normal' starter? I mean, it isn't part of the Fire/Water/Grass triangle, and it can also be captured in the wild in many of the other games, something that no other starters have right now. It's also the starter only in one game (although, so have Colosseum Starters, XD Starter, and Ranger Starter). --PikamasterADV 12:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, why not? The fact it is not part of the triangle does not disqualify him as a starter Pokémon. If we had a Dark/Fighting/Psych triangle, wouldn't still they be starters? Also, the Fire/Grass/Water triangle is already broken is some cases, like the 4th generation starters having second types after they evolve. In any case, he is undoubtedly a starter in the ranks of Squirtle and Charmander. He is given out by a professor (and our very original professor Oak in his case), is given in one of the "main" games of the series, and is a basic Pokémon. --Andrelvis 15:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, don't forget that also, pretty much every starter gets a second type through evolution. Only ones who don't are Squirtle, Chikorita, Cyndaquil, Totodile, and Treecko. Hell, Bulbasaur has two types in its basic form.

And I think the division's more on the games that are defined as the main RPG series vs the side games. After all, Pichu makes Pikachu a stage 1 now, in all technicalities. But, of course, Yellow is just as much a main game as Red, Blue, and Green are, unlike Colosseum and XD compared to Ruby, Sapphire, and Emerald, even though all of them are RPGs. Tom Temprotran 01:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. And that's why we have the "special starters" section. They are starters, but not as much so as the "main game" ones. --Andrelvis 17:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

But they're not special per se. They're just... not mainstream. - 振霖_T 17:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

A little off-topic, but I heard a rumor that Game Freak was considering a Fighting/Psychic/Dark trio for the Gen IV starters, but they decided to switch back to the usual Grass/Fire/Water trio. Diachronos 16:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

To add to Trivia

I noticed this. Of the Grass starters up to and including Generation IV, all of the final forms have eight-letter English names. Venusaur, Meganium, Sceptile, and Torterra.

Hmmm. Well, it's interesting, but the trivia section's already huge! TTEchidna^G_SDS! 09:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

To Remove from Trivia

"Usually upon evolution, the starter Pokémon gain another type. However, Blastoise, the three Johto starters' final forms (Meganium, Typhlosion, and Feraligatr), and Sceptile do not have a second type." This quote is not very accurate. The trivia itself lists 5 out of the 12 final evolutions of the main series' starters that don't gain a new type (technically it should be 6 of 13 because of Pikachu; which while it can't evolve in Yellow still does in every other version). 5 out of 12 is about 42%; which means that "usually" is used to define an occurance rate barely over 50% and is like saying Pokemon split equally into both genders are "usually" one over the other. Additionally, only 6 of the 13 (about 46%) main series staters actually gain a new type out of evolution, as Bulbasaur starts with the Poison-type. I'm not sure if complete removal of this trivia is called for, but it definitely needs to be reworded. --ZellMurasame 05:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That's an overinspective technicality... but sure, it should be reworded if that's statistically the case. Just make sure not to link species with square brackets, man. The {{p}} template is there for use, especially with the starters and their families... all of which have appeared owned by a main anime character... TTEchidna^G_SDS! 08:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Pikachu

Just saying buy uh.. You guys put every Pokemon's evolutions in the normal games. But not Pikachu's in Pokemon Yellow?

Pikachu can't evolve in Yellow. TTEchidna^G_SDS! 04:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Colosseum elemental starters

Even though you can get the remaining two at the end of the game, let's not forget that Bayleef, Quilava, and Croconaw are somewhat "starter" Pokémon in Pokémon Colosseum, since you need to snag one of them at the beginning of the adventure. Maybe they're like Eevee's evolutionary stones or shards in that their availability isn't immediate... However, one of the things that make them non-traditional starters is that the game doesn't explicitly ask you "you want this Pokémon, or this one, or this one?". --Johans 03:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You just have to beat Rosso, Verde, or Bluno. You don't have to snag their Shadow Pokémon. Gligar I am not removing this lengthy addition to my signature until all moves have been updated to Platinum standard. 00:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Obediance

I seem to recall that in the main series, a Starter Pokémon will always obey even if its level surpasses the mark of a required Gym Badge. Has anyone else experienced this? If so, should it be added to the article somewhere? ~$aturn¥oshi ^{THE VOICES} 19:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

All Pokémon caught by the trainer will, they wont obey if they have been received in a trade.Davidaipom 19:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The page on Badges does not make that distinction. ~$aturn¥oshi ^{THE VOICES} 19:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

well that's how it works --lord mada 19:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that if a player was able to start a new game and somehow "catch" a Level 70 Pokémon right off the bat, it will obey? ~$aturn¥oshi ^{THE VOICES} 19:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

yeah I'm pretty sure --lord mada 19:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting... Well then, disregard. ~$aturn¥oshi ^{THE VOICES} 19:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes but dont forget that's very unlikely in the main series. Ritchie

Start a new game, trade away a random caught Pokémon, get it back after a while at level 70 and it likely will obey. TTEchidna 18:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely, but possible. Especially with an Action Replay. ~$aturn¥oshi ^{THE VOICES} 17:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Trivia overload?

Don't get me wrong, I always love a lot of additions to the trivia section, but even now it seems like it's way too much. We might want to cut back on some more esoteric things, and group the move pattern observations together. ~Toastypk - ^Loom. 17:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it would be possible to encorporate some of the more anime-exclusive trivia into the anime section and likewise for game-exclusive, and only put overall trivia at the bottom. ^Moldy_Orange 17:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Something I noticed on the Trivia section is that one of the links is broken; specifically, the cross-Wiki link about Charmander being based of the mythical Salamander. --Mike | Contrib 03:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This was a stupid error on my part; I fixed it just now. I had fixed the link before, but I put wp:Salamander (legendary creature) rather than wp|Salamander (legendary creature). This caused a broken link. It was very unprofessional of me, and I greatly apologize for the error. Satosuke 03:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No editing?

Why cant I edit this? I found an error... --Mooites ^{Talk to me, baby!} 18:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

So did I. I don't know if it's the same as yours, but its at the end of the page. It's missing a period. --^Psychic_Rider^☮ 18:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

In the middle of something, didn't want an edit conflict. TTEchidna 18:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Gen IV type-trumping

I just noticed something about the Sinnoh starters' final forms. Each of them gains a a type advantage over the starter it is weak to in some way:

• Torterra gains the Ground-type, which is super-effective against Infernape.
• Infernape gains the Fighting-type, which is super-effective against Empoleon's Steel-type.
• Empoleon gains the Steel-type, which gives it a resistance to Torterra's Grass-type (although it does give a weakness to Torterra's Ground-type (maybe for balance issues); however, being a Water-type, Empoleon can learn Ice-type attacks to deal super-effective damage against both of Torterra's types).

Diachronos 16:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

However, the steel type also renders Empoleon without a resistance to either of Infernape's types, thus actually making it WEAK to Infernape (at least to it's fighting type, and the steel offbalances the water resistance to fire). Satosuke 11:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Including Empoleon's ability to learn Ice moves, all the starters have moves which are super effective against the other two starters. As in, the examples listed above and the normal type advantage circle (except Empoleon is weak to Ground not Grass)So, in a way, it means that none of them are superior to the others. Gastly's Mama

Gary's Starter

Is the statement "it caused many to hearken back to Pokémon Yellow, where the player starts with Pikachu, like Ash, and the rival starts with Eevee" the wrong way round because Pokemon Yellow was based on the anime and because Gary's true starter had not been revealed at the time, the makers made Eevee his starter, as the game required him to have a confirmed one? Therefore rather than people thinking this because that was his starter in Yellow, is it not much more likely that this was his starter in Yellow because people thought it was starter already? - unsigned comment from Gastlys mama (talk • contribs)

Platinum

It's different in Platinum. There are no Starly. He just give them out for some reason to the two and they battle each other. Someone who knows the reason should place it. _*Tc26_* 07:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's to test out their newly received pokémon? that seems the most logical to me... Mijzelffan 15:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the question is why did Rowan give them to the character and Pearl. The Dark Fiddler - Nos hablamos? 15:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that can wait until March... TTEchidna 03:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Its almost time for Platinum to come out in America, better get ready to fill that in!--^{X, PEACE TO}THE DRAGONS ANDTHE BEASTS 07:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Trivia Addition

I felt it would be interesting to note that all of the starter's first evolutions have the same base stat total of 405, whereas the base and final forms vary greatly.

Every middle evolution, you mean? Definitely something to say. But the final forms' variance needn't be mentioned; it's not like they're Butterfree vs Arceus in terms of BST difference. TTEchidna 04:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Second Trivia Addition

Wouldn't it be a good idea to post the fact that in the anime, the protagonist's starter Pokémon actually has a type advantage over the rival's starter Pokémon other than the other way around? (Ash obviously had Pikachu whereas Gary had Squirtle) Seems relevant --Blackstone Dresden 03:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Basically what they did was say Gary had a MYSTERY OMGEEZ and then an EEVEE OMGEEZ YELOW and then BLASTOISE HAHA. And by that third point, in Johto, Ash's Charizard counted almost as much as Pikachu anyway, especially considering the battle the two had using those. TTEchidna 04:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Kanto starters in HGSS?

I just got all 16 badges, Oak gives me a HM08, but no starter. Do i have to do something beforehand? -->223david 01:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This sounds kind of forum-y to me, but you might have to do the Copycat event first - I read somewhere that you have to do that in order to get a Hoenn starter from Steven, at least. 梅子^❀_✿ 01:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

All events done except for red. do i have to beat him firsT? -->223david 01:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. 梅子^❀_✿ 01:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The mystical, amazing disappearing starter Pokemon!

I could have sworn I saw this discussed somewhere before, but for the life of me I can't find it now. Oh well.

Anyway, at some point in HGSS (not sure exactly when) the third starter Pokemon which wasn't chosen by the PC or the rival mysteriously vanishes from its place in Elm's lab. (The game text when the... whatever that machine is... is examined is something along the lines of, "Hey! The third Pokeball is gone! Was it given to someone?" though I can't be bothered to switch games in my DS to check for sure.) I figure that this is notable enough to go into the article, and I'd put it in there myself, but I quite honestly don't know if its disappearance is ever explained, and I figure that if it were explained that should go in the article too.

Thoughts?/Anyone know what in the world happened to it? 梅子^❀_✿ 00:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're looking for a general discussion on this, head to the forums. Pedia-wise, the only thing we can really do is say that it vanishes and we don't know where to. —darklordtrom 00:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Nah, wasn't looking for a general discussion. I brought it up for the purpose of adding it into the article... And I haven't beaten the game yet, so I don't know if its disappearance is left unexplained, and that's why I didn't want to say that in the article (maybe it is explained, and I just haven't gotten that far yet!). I thought maybe someone else would have the answer so that it could be added to the article, definitively stating whether its disappearance was explained or not. 梅子^❀_✿ 00:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please put these up?

They're missing from the page. Pokabu's picture is the only one on there. --Dialgafan1 18:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Was this ever confirmed?

On the article it said "In Pokémon Black and White, the regional professor, yet unnamed, will offer the player a choice of the Grass-type Tsutarja, the Fire-type Pokabu, or the Water-type Mijumaru. " It's very likely this is true, but this was never confirmed so should we edit it?--Eastern 18:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It's been proven. There's even an official site of the game that confirms this. - 050294 23:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I think what he means is, does the professor actually give it to the player, or is there a situation similar to DPPt, where they decide to take them and are allowed to keep them later, et cetera.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 09:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I mean.--Eastern 15:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Ranger "starters"?

I just now noticed that the Ranger partner Pokemon weren't included in the page (but I remember them being on there before). But can they be considered starter Pokemon? They probably weren't the first Pokemon the player captured (except in the first ranger game), but they are the first Pokemon they get to keep for themselves. So can they still be considered starters?

Cheren & Bel Starters

Example: I choose Pokabu, Cheren will Choose Mijumaru and Belle will chose Tsutarja. But this is

not confirmmed---User:Franztrovao July 24, 2010 - 18:10 (UTC)

It IS confirmed (Ataro 18:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC))

Trivia

Since I want no part in the edit war, I'm going to explain the trivia piece here:

As of Generation IV, every starter-type in the main series (with the exception of Pikachu) has have one Pokémon in its final-stage of evolution to have a double weakness; Charizard is doubly weak to Rock-type, Swampert is doubly weak to Grass-type and Torterra is doubly weak to Ice-type.

It doesn't say by generation. It says by starter type. That means Fire, Water, and Grass. Charizard, Torterra, and Swampert are members of these respective types and have double weaknesses. The trivia, meaning-wise, is fine. (Unless one were to count Bulbasaur's Poison typing...)

So yeah, if you're going to remove it, remove it for a different reason plz and thanks.--Cold (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Should Mystery Dungeon initial Pokémon be considered starters?

I've looked through Mystery Dungeon: Blue's manual, Bulbapedia's pages on all three sets of games, and the official Explorers of Sky webpage and have seen no mention of the initial Pokémon from MD as "starters", just "Hero Pokémon" (for the player) and "Partner Pokémon" (for the partner). They seem to lack the basic criteria for being starters (the initial Pokémon owned by a trainer), even more so than the Ranger's Partner Pokémon which were already deemed not to be starters. Now I'll admit I never even played through Blue fully (and never played the others), so there may be something in-game, but I think we should separate them into their own Hero and Partner Pokémon page or something, as they don't seem to belong here. Memo³²⁶ 02:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Completely agree. I've fixed this page, but the navigation template needs to be modified still. --SnorlaxMonster 15:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Pokémon Yellow Evolution

The article says that the rival's Eevee evolves into Jolteon, Flareon or Vaporeon depending on the outcomes of battles between the player and the rival. Specifically, which battles are important, and how do the results affect the evolution? It seems like this would be a useful thing to add to the article. I believe that if the player loses the first battle in Pallet Town, the Eevee will evolve into a Vaporeon, but this should probably be double-checked. Tk3141 20:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ive heard that if you win both battles, lose both battles, or lose one and win one, the outcome will be different. But im not that far in the game so I don't know the specific outcomes. --Supermon 21:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It's explained in more detail here. Basically the results of the first two possible battles are summed. Two wins = Jolteon. One win and one loss/skip = Flareon. Two losses/One loss one skip = Vaporeon. Werdnae (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Lyra/Khoury

Is it confirmed that Lyra and Khoury received their starters from Professor Elm or is it speculation? |) u |( e ® 16:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Mystery Dungeon and Ranger starters

I think we need to move the starters of Mystery Dungeon to Player character, because thats basically what they are, people you can play as. Also, the Ranger Pokemon should be removed because we already have the Partner Pokemon page, which contains the same information. Iml908 (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both. |) u |( e ® 21:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that they should still be linked with {{main}}. Also, Rumble is in the same situation as PMD. --SnorlaxMonster 05:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

New Trivia (yeah, I know it's a little big already)

(First time, forgive me if I screw this up horribly)

Since Pikachu knows Thundershock, Yellow is the only main series game in which the player's starter pokemon begins play with a STAB move. Incidentally, the Rival's starter also has a STAB move, as Eevee knows tackle and is of the normal-type.

There's probably a better way of wording this. but I thought it was neat. 22:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)HH

Definition of starter Pokémon

I've always thought of starter Pokémon as meaning the sets of three Pokémon that are given by the professor, not merely a Trainer's first Pokémon. I don't mind including Pikachu and Eevee, that much (although I'm still uncertain about them), adding Marill and Ralts, and calling things like Growlie "starter Pokémon" just seems wrong to me. If people really want to list Trainer's first Pokémon, then I think that page should be at first Pokémon; however, IMO starter Pokémon should refer only to Bulbasaur, Charmander, Bulbasaur, Chikorita, Cyndaquil, Totodile, Treecko, Torchic, Mudkip, Turtwig, Chimchar, Piplup, Snivy, Tepig, Oshawott, and maybe Pikachu and Eevee if you really want. --SnorlaxMonster 08:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I feel it's the Pokémon someone starts with. ^★Jo the Marten^★ ಠ_ಠ♥ 08:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jo, even though the ones listed by SnorlaxMonster are treated completely different from the other "first Pokémon" from other media. Since this page is huge, maybe splitting into "Starter Pokémon (main series)", "Starter Pokémon (spin-off)", "Starter Pokémon (anime)" and "Starter Pokémon (Adventures)" could be taken into account but is not the best option. |) u |( e ® 10:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Splitting like that completely ignores the point. The idea is that the Pokémon I listed are a group of Pokémon, while this page just lists the first Pokémon of a bunch of Trainers. If we want to redefine starter Pokémon as "the first Pokémon a Trainer owns" rather than the traditional "the three Pokémon that Trainers can choose from to start their journey" and give the traditional grouping their own name, then while I wouldn't prefer it, it would be better than what we have now. What I'm saying is that we have a distinct group of Pokémon that the fandom have always called "starter Pokémon", and this page seems to have merged that group with everyone's first Pokémon. So regardless of what you want to call "starter Pokémon", the traditional starter Pokémon need a separate page from people's first Pokémon. --SnorlaxMonster 06:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would define the starter pokemon as the sets of three plus Pikachu and Eevee. We categorize pokemon beyond their obvious classification by their secondary characteristics. Legendary Pokemon, other than those explicitly called out as such, are typically unique pokemon within the games that may or may not have a defining role in the story- even beginning trainers have a pretty good idea what you're talking about when you say "legendary". Pseudo-Legendaries bear some explanation, but fall within obviously recognizable parameters- 600 base stats, typically a double weakness to something, general badassedness, etc. The "starters" of the main series of games are typically in line in terms of stats and evolutions without significant variation- It would not surprise me if next generation we had to call out Charizard and Typhlosion as the exceptions to the "Fire/Fighting Rule". Spinoff series games should at best get their own page and at worst be merely mentioned on their own page. "Games" that are effectively pokedexes shouldn't be listed at all outside the article affirming their existence, as there is no meaningful way to interact with them. Eevee and Pikachu get to be the exceptions because they are the exceptions- the only main series game not to play by their own rules. You might not even list Eevee, as it's not technically an option for the trainer- It's not a "starter" pokemon, it's a "rival" pokemon.TheHateHat (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I going to say that there needs to be a distinction between "starter" and "first". For example, in the TCG a "starter set" is a set intended for people just starting to learn the TCG. However, it does not have to be their first TCG set, and their first TCG set is not necessarily a "starter set". A "starter Pokémon" is a Pokémon given to Trainers when they begin their journey to get them started. Therefore, instances like Wally's Ralts are not starter Pokémon; it is his first Pokémon, and if people want that to have a page that's fine, but they shouldn't be here. --SnorlaxMonster 15:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I second that. The eighteen starter Pokémon from main series games must have an article of their own, they are a group of distinct Pokémon, always treated specially in every medium of the Pokémon franchise. |) u |( e ® 04:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Eevee in Yellow

It seems strange to me that Eevee should be included as a starter Pokemon in Yellow on the bit at the bottom of pages about specific starter Pokemon. (Sorry don't know the correct technical term.) The player cannot start with Eevee. If the starter Pokemon of NPCs qualify for this definition of starter Pokemon then surely every known starter Pokemon for NPCs should be added to both of these sections in order to be logically consistent? If it is just because Blue is the rival of this game that his starter is notable why aren't the starters of Wally and Ethan/Lyra as NPCs? I understand their inclusion in the article but I don't understand how Blue's Eevee is any more notable than the starters of those two trainers, particularly not to the degree that it gets a mention at the bottom of the page when the others don't. Gastly's Mama (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Eevee was supposed to be player's starter, but Blue snatched it. Marked +-+-+ (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

But it is still not an option for the player to get it, which is more the point I feel. It is still not an option to start with. No matter what the storyline claims, the player was never "supposed" to get Eevee. Also, I'm not even sure the storyline DOES claim that.Gastly's Mama (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Any Pokémon given by the Professor is a starter Pokémon, imo.--ForceFire 14:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Fire Starter Trivia

Should it be added that there's a trend that all of the fire starters are all members of the Chinese Zodiac? There's been dragon (the Charmander line), rat (Cyndaquil being the fire mouse pokemon), rooster (the Torchic line), monkey (the Chimchar line), pig (the Tepig line), and just recently, dog (Fennekin being a fox). --GodzillaMaster (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I say this is more opinion than fact. Yes, Cyndaquil is the Fire Mouse Pokémon but it isn't based on a mouse (or a rat). Fennekin, while based of a species of canines, isn't a dog. Though I agree with the others. So you could say I'm neutral/indifferent on this trivia.--ForceFire 02:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know that Cyndaquil isn't based on an actual mouse, but the species name still counts and fox should be close enough to dog to count. --GodzillaMaster (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Shininess

Is it possible that received starter in main series will be shiny? SFtheGreat (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's the same probability as if you were to catch them in the wild (approximately 1/8192). ChiefbozX (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Kanto Starters for X and Y

"Soon afterwards, Professor Sycamore will give the player a choice between one of the classic Kanto starter Pokémon, whom, upon reaching their final stages, will have access to Mega Evolved forms, given the prequisite Mega Stone."

This is more speculation than factual. We do not meet Professor Sycamore until Lumoise City. This was stated in the preview clips when he was released as well as stated on the main web site. Lumoise City is after the first Gym so the player has a good bit of play time before they ever meet Professor Sycamore in Lumoise. We also have not been given any information as to whether or not the Kanto Starters are Post Game hand outs like all other Non-Regional Starters are like in Pokemon Emerald and forward. Should probably wait for more information before saying we get two starters in the game since this has the makings of being post-game hand outs like they always end up. XanderO (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

While I do believe we should wait till we have more information on this, I thought we had more reason to believe that the Kanto starters weren't post-game hand outs. First of all, I don't believe they revealed post-game starters before during pre-release. And second, I believe in the Pokémon Direct, the man asked Masuda if there was going to be anything different about this game. Masuda then answered by talking about Sycamore giving out one of the Kanto starters. If it was post-game, that wouldn't be different from previous games at all. They even showed that picture with the three Kalos starters and the three Kanto starters. I think that the implication is that we're supposed to have 2 starters early on this time around. Pocketfanmk (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

If you actually watched the Pokémon Direct, you would have heard that you get both starters near the beginning of the game. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 17:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

"In the past Pokémon games, the story began when the Pokémon Professor let you choose one of three Pokémon. However, in Pokémon X and Y your first partner Pokémon; Chespin, Fennekin, or Froakie; won't be given to you from the Professor but by your friend instead. Then you'll receive a different Pokémon from the Professor later on. What you get from the Professor is one of the partner Pokémon from the original Pokémon Red and Pokémon Blue." 11:45 - 12:30

No where does it say you get both at the beginning of the game. Not to mention the Professor isn't even in the starting town. We can't say for sure when you'll officially meet the Professor in-game. Even if the city itself is post-first gym, he might not be there. ^★Jo the Marten^★ ಠ_ಠ♥ 19:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

XY?

Would you say the xy starters are not official starters because a professor doesn't give them to you? So they may not be deemed good enough for starter trainers? Prinben (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

A starter Pokemon is a Pokemon a beginning Trainer starts their journey with. XY is clearly indicating that it doesn't matter where you get them from, as long as you start with it, it's a starter. Ataro (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Friend Safari

Do the kanto starter first stage evos in the Friend Safari count as legitimately obtaining all three starter pokemon from a previous game? Yveltal0003 (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Tierno and Trevor

Should their starters in XY be included? They don't pick from the three but they both only have two Pokemon when you first have a double battle with them and Serena. I think one of them's starter was Pikachu but I can't remember who. Nutter Butter (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we can confirm what their actual Starter Pokémon are or when they got them, seeming they could of switched them before you battle them. Unless its explicitly stated, I think we should just say that there could be other options for Starter Pokémon than those given, although that's just my opinion on the matter. ----samm :D 21:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Turn sprites into artwork

Can anyone turn sprites into artwork because we're at Generation VI? Thank you! Cinday123 (talk) 07:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Split

SnorlaxMonster suggested this in an above section, but nothing came of it, so I'm slapping on the split template so that hopefully, even if no consensus comes of discussion, it'll go to the staff on the forum thread. I propose that the traditional Grass/Fire/Water trios comprise an article, and all other Pokémon that Trainers in various media start with comprise another. I suggest Starter Pokémon and First Pokémon, respectively, but any number of other names are also possible. The main thing is that the Grass/Fire/Water trios differ significantly from starting Pokémon in side games, the anime, the manga, etc. The two sets need to be treated separately.

Whether to include the Pikachu and Eevee from Yellow is a bone of contention that I'd prefer not to overshadow this, but since it's relevant, I will give my opinion on it. Under no circumstances should Eevee be included, because it's the rival's, not the players. (Same conditions as Marill and Ralts.) Pikachu's more of a gray area, but it doesn't fill the same role statistically or in availability in any other game, so I feel it also doesn't belong with the Grass/Fire/Water trios despite being a starting Pokémon for the player in the main series.Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 06:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The only issue I have with this is that there is still the issue of Orre and Pokétopia, though it sounds like under the proposal it would be a First Pokémon over a Starter Pokémon. My two cents is that there is a bit of gray area currently, though they are called "the big three" for Japanese players. --Super goku (talk) 07:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

If a "starter Pokemon" is something you get to choose, then none of Orre, Poketopia, or Yellow will count. Your "first Pokemon" is just something you're saddled with, then. I don't have a big problem with that sort of definition. As things stand, though, Poketopia's inclusion seems pretty dumb, to me. I like Colo and XD counting, because those actually have stories (like the main games) besides connecting with main games; but it doesn't seem that PBR has a story. It just seems like a glorified Pokemon Stadium. I'm not a fan of it "counting", period, whether for "starters" (of whatever definition) or "firsts" (I think). Tiddlywinks (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

P.S.: Oh, one can argue, though, that with XD's Eevee, you get your "choice" when you choose who to evolve Eevee into. And that at least includes Water and Fire (and then some), if not Grass. Tiddlywinks (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I feel as though "starter Pokémon" should refer only to the generation Grass-Fire-Water trios. I can accept Pikachu and Eevee under some interpretations, but I really don't think they count. "Starter Pokémon" is an official term, the problem is that it's difficult to find it actually defined (but I don't believe I've ever seen it used to describe Pikachu or Eevee); perhaps if somewhere the "Kanto starter Pokémon" is used to refer to Bulbasaur, Charmander, Squirtle, that could count as excluding Pikachu and Eevee from being starters. Regardless, I think the generational elemental trios clearly share commonalities that Eevee and Pikachu do not. I don't even know if "first Pokémon" deserves a page, but I certainly think that info does not belong here. (Also, thanks for reviving my suggestion. I have a bunch that I've put forward in many places that even I've forgotten about, so it's always nice to see someone else take interest.) --SnorlaxMonster 16:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

While I feel like "Starter Pokémon" usually refers to the generation Grass-Fire-Water trios, I don't feel like special cases like Pikachu should be excluded/ignored (especially since Pokémon Yellow was a main series game). I don't agree with the rival's Pokémon being listed though, because they're never given to the player and thus technically not Starter Pokémon for us. It really depends how we're defining starter Pokémon, because if we're describing them as "First Pokémon, distributed or given without having to catch them, usually by a Professor" then Pikachu fits in that definition. Even if we decide to remove Pikachu and co. from the page, I'd at least like to see Pikachu listed somewhere. --Pokemaster97 20:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I find splitting Starter Pokémon from First Pokémon redundant. Not only do they have similar meanings, your starters are your first Pokémon, which is why they are called starters in the first place. Pikachu was your starter in Yellow despite not being a Fire, Water, or Grass type Pokémon. I don't get why we'd need to split the official and unofficial starters. If this proposal succeeds, I would start a new proposal to merge them. I strongly oppose the split. SeanWheeler (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. A starter Pokémon is not defined by type. That's just stupid. A starter Pokémon is a Pokémon that you START with. That doesn't mean it has to be a grass/fire/water at all! And, that also means that the rival's Eevee, Marill, or Ralts all count as well. It is the Pokémon that they START with. It's a fact. Deal with it. Nutter Butter (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Starter Pokémon are called such because they are are started with. It is never stated that other Pokémon aren't starters, because they technically are. Starter Pokémon. EDIT: If they are split, I think that everything but what the player starts with in the main series should be on starter, everything else on first. Pikachu Bros. (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC), edit time 18:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

In official materials, "starter Pokémon" always seems to be used to refer to the Grass-Fire-Water trios. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. I get that people would like the term to also refer to any Pokémon that any character has as their first Pokémon, but that is simply unsupported. The Grass-Fire-Water trios are clearly a distinct group, and they need a specific name to refer to them; officially, this has always been "starter Pokémon", which has also excluded any other Pokémon a character may have as their first Pokémon. --SnorlaxMonster 09:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is Marill on this page?

Why is Marill on the page? Yamitora1 (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Because Lyra/Ethan has it. Pikachu Bros. (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh I see now, I miss read the entry.Yamitora1 (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Just because Ethan/Lyra has it does not make it a starter IMO. same with Wally's Ralts. we might need to re-discuss this -Pokeant (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Trivia (Could be added to a trivia point speaking of egg group)

................. and Treecko and Charmander are the only starter pokemon to belonging to part dragon egg group. - unsigned comment from Tgage (talk • contribs)

If two are in it, it's not unique and therefore not notable, even with the cool factors of dragons added to the equation. You could make a case for noting how Chimchar's the only one in Human-Like, but I think that may be the only one in a unique group. --Pie ^~♪♫ 13:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Mega Evolution Table

Could someone fix the table that shows the mega evolutions of all the starters? Currently they're all redlinks, but when I tried to fix it myself it messed up the images. slimey01 22:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Kalos starters gender ratio

Okay so I have played through both x and y a few diferent times here and only ONCE has there been a male fennekin. My fist play through of Y I choose fennekin and she was female. Shaunas Chespin was also female. Further more I have started quite a few different play through in X due to always losing my nuzlocks and first go my forkie was female and shaunas fennekin was also female. second time through my froakie was male but still shauna fennekin was female. Ive also gotten 3 resets in a row female chespin. I dont know about froakie and chespin but Im PRETTY POSITIVE fennekins line is 75% female. Ive only seen 1 male fennekin in a lets play on youtube as well out of about 5 lets plays Ive watched. Im also fairly certain that frokie's line is 50/50 on gender and maybe chespins. I dont belive anyone can go through the code as of yet but Id like some proof at its still 75% the starter is male. I believe the reason they did that in gen 2 was so starters were more rare if you didnt know about ditto but that trend has kinda gotten out dated with everyone knowing of ditto and such. So yeah I believe the gender ratio should be unknown of the kalos starters until we can get official proof of it. I will say I have not done any breeding of the starters yet but think Ill start filling up a box for each one and post my results.

--Furry (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

All of the starters have always had the same gender ratio, so not only is it probably safe to assume that the Kalos starters are the same but also people have the ability to see the coding of the games and as such we come up with the gender ratios for the Pokemon.

Also, almost all of the starters I have are male.--Ditto51/Tom (My Talk Page) 17:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Kalos secondary triangle

The Kalos starters have, in their final forms, two type triangles: Grass/Fire/Water and Fighting/Psychic/Dark. This is notable. Yet it was removed.

But, you say: Dark is immune to Psychic rather than just being resistant. Well...so? Practically speaking, that is a trivial difference. If I put Braixen in against Chesnaught, Braixen has little to fear from Chesnaught's STAB moves whereas Chesnaught must fear any of Braixen's STAB moves. By the same token, if I put Greninja in against Braixen, Greninja has little to fear from Braixen's STAB moves whereas Braixen must fear any of Greninja's STAB moves. It's basically irrelevant that Greninja has even less to fear from Braixen than Braixen/Chesnaught do from Chesnaught/Greninja. The essential fact remains: by their typings (in their final forms), each of the starters has the advantage, both offensivley and defensively, against another one of the starters in a triangular fashion.

It is irrelevant that Dark is immune to Psychic. The essential fact of "This Pokemon can do well against that one but not against the other one" is exactly the same. Both triangles are valid and this second one deserves noting. Tiddlywinks (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the inital trivia note on it before it was changed is valid

• The Kalos starter Pokémon's secondary types (Fighting, Psychic, and Dark) almost form another type-advantage triangle, being broken by the fact that the Dark type is immune to the Psychic type.

Someone changed it which ultimately caused it to become confusing and end up being removed as it was fine for however long it was on there until it was removed (after rewording).--Ditto51/Tom (My Talk Page) 16:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

That I wouldn't mind since it's not stating that the Dark/Psychic/Fighting creates a triangle that is exactly like the Grass/Fire/Water cycle. In fact, it's why I decided to leave it there when it was added the first time before it was reworded.--ForceFire 04:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how the immunity breaks this though. It still forms a type triangle. Am I missing something? --HoennMaster 08:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The triangle is where the types are super effective to one type and resists the other. I feel that this is evident by Game Freak's continual usage of Grass/Fire/Water for the past six generations. Dark does not resist Psychic, thus breaking the triangle.--ForceFire 08:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Gender

Isn't the starter Pokémon always the same gender as the player? If it is, should'nt it be added? User:Lokki Talk 13:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

No, it isn't always the same. RandomDSplayer (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Trivia Fact

Here is an interesting trivia fact about the Fire-type starters.

There has been a superstition that the Fire-type starters are based on the animals of the Chinese Zodiac. Some of the information is false, like Cyndaquil and Fennekin based on the rat and dog.

Christian (talk) 02:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Speculation/opinion.--ForceFire 04:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Trivia Fact: May (Anime)

Trivia Fact: May (Anime)

The only Kanto starter that May did not catch or obtain is Charmander. This is true because she already has Blaziken, a Fire starter native to Hoenn.

Christian (talk) 02:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

You say "This is true because..." as if we doubt you, we know what you're talking about. It's not notable, one out of three, and it's also expected since she already had Blaziken.--ForceFire 04:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Forget what I said about May's Blaziken. What I meant to say why the fact is true is because May has a Bulbasaur (now a Venusaur) and a Squirtle (now a Wartortle), but not Charmander.

Christian (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

That is evident by looking at May's Pokemon list, so it doesn't belong in trivia. ChE clarinetist (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Other in-game starters

Is that section really necessary? Obviously not every Pokémon Trainer starts out with the same starter Pokémon - Falkner uses his dad's Pokémon, not the starters, and dozens of random NPCs could be running around with Pokémon from the Professors (even if not these specific species), yet the few who mention their first Pokémon say they got them from their parents or something of the sort. For instance, Youngster Tyler's Magikarp and Starly are from his dad if memory serves. Do we need a section showing all of the known NPC starters? I definitely think only the players' starters belong on this page, except MAYBE Eevee since it was at least intended for the player; things like Wally's Ralts and Ethan's/Lyra's Marill don't belong here in my opinion. EpicDeino (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Raichu

I think we should add Raichu alongside BST comparison table (fully evolved) table for clarity's sake. This is not damaging the table or harming anything, it would make sense to include fully evolved version of Pikachu there, and there would be no need to remove Pikachu. The legendary PkmnTrainerV is Here! (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The reason why Raichu is not included is because you can't get Raichu in Yellow nor evolve Pikachu.--ForceFire 12:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I know that, I just thought it would be more clear, and with a note about Raichu in Yellow. Since extra info won't hurt. That's my opinion, I guess. The legendary PkmnTrainerV is Here! (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Mary´s Marreep

Shouldn´t we add Mary´s Mareep as her first pokemon as well?--Robin Maximo (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Trivium

I'd like to point out two things.

1. Chespin, Fennekin, and Froakie are the first starter pokemon whos' final forms are all humanoid in appearance.

2. The evolutionary lines of Chespin, Fennekin, and Froakie, especially their final forms, resemble character classes(fighter, mage, and thief) from role-playing video games.Robbie (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

1) Speculation

2) No. That's too specific and means nothing at all. So what if their final forms are humanoid? It has no bearing on anything at all.--ForceFire 02:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

1) Only the fire-type starter pokemon since Torchic became humanoid in their final evolutions.

2)The rest of the starter pokemon don't become what I said as they evolve.Robbie (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I got the two mixed up.

1)Again, so what? Them being humanoid means absolutely nothing.

2)Again, nothing but speculation.--ForceFire 12:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

1)Really? The fact that Tepig and Snivy have the shortest names of all starter pokemon doesn't seem to be more noteworthy.

2)Chesnaught is a spiky and armoured hedgehog resembling a knight and a Grass/Fighting type. Delphox is a witch-like fox and a Fire/Psychic type. Greninja is a ninja frog and a Water/Dark type.Robbie (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion

Artwork featuring the player's starter Pokémon for the Pokémon with You campaign

Tester (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

That is a great picture. I really like it. Veralann (a.k.a. Incentive) 14:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Alola starters

Is it ok to use this picture for the Alola starters' "as seen in the anime" picture? --PKMNAdventurer (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

To Add To Trivia: Alola Starters All Having Immunities

I thought of a interesting suggestion to add to the trivia section.

All three of the fully evolved Alola starters all have immunities.

Decidueye is part Ghost-type making it immune to Normal and Fighting-type moves. Incineroar is part Dark-type making it immune to Psychic-type moves. Primarina is part Fairy-type making it immune to Dragon-type moves.

I feel this is worthy because for the previous generations, it's either one, two or none of the starters that have immunities.

Gen 1: Charizard (It's part Flying-type making it immune to Ground. When it Mega Evolves into Mega Charizard X, however, it loses that immunity.)

Gen 2: None

Gen 3: Swampert (It's part Ground-type making it immune to Electric). When Sceptile Mega Evolves into Mega Sceptile, however, it becomes immune to Electric-type moves because of its ability Lightning Rod.

Gen 4: Torterra (It's part Ground-type making it immune to Electric) and Empoleon (It's part Steel-type making it immune to Poison).

Gen 5: None

Gen 6: Greninja (It's part Dark-type making it immune to Psychic).

Macpika (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Some Trivia Stuff

It's noteworthy saying that the Galar Starter trio have the lowest base friendship of all starter Pokémon (only 50)? - unsigned comment from LaprasLaplace (talk • contribs)

Coloration

Would it be okay to add a piece of trivia that Water-type starters all share the same Pokédex color, being blue? - unsigned comment from Pseudonym (talk • contribs)

Not even close to notable. It's not that important and is slightly obvious even without the Dex color assignment.--ForceFire 05:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit

I undid an edit by Force Fire which added a lot of grammar and spelling mistakes like "taught how to caught" instead of "taught how to catch". Pseudonym (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Shortest name

"Two of the three Unova starter Pokémon, Snivy and Tepig, share the position of the starter Pokémon with the shortest name." I guess this trivia was written before LGPE came out because Eevee has five letters in its name too. Howewer, with this added, I don't think trivia is very notable since there's no connection between Eevee and Snivy&Tepig. Three pokemon from two different regions aren't that notable as two from the same one, I mean. So, should it be deleted? Itan (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it was really notable to begin with, but you are correct. Eevee makes this point not notable. --HoennMaster 19:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Most used secondary type

Is it worth noting that Fighting type is the most used secondary type for starter evolutions being used 7 times (8 times if counting Mega Evolutions) and that the Fire-Fighting combo is the most used type combo for starter evolutions, being used 6 times (7times with Mega Evolutions)? I think it is interesting tidbit, but I leave the decision to the admins. --Horn (talk) 11:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Alolan Starters

That is a great one to add. Another one that might work is the one where Litten uses Slash to free itself and the other starters. https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/pokemon/images/9/96/SM016_14.png/revision/latest?cb=20170317091045

This image could also work too. https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/pokemon/images/7/7a/SM016_12.png/revision/latest?cb=20170317091045 Macpika (talk) 04:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Don't respond to sections that are over six months old. 05:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC) - unsigned comment from Animaltamer7 (talk • contribs)

Image to Add in "In the Anime (Main Series)"

For the "In the Anime (Main Series)" section, could somebody please add an image of the three Alola starters in the anime? That section feels incomplete without it. Some good images to consider using would be those from the episode "They Might Not Be Giants" especially the one where Litten uses Slash to free itself along with Rowlet and Popplio. Macpika (talk) 04:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Hisuian starters section on the page

Should the Hisui section be put just below the Sinnoh section of the page, or right after the Galar section of the page? As of now, they're listed below Galar's section, but their stats table are between the Sinnoh and Unova stats tables. Anzasquiddles (talk) 04:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I've moved the base stats to the bottom for now. Whether the Hisui starters should be after Sinnoh or Galar is a point of discussion, but they should at least be consistent across the page. --celadonk (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

My bad on the inconsistency, I had moved them to the bottom but hadn't updated the stats section. Release order makes the most sense in my opinion. The fact that the Hisui region later becomes Sinnoh has no real relevance on an article about starter Pokémon. —Legoless (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

fully evolved vs. fully-evolved

I noticed that the article inconsistently switches between "fully evolved" and "fully-evolved" with the hyphen. Which is correct? Landfish7 10:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Bulbapedia's Manual of style doesn't say anything. if i had to guess, i THINK "fully evolved" is the grammatically correct one? Anzasquiddles (talk) 10:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I think you're right. Adverb/adjective combinations generally aren't supposed to be hyphenated. Additionally, pages such as List of fully evolved Pokémon by base stats also don't use the hyphenated version. I will go ahead and remove the hyphens. Landfish7 11:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Trivia

"Since Pokémon the Series: Black & White, no Grass-type starter Pokémon owned by a main character has evolved, as Snivy, Chespin, Rowlet, and Grookey all remain in their basic forms." Is this really notable? Landfish7 11:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Suggested move

I'm proposing we move this page to first partner Pokémon. Even though it has started several games ago, with Pokémon Scarlet and Violet at least, almost every instance of the concept has been "first partner Pokémon". We also have numerous confirmations backing this up via Pokémoncenter.com, the TCG, and from staff at the company, to name a few things. I know we have several different concepts that have had name changes throughout the years, and for those instances we switch over to the new naming scheme (i.e. Thunder Shock, Feint Attack, Vise Grip), so we should do the same with this too. ^Maverick_Nate 05:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I know starter Pokémon is still the popular fan term but if first partner Pokémon is the official term then I'd say yeah let's do it. Landfish7 09:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, The term Starter is too iconic and it has been used before. TheBestOfAllTime (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't really name things here based on what's popular or iconic. We typically use the official name. The games are known as Pokémon Red and Blue but we still title them Pokémon Red and Blue Versions because that's what they're actually called. We went through a similar thing with Version-exclusive Pokémon being moved to Game-exclusive Pokémon when the latter started being used officially (although we moved the article back once the former started being used officially again). Landfish7 10:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

There's the searchability of the article to consider, people looking for "Starter Pokémon" will suddenly not find it there, "first partner Pokémon" is far less known, and moving it would also introduce potential confusion with Partner Pokémon (Let's Go, Pikachu! and Let's Go, Eevee!). "Starter Pokémon" would absolutely need to redirect to the new article location. Also, this article seems to hyphenate it to "first-partner", rather than "first partner". Atrius97 (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Since the term "starter Pokémon" was the main official term for this concept up until Generation V or so, it would still definitely be linked to as a redirect, and still mentioned in the article. It's just incredibly notable that they've essentially abandoned the term, barring some errant social media posts, and transitioned into first partner almost exclusively. ^Maverick_Nate 11:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, we could add a link to the top leading to the disambiguation page: Partner Pokémon. Spriteit and Tiddlywinks are also working on other potential solutions to possible page issues in their userspaces. Landfish7 11:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

(resetting indent)Changing to "first partner Pokémon" as the new official naming seems fine to me, as long as searching "Starter", "Starters", "Starter Pokémon" etc still redirects to it, and as long as there's still a bolded mention of the term "starters" in the opening blurb.

In the userspace samples, I've noticed that the page still uses "starter" frequently, which should stay in my opinion - it's more likely to be understood by readers, and much less awkward to read repeatedly than "first partner". Using the terms interchangeably should still be acceptable site-wide, in my opinion (plus, this saves the effort of going around and cleaning up every mention of either term).

Having a link to the Partner Pokémon disambig at the top also seems reasonable. --Boblers (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I oppose. Randodude (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I oppose, agreeing with TheBestOfAllTime on the matter. The term is too iconic to change despite its official abandonment, and the concept of "official names no matter what" was abandoned ten years ago when base stats/individual values/effort values remained intact. ("Base" was understood to officially mean what we call EVs since the English release of FRLG, but the exact phrase "base stats" was not used until XY. Even if we date it from SwSh for "base points", it's been over a full generation.) In any case, the line in the MoS specifically requiring official English names was removed in October 2020,^[12][13] and was never written to apply to non-character concepts in the first place. bwburke94 (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

To my knowledge aside from those rare exceptions we still tend to go for the most recent, official term. At the very least, the more recent, official term should be used first in the opening line with starter Pokémon appearing second. Landfish7 03:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

We list the official term first for base stats et al, so we would do the same here. My opposition is specifically against moving the page. bwburke94 (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with changing it, it's pretty clear that the new term is first partner, and it's abundantly used everywhere. Things change, but sure it can be remembered and archived the change in an appropriate section of the article. By the way, I think "starters" is up until Kalos at least, where there's a battle background called "Starters" featuring the first partner Pokémon. - unsigned comment from Williamgg (talk • contribs)

I oppose a move for the page. Even if it's usually preferred, the wiki doesn't always go strictly by "official" names (as seen with the pages for Base stats/Effort values/Individual values/Original series). PokemonMasterJamal3 (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Those are the exception, not the rule. Landfish7 17:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

It still means that there is precedence for not changing page titles based on "official" names. PokemonMasterJamal3 (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I meant "precedent" rather than "precedence" (whoops), but the point is that "official" names shouldn't necessarily be the end-all-be-all in every case. PokemonMasterJamal3 (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

(resetting indent)I feel there's more drawbacks to keeping the page as is than benefit. "First partner Pokémon" is used to refer to more than just the three first partner Pokémon of each region. It's also used to refer generally to any "first Pokémon" a Trainer receives. It just seems natural to cover those topics with the actual terminology that is used, and it might not make sense to expand the article with that terminology and usage when we're still using the deprecated term. Landfish7 00:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Haven't said anything here so i just want to say that i support the move. It is worth a mention that "first partner Pokémon" is pretty much the preferred term used by TPC. Even game journalists and reviewers, independent or otherwise, have used the term "first partner" instead of "starter" in recent years (eg. Ptcgradio's preview of Pokémon Sleep).

I believe Bulbapedia as a source of info should always be kept up-to-date, and that includes using the most up-to-date terms for these things, regardless of how attached you are to the old terms. I do see some ppl bringing up "but what about EVs/IVs", but as others have pointed out, that is a rare exception: with EVs/IVs, moving them to "base stats" and whatnot would confuse fans who are already so familiar with the term "base stats" as in attack, defense, etc. Moving "starter" to "first partner" wouldn't cause any confusion since they basically mean the exact same thing, it's just that one of them is used in official capacity. Plus it's not like we'll stop using the term "starter" completely; we can make a note of it on the opening paragraph and make "Starter Pokémon" a redirect to "First partner Pokémon".

Oh, btw, it is also worth a mention that the first result when you look up "first partner Pokémon" on Google is a page from the Pokémon Fandom/Wikia wiki: [14]. So, yeah, being beaten by the Fandom wiki in SEO results is about as good of a motivation as any to move the page, i think, lmao.

Anzasquiddles (talk) 04:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't have much to say that hasn't already been said, but I just wanted to say that I also support the move. "First partner" is the preferred official term since Gen VII: in- game, in merchandise, and in news articles and videos. And I think it's more important to use the current names than the old names, especially when you consider that current fans who have only been exposed to the franchise through official media are only going to know the term "first partner Pokémon".

And I also wanted to reiterate what Landfish said: "First partner Pokémon" is used to refer to more than just the three first partner Pokémon of each region. It's also used to refer generally to any "first Pokémon" a Trainer receives. (See the previous in-game examples.) These other first partner Pokémon are worth talking about, and it makes more sense to talk about them using the term "first partner" on a page called "first partner Pokémon" than it does to talk about them using the term "starters" on a page called "starter Pokémon", a fanmade term that has historically only applied to Pokémon that players can start with. Storm Aurora (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

While I understand all of the points in support of the move, I have to oppose for a reason that seems to have been glanced over: Accessibility and discoverability.
TPCi and associated media have indeed been using "first partner" since Gen 6, but it's extremely clear that the community at large has not adopted that term. Any space with actual pokemon fans still almost exclusively use "starter" to refer to these Pokemon. If this page moves to, "first partner", and all Bulbapedia's SEO is directed towards that term instead, people searching for "starter pokemon" on various search engines are not going to find this article, but rather much lower quality articles from other wikis, or news sites (This article is currently the top result, next two results on Google would be a news article from dotesports.com, and a wiki article from "poke-pikachu.fandom.com").
Starter Pokemon may not be the most current term, but it's still an official term. I don't think the move is worth sacrificing the Pokemon community's ability to easily find this article and the relevant information they're after. Atrius97 (talk) 10:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Starter Pokémon is no longer used in an official capacity outside of unmonitored social media accounts. Landfish7 11:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that moving the page will significantly impact the community's ability to easily find this article. Even if it's no longer the title, the phrase "starter Pokémon" will still be mentioned early on in the article, so it should still show up in search results for starter Pokémon. And in the long run, switching the title might encourage fans to use the term more often, which would make search trends for first partner Pokémon increase. Storm Aurora (talk) 12:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

A bit late to the rebuttal but i would point out something re: "fans use starter Pokémon more often than first partner Pokémon"; could it be the reason that "starter" is still heavily in use among the fandom is because we, one of the biggest Pokémon websites, still use it? If we had switched to "first partner" back in Gen 7, i feel like the term would the term have gotten more mileage. Anzasquiddles 2222(:D)SSSS (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The SV DLC trailer that dropped at the end of Worlds refers to them in plain text as first partner Pokémon. Fans commenting on the trailer all call them starter Pokémon. Clearly, starter Pokémon is the preferred term among fans. However, as a Pokémon wiki, we should be using the official terminology for things, not the fan terminology. So, I would like to reiterate that I support moving this page to first partner Pokémon, since that is the current official term for this group of Pokémon. Storm Aurora (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but here's another example of "first partner Pokémon" being used officially to refer specifically to the Pokémon from the Grass-Fire-Water trios that players can start with. Storm Aurora (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I may have no say here, but while "starter Pokémon" is more iconic, the clear, official term is "first partner Pokémon". As a wiki, Bulbapedia should use the official term over the fan term. Pokémon adopts fan terms when it wants to - Shiny Pokémon, Eeveelution, etc. - but it hasn't in this case. Hanging on to a fan term for recognisability doesn't do for a wiki documenting official information. You can still redirect from starter to first partner and even include it in the main body or trivia. But the switch should happen. This is the most frequented wiki, and alongside Serebii, the most frequented fansite. Joe of Serebii is already talking about making the change. I support.--Darknesslover5000 (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Strong oppose. "Starter Pokémon" is universally used by the fandom, and changing it would just make things more confusing. Besides, "first partner Pokémon" is much more convoluted of a term. Biblical Bambi (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, Bulbapedia is in no way affliated with GAME FREAK or Nintendo and is thus under no obligation to use the "official" term. Biblical Bambi (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

These points have all been addressed in the above discussion. Also, just because we're not an official site doesn't mean we're not allowed to use and educate about the official terms. This is meant to be an encyclopedia, not an opinionated fan site. Landfish7 01:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

(EC)Of course it doesn't mean we can't use the official terms, but it does mean that we don't have to, especially when the "unofficial" term is more widely used by several orders of magnitude. SmashWiki often uses unofficial terms when they're the most popular, so it's not like we'd be alone. Biblical Bambi (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I very much agree that this move should happen! And a redirect from "Starter Pokémon" should still allow those searching for it to find the page. Official terminology should always be used, without bias or opinions of the fandom. YutoMaikeru (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

"Starter Pokémon" has over 6.4 million results on Google vs. about 15,000 for "first partner Pokémon", a difference by a factor of more than 400. With a difference that staggering, I see no reason to make the move. Biblical Bambi (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Because the idea is to use the official term. It isn't about popularity, or hits. If this was a nascent wiki, I would understand, but Bulbapedia is the Pokémon wiki. Even though it doesn't always seem to load half the time anymore, or they've made design changes people find contentious sometimes, Bulbapedia is where people go for Pokémon information in wikia format. The only other site with similar pull is serebii. So this site should still use the official term that is used in official material. A fansite this may be, but it isn't a fanfiction site; fan terms, popular or otherwise, shouldn't have precedent over the official terminology. Redirects exist, the wiki can redirect starter Pokémon to first partner Pokémon. A fan-term should only be used on a wiki as the main term until a piece of official media comes out with a proper, legitimate term.--Darknesslover5000 (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Our goal is primarily to be a useful source of information, not to bow to TPCI's whims; that's why we have articles on things like ROM hacks that GAMEFREAK probably wouldn't approve of. People aren't searching for information on "first partner Pokémon", they're searching for "starter Pokémon". Thus, moving the page would be counterproductive to our goal of being a useful source of information on Pokémon. The argument goes both ways, too: the "official" term can be mentioned on and redirected to "Starter Pokémon", so there would be no confusion. Biblical Bambi (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying this wiki doesn't cover fan information. I am, however, saying it should not take fan terms over official ones. Creating an official term is not a "whim", it's how things work. You could compromise your way, yes, but that is not the official term, and it should not be treated as such either. This discussion needs more attention, so it can be decided one way or the other already.--Darknesslover5000 (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

(resetting indent)Just letting you know this is being discussed amongst staff. Landfish7 01:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if my opinion matters as much, but I support this move. This wiki has been trying to use more official terms, and as we can see right now, "First partner Pokémon" is what the Pokémon Company has been using. If they had used "Starter Pokémon" in the newest SV trailer, at least that would tell us that they use the term interchangeably, but they didn't. "First partner Pokémon" is what they prefer to be called, not "Starter Pokémon". My only issue with the change, is regarding the wording on some pages. You guys have talked and said that we wouldn't need to entirely replace "starter Pokémon" with "First partner Pokémon" on every page. I think we need some rules for when to use "first partner Pokémon" and when it would be better to use "starter Pokémon". "First partner Pokémon" can be used for the player's or character's first Pokémon, while "starter Pokémon" can be used as a traditional first Pokémon from the games. For example, Ash's first partner Pokémon is Pikachu, but he later got all 3 starters from Kanto. That would be a good example of using "starters" instead of "first partner". Another example is that most of the protagonists of Pokémon Adventures have a different first partner Pokémon than the traditional ones from the games, like Red's first partner Pokémon is Poliwhirl but his starter is Bulbasaur. Poliwhirl is a Pokémon that Red first owned, but Bulbasaur is what started his journey to be a Pokémon Trainer. Goh is a character whose first partner Pokémon is Scorbunny, but he later catches the remaining first partner Pokémon from Galar. Goh's page has a picture of him and all his starters with the title saying "Goh and his Galar starters". That should stay, as "Goh and his first partner Pokémon from Galar" doesn't sound great, and it really doesn't make much sense. TBR2001 (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I think using both "starter Pokémon" and "first partner Pokémon" is a bad idea, as it's basically an admission of the limitations of the latter term. If the whole idea is to use official terminology, then "starter" shouldnmt be used at all; TPCI collectively refers to them as "first partners" and not "starters". If the result would be confusing, then you have a good argument for not moving this page. Biblical Bambi (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

With another use of the term in a recent anniversary tweet for Pokémon X and Y, I think now is a good time to revive this discussion. I strongly support the move. I don't really see the reason for the opposition towards it, personally - if there's an official term, that's the term Bulbapedia should use, plain and simple. There's this idea I see come up that by changing the page title, the term that the fandom has used for over two decades will suddenly disappear along with it, but I don't really think that's ever been the case. People will use the more common, accepted term if they please - heck, a page with the exact same debate, Super-ancient Pokémon got changed two years ago despite Weather trio being that page's name for years, and people still do refer to them as the Weather trio to this day. We're not trying to be the term police, it just makes more sense to me for our pages use the official terms instead of a two decade old fanterm. Whatever term people decide to use after that, we don't care. Meeper12346 (talk) 02:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I weakly support. If they're phasing out "starter" in favour of "first partner" then I see no reason why we shouldn't use the latter as the main term, while at least mentioning "Starter Pokémon" as a synonym at the top of the article since it carries a lot of history among the fandom. Though to be honest, I'm personally not entirely convinced that the terms *aren't* interchangeable. Looking at the official YouTube channel, the last mention of "starter Pokémon" was just 11 months ago as of this writing, in the description of the Pokémon Horizons announcement trailer video; which is still in *this* current generation. And even more recent than this, 5 months ago, they use the term "starter" in this YouTube short that showcases a few illustration rares of the Kanto trio in the TCG. Now you could argue that second example is more informal given the format, but they're still co-opting the term here. But overall I'm not against the move if it needs to be done. DecafSnorlax (talk) 07:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I think I support. It's just the more often used term (it's not like "starter" isn't allowed to be used period or be mentioned anyways). I don't think "it's iconic" is enough of a reason. There are many things that are "iconic" in usage but that's not what the pages are called. That said, "Partner Pokémon" has had consistent usage itself since AT LEAST Generation 7 (not to be confused with Partner Eevee and Pikachu which are forms that fall under the definition), in which "first partner Pokémon" is a branch of, so there's clearly some consistency they want here, and I think we should follow with that consistency. Nintendo Magezine uses both formats in the English translation, however they use "partner" very frequently along side the usage of "starter Pokemon" still implying they belong in that branch of what a "Partner Pokemon" is. Also, I'd like people to be mindful that "starter Pokémon" IS still an official term just used less often as usual, if "first partner Pokemon" goes through this doesn't automatically invalidate the usage of starter Pokemon on any official status, but we should be using the most accurate term that the officials prefer which would be "first partner Pokemon." TrainerSplash (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I support, as long as a redirect is left for those who search for "starter" in the search bar (cuz let's face it, it's the more iconic term and people are gonna try to search for it that way). Aykrivwassup (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I, too, support the move to "First Partner Pokémon", with the above consideration of the redirect for the term "Starter Pokémon." The former term is only growing in official usage, and so to move it sooner rather than later seems to be the best idea. Practically speaking, it won't make a difference for people searching for either term, and so we remain just as accessible while being more faithful to official terminology that in the coming years will only become more prominent if things keep going the way they are. Dougbro1 (Talk) 18:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I oppose the change. As pointed out above, the phrase starter Pokémon is still used in official media, if rarely. We haven't exactly made a habit out of using the more commonly used official term. The guardian deities for instance are more commonly referred to as tapu both by fans and in official media. We elected not to move the page even though tapu was more recognizable and still is, in spite of commentary elsewehere on this page that Bulbapedia might be the reason why the name starter Pokémon is preferred by fans. Here we are suggesting to switching to the more "official" term even though it is less recognizable, when before we chose not to switch to a term that is more "official" and recognizable. This is inconsistent in my eyes—it seems like the only thing we value is not being recognizable, which shouldn't be the message we send. GM_3826 (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Just want to drop by and say that our German sister wiki, PokéWiki, has made the leap to change "Starter Pokémon" to "First partner Pokémon" (German: Erste Partner-Pokémon). Anzasquiddles 2222(:D)SSSS (talk page) 16:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that last edit, didnt realize there major reasons as to why the introductory paragraph was changed. I would however like to point out that the new introductory paragraph is a little messy and harder to read than the previous version. VoidFantasy (talk) 07:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Literally nobody says first partner Pokémon. Nobody. Moving this was a mistake. You must understand. This is honestly an awful decision because nobody uses the term "first partner". Literally everyone says Starter. VERY STRONG oppose. Goyangi (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Moving process

As was announced in the latest Bulbapedia:Messages from the Editor, we will be moving this page to first partner Pokémon. For a first step, we will move images on the Archives and then fix those links here. Staff will have to move these images to their new filenames (using the first two columns of the table below), but once that is done, anyone can help fix the links (using the last column in the table below to check where the old filename is still used). If you do a bunch, feel free to add strikethroughs (<s>[[Special:WhatLinksHere/...]]</s>) to the images you did so people can easily continue with the rest. (Please don't edit the table one by one as you do each image.)

Broadly, the rest of this process will affect a few templates and categories, as well as require a scouring of the main, template, bulbapedia, appendix, and category namespaces for usages of "starter" and replacing them. The move of this page and therefore most of the link/text replacement is planned for the weekend. We may throw in another little in-between step. But for now, staff will move the images above as soon as possible, and as that occurs, we invite anyone who wishes to help us update the filenames here. Tiddlywinks (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The second image is running into conflicts with the "Pikachu in a cap" images (specifically the Partner Cap Pikachu). To fix that, we should move the Partner cap image, and also move the other images in the set for consistency.

--Boblers (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Additional note: please fix the links for the Partner cap Pikachu before starting to fix links for the Lets Go Pikachu, to avoid confusion when doing the latter. --Boblers (talk) 07:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

You may have noticed that this page has been moved. Overall, the following changes have been made aside from updating first partner Pokémon:

• Mainspaced: List of characters with first partner Pokémon, List of characters' first Pokémon, List of the player's first Pokémon
• Templates moved: Template:First partner trios, Template:User First Partner, Template:User Favorite First Partner
• Categories moved: Category:First partner Pokémon, Category:Adventures characters' first Pokémon, Category:Anime characters' first Pokémon

The categories have currently all been updated, as well as most of the templates.

We are working on relinking and replacing "starter" and "starter Pokémon", but there are many instances of that, so everyone's help is welcome! Keep in mind that some old uses of "starter" may more appropriately refer to one of the newly mainspaced pages instead of first partner Pokémon. For example, a character's first Pokémon has commonly been referred to as their starter in the past, but now we must distinguish such Pokémon as the character's first Pokémon (not a "starter" or "first partner Pokémon"), so if starter was used in that context, (if it was a link) linking to List of characters' first Pokémon or (if it was just text) replacing it with "first Pokémon" would be most appropriate.

Again, remember that "starter" will have to be replaced in most main, Template, Bulbapedia, Appendix, and Category usages, as well as on the Archives. Be careful of the places where it may be part of a title or other term (especially TCG pages); if you're not sure, you can always ask. But there's a lot to get through here! Tiddlywinks (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm a little confused on how we should pick between linking to first partner Pokémon (FPP), List of characters' first Pokémon (characters' FP), and List of the player's first Pokémon (player's FP)? There seem to be some edge cases, so I'm thinking up some general guidelines to follow:

• If the context is referring to the Pokémon species traditionally considered first partners, but not in a situation where they are actually someone's first Pokémon, that should point to FPP, right? (example: when describing the groups of Pokémon that can appear in the Terarium.)
• If the context is talking about the first Pokémon a player receives/chooses in a game, should that point to FPP or player's FP?
  • If talking about a player character, such as Chase or Elaine, should we point to FPP, player's FP, or character's FP? (edit: this can become problematic due to the existence of Masters, where player characters are their own entity and do not embody the player)
• If the context is talking about the first Pokémon a character received, that should point at characters' FP, right? (example: talking about Cilan's Pansage)
  • If a character's first Pokémon is one that's traditionally considered a first partner, should that point to FPP or character's FP? (example: talking about Liko's Sprigatito) --Boblers (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

There are some cases where it's easy just based on the empty facts, yes. A trio member, but not anyone's first? First partner Pokemon. Someone's first, but not a trio or anything? First Pokemon.

But the rest is just a question of what are you actually talking about. If you're talking about Liko's Sprigatito, you can say something like Liko received a first partner Pokemon, or Liko received her first Pokemon. Both are valid depending on what you actually want to communicate. Tiddlywinks (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Is Player’s First Pokémon supposed to be used mostly for non-core series games, or is there another category that it should be used in? I’m sure the information is somewhere, but I couldn’t find it, so I thought it might be helpful if someone answered this here for reference. CyberDragonM (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The page list of the player's first Pokémon contains all games.

The term first Pokémon refers to any game, media, character, player, whatever. First Pokémon are not only the player's or only core or anything. Tiddlywinks (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I was comparing Player’s First Pokémon to First Partner Pokémon, not to first Pokémon. The list of Player’s First Pokémon contains no info about the core series player’s first Pokémon that isn’t covered by First Partner Pokémon, but does contain info about the non-core series games. (I may or may not be accidentally including YLGPE in non-core series) CyberDragonM (talk) 08:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

~Sorry about failing to indent, and yes, all core series games are covered on this page. CyberDragonM (talk) 08:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Intro wording

About the first words on this page, I would suggest using this (which was used before in an earlier revision), as it reflects that "starter Pokémon" is an official term as well:

A first partner Pokémon or starter Pokémon is ...

It currently says this but it does not seem to be accurate since it's not just referred to informally:

A first partner Pokémon, also referred to informally as a starter Pokémon, ...

Or are there any better ideas? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I think "also referred to informally and historically as a starter Pokémon" is probably the most accurate. "First partner Pokémon" is the current official term; "starter Pokémon" is the previous official term and the most common fan term, but is still permitted to be used by official media in informal contexts (such as on social media). --SnorlaxMonster 15:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Why the removal of the evolutions?

why do all the stats of each starter/first partner Pokemon and their posible evolutions are not in this page anymore? can we add them back? Neos (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Split

If it's alright, I suggest creating the articles:

• Kanto first partner Pokémon
• Johto first partner Pokémon
• Hoenn first partner Pokémon
• Sinnoh first partner Pokémon
• And so on

The current page "First partner Pokémon" can still have the full list of those Pokémon and explain this subject to some extent, but the details would be in the regional pages.

I think this would be a bit similar to the legendary group pages (legendary birds, super-ancient Pokémon, etc.) which are about certain Pokémon related to each other.

We can also compare this with using regional form as the main page for regional forms, with the details in Alolan form, Galarian form, etc. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Its a good idea and would help solve a lot of things. Helps with catergorizing and saves a headache. I say go for it, helps with the pages and give their own unqiue idenity, easy to place soruce, anime appearances, manga, etc.--Jacob9594 (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

You...can't be serious, right? This is such an asinine suggestion to needlessly split up information. The point of a wiki is it's supposed to be readable. If I want to find information on the starter Pokémon (I don't care what you guys say, I'm using that name anyway), I'm going to go for the page about the concept and jump to the section for the given region. I don't want to have to jump through a bunch of hoops just to get to a piece of information. You're an admin, Daniel, you should be trusted to make smarter decisions than this. Aidan the Aura Master 23:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello Aidan. I will reply now to the point about using sections.

As we know, this page used to be named "Starter Pokémon" and was moved to "First partner Pokémon". In this revision before the move, the page used to have region sections ("Kanto", "Johto", "Hoenn", and so on) and a variety of details such as how to obtain the starters at the start of the game and the lore surrounding the player receiving the starters, as well as how to obtain previous generation starters as gifts later in the games. It also had the base stat comparison of each starter trio.

However, most of the previous content was deleted for some reason during the process of implementing the "First partner Pokémon" name. This page used to be around 120kB, it is now merely 35kB. In my opinion, the previous version was too long and it required too much scrolling to find each region section, but the current version is missing too much of the previous content which should be restored somehow.

For this reason, I would suggest creating the separate pages like "Kanto first partner Pokémon", "Johto first partner Pokémon", and "Hoenn first partner Pokémon", and filling those pages with details like this about the starters of each region. The current page "First partner Pokémon" is currently very basic. It has the list of starters but does not even mention what are their evolutions, and it has no region sections whatsoever. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

It takes to find a solution and they are working on it. Be patience and resectful and try to understand why it is being done. Would prefer to be long and annoying long serach to find a certain thing or a shorter page to find it eaiser and not get over bloated.Change and fxing does take time and good one step at a time helps solve and dicsover solutions--Jacob9594 (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Popular demand to move BACK to "Starter Pokemon"

The change in terminology across Bulbapedia has become a massive point of ridicule from fans. Recent promotional material has once again used "starters", specifically in reference to the Paldean trio, and overall the term has found far more consistent use both officially and in fan circles. Eskay64 (talk) 07:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Based on the uses of both terms documented on the terminology of first partner Pokémon page, I don't believe "starter" has seen more consistent use officially. If you know of further relevant examples, feel free to add them to that page. --Apopheniac (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

It's true that "starter" has sometimes been informally used in promotional material to this day. However, "first partner" has been used in the game dialogue from Generations V, VI, VII, VIII, and IX, as well as in Masters and GO, and in some promotional material (including for the games as well as for the TCG), and we have a quote specifically saying that "first partner" is officially preferred instead of "starter".

In March 16, there was an official tweet saying "POV: Sprigatito is your first partner Pokémon". In April 5, there was another official tweet saying "Welcome Paldean starters." However, we are obviously not going to edit the terminology used in all the Bulbapedia pages back and forth based on whatever was mentioned in the latest tweet.

If someone personally does not like "first partner", I'm not sure why complain at Bulbapedia specifically. Bulbapedia is not the only Pokémon website in the world that is using the officially preferred term which is "first partner". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Going to note the change back to Starter Pokémon is not happening. That said, also came across this interesting tweet that notes for a good while, the social media team wasn't exactly used to use the term "starter" which is... odd I suppose. Frozen Fennec 15:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

More to the point -- yes, both terms have been used in official contexts. The more important detail I was pointing out was that the change on Bulbapedia has been very poorly received by fans, who have nearly always used the term "starter", and again, it has become a point of ridicule towards Bulbapedia as a website. My point was not about my own personal preference, it was to call attention to the broad preference of users of this wiki who are displeased with the decision. Eskay64 (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I understand that this is not about your personal preference. If you ask me, I usually like to say "starter Pokémon". However, my question above still stands: for anyone who does not like "first partner", why single out Bulbapedia when this is a term that has been consistently used in several games, official media, and promotional material for at least 13 years and is also currently used by some other fansites around the world? Bulbapedia did not invent "first partner". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

This is something that should probably be asked in a more open place than a talk page, if you genuinely want an answer for that. Get feedback from general users in a public space, rather than just those dedicated enough to delve into wiki subpages. Eskay64 (talk) 05:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm good. As far as I'm concerned, this talk page is a public space too. Anyone can read and participate here, and it's directly linked from the discussed page. We also have the Discord server and Forums.

This article also acknowledges that the term "starter Pokémon" exists anyway. I know that some people on Twitter were complaining about an old screenshot which specifically read "A first partner Pokémon, previously known as a starter Pokémon [...]" but that kind of incorrect wording was short-lived. It was revised about a month ago and the article does not say that anymore.

If you are thinking of other public spaces and would like to ask people at some point "Why are you singling out Bulbapedia when this website did not invent the term 'first partner' which has actually been used in other places for at least 13 years?", please let me know the answer if/when that happens. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 06:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I think you kind of miss the point, Bulbapedia is an encyclopedia, our job is to present information "as it is" not "as fans would like it to be". 4iamking 07:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Other encyclopedias do not necessarily abide by that rule (e.g. Wikipedia still has the page at "Twitter" rather than any variation of "X"), so "Bulbapedia is an encyclopedia" is not a valid "excuse" (for lack of a better word) to make this change. "99% of resources in the world use X for this term" is no less of an informational fact than "Y is the official term". Why the bias? Toomai Glittershine 02:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

At the very least, the first partner Pokémon article already states that "starter Pokémon" is informally used in addition to "first partner Pokémon". We even have the separate terminology page with details about how both terms have been used. So we are not hiding the fact that "starter Pokémon" exists and we are not asking anyone to stop saying "starter Pokémon" either. If you ask me, I like to use "starter Pokémon", but officially the main term used has been "first partner Pokémon" for at least 13 years in several games, media, and promotional material.

We don't have to follow Wikipedia's rules. For instance, I think that fan wikis often don't exactly follow everything that is said on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia and is not supposed to have nearly the same level of in-depth information about Pokémon that Bulbapedia has. The general concept of "starter Pokemon" is explained as a short section in the gameplay article (Gameplay of Pokémon#Starter Pokémon) with only one citation from this Dot Esports article. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

> and we are not asking anyone to stop saying "starter Pokémon" either

I think this is a short-sighted point of view - perhaps not for this specific term, but definitely for other planned changes such as the "base stats" one. Bulbapedia may be only one fansite amongst many others, but it's fair to say it's one of the largest and most well-known. Redirecting official terms to community-accepted ones has, I suspect, done a lot to help newbies acclimate to the overall ecosystem. But now you are introducing a disconnect, a fansite that uses different terminology than all the others. People who first join the community via Bulbapedia will find it more difficult to communicate with those who did not. You can say "the page mentions the other terms" all you want, but I think it's pretty clear (both here and elsewhere) that people care far more about the page's "true" title.

Don't forget that NIWA's principles are for wikis to be run by the fans, for the fans, and together with the fans. This change has yet to be clearly proven as worthy to override drawing clear opposition from the fans. Toomai Glittershine 12:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

ADDENDUM:

I'm staff of SmashWiki. I know that staff must sometimes make unpopular decisions for the good of the wiki. I am not seeing that here.

I'm starting by looking at the "Suggested move" section above. The discussion starts very slowly, collecting about 30 comments in 9 months. I'm not doing a deep reading of every one, but it seems that while there's a lot of "support" votes to start with, they are all staff members saying "support because official". Unless I'm mistaken, the manual of style says nothing about pagenames needing to be official, so these must therefore be "support because [opinion]" rather than "support because [policy]". There's then a comment that the issue is "being discussed amongst staff", followed by another 10-ish comments over 5 months of mostly "support because official". There is no further indication of anything happening until the announcement two months later of everything being changed, not just this, and the only reason given is "because official".

If staff were to just move this one page where the discussion happened, I would disagree but not have a case, because "support" was the prevailing sentiment on the talk page. It is the sweeping change to policy with no forewarning that concerns me. Staff made a significant change to the rules that affects a huge amount of pages without consulting with the userbase. That is the problem.

Now if there is indeed a record of public discussion somewhere about this, where staff were like "We're thinking of doing this, please respond with concerns", by all means show me. But the fact that I have to say this is itself a problem. Why is a change of this magnitude being discussed and decided in secret? Should such a big change not be presented to the entire community and broadly publicised for many months in order to gather the widest opinion possible? Why was this kept hidden? To me, the logical answer is "we know we are making a decision that goes against the community, and we don't want them to stop us".

As I said above, there is a time and place for staff doing this sort of thing. People get elected to staff specifically because the userbase trusts them to make these decisions. But in any such case, I would expect such a decision to be paired with a strong argument as to why staff believe that following the majority vote would cause damage to the wiki. "Trust, but verify" comes to mind - we trust staff to make the right decision, but they should be expected to be capable of defending this decision from the inevitable complaints.

So, what have staff done in this case to defend themselves? They have parroted "because official" (in many different words, but it all boils down to that). They have insinuated that this is an emotional problem on the public's part. They have responded to complaints with "I wish we didn't have to do this either", as if someone or something has forced their hand. There are no publicised discussions or vote counts, no statistics to suggest this could be more efficient for the silent majority, no accounts from selected newbies detailing how the existing page titles confused them. These are not the actions of a group of staff united in their conviction that they are in the right.

It is not too late to fix this, and I don't even mean "reverse all the changes" (though I'm sure the community would much prefer that option). All you have to do is explain yourselves properly. Make public your reason and rationale for doing this, in terms that render it crystal clear why you believe that the status quo was damaging the wiki (and if you have hard numbers, even better!), without simply resorting to "because official" or any flavour thereof - since (as established) there is nothing in the current MoS about that, and even if there were, this is a significant "ungrandfathering" operation that will most certainly cause much damage for a long time before it fixes any. If you can do that, the people who are worth listening to should understand. If you can't do that, that is a clear sign this change was not made in good faith.

The TLDR: If this major policy change truly deserves to be a unilateral staff action, you will be able to prove it to the world. But so far I have only seen what is best-described as "parroting the company line". You can do better. Toomai Glittershine 15:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate that you value and understand the importance of transparency and effective communication in the decision-making process. This is something we constantly strive to improve on as a staff. However, before I address your points, I'd like to clarify that while you are free to share your thoughts and concerns, the confrontational tone and accusatory language of your message is unproductive and not conducive to constructive dialogue. As a fellow NIWA staff member, of which Bulbapedia is a founding member, I'd like to keep this discussion respectful and courteous and focused on mutual understanding.

One point I'd like to address is that, while many of the people who took part in the move discussion are now staff, many of us, myself included, just joined the team last summer. So at the time the discussion took place, a majority of the conversation was from non-staff, and it continued to be driven by non-staff after we were hired. Additionally, with the discussion having been open for months, there was ample time for people to share their feedback and concerns.

I'd also like to point out that, while official names have not previously been a written policy, our community has always preferred the most recent, consistently used names in official materials, with priority given to terms used in the games and anime. This is not new, and there have been very few exceptions to this rule throughout the wiki's history. Our manual of style, due to being updated infrequently, suggests that prevailing convention should be followed, and the preference for official names is the prevailing convention on our wiki.

To be more consistent, as informed by the public discussion both here and in our Discord server, staff decided to codify this rule, announcing it in our Message from the Editor as a heads-up while we work to write a formal policy on the matter. The people who are active in our community have largely been supportive of the decision, as it merely seeks to put in writing what is accepted and understood as the conventional rule. We are also gradually working to formalize several unwritten rules and conventions to provide clear guidelines and ensure consistency.

We truly believe, both as a community of editors, as well as amongst staff, that we should represent the franchise as it is, not how we would like it to be. Most official names are not controversial, but we realize that people are attached to certain terms, such as "starter Pokémon", "base stats", et al. To provide a complete history, we document these fan terms and older terms that are no longer used in the games and anime, and set up redirects so people can find the information they are looking for. We understand that fans will continue to use these terms casually amongst each other, and that is perfectly fine! However, our responsibility as a wiki is to document this information in a clear and accurate way.

For perspective, many people believe that the term "first partner Pokémon" is new, likely influenced by our continued use of the term "starter Pokémon", despite the newer term having been used as far back as Gen V and VI, and completely replacing "starter Pokémon" by Gen VII (outside of informal contexts such as social media). Bulbapedia, being the largest and most well-known Pokémon wiki, influences people's understanding of official terminology. People expect and assume that the terms we use are official, which is why we want to be as accurate as possible.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I would like to let you know that we are currently in the process of finalizing our official policy on article titles, and will be updating the manual of style accordingly in the near future. While I understand that not everyone will agree with the policy, we feel it aligns best with our goals as a wiki, to inform (not instruct) people on the Pokémon franchise as it evolves and grows. Landfish7 23:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

This is an informative response. It tells me:

• The main issue here seems to be the disconnect between "the Bulbapedia community" and "the Pokémon community". I think there is value in such a difference existing, but one must always be careful never to drive too much of a wedge in there.
• There is a belief that "People expect and assume that the terms we use are official". I don't think this is true on the whole, given 1. the general culture of gaming has a history of elevating fanmade terms for many things and 2. there being other wikis (both in NIWA and otherwise) that don't do this.

I've said what I wanted to say. Toomai Glittershine 22:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

There may actually be a point to all this rigmarole. This is a large change for Bulbapedia as a whole. And there's just no well written set of reasoning behind it other than, "we are solidifying two policy guidelines that will inform how to represent specific topics on the encyclopedia going forward", right from the Letter from the Editor. Where can I read those policy guidelines? Are they linked anywhere? (Not even in the Letter, oddly enough) What were they like before this one, and were "Base Stats" ever under any kind of grandfather clause or were they actually common lawed for about... one eternity? I don't know.

There are some comparisons to make. Back in Generation 8, Smogon made the significant move of banning Dynamax right out of OU. And that's huge, some might say an overstep, in saying Dynamax is simply broken. I imagine there were plenty of new users who go "Huh?" or maybe even oppose the whole idea of playing competitve Sword and Shield without the elements that define Sword and Shield the game. Smogon thought so too, which is why this post and this article offer a summary as to what the reasoning for the whole thing is. At the very least, the confused people have something to find or be pointed to, and the opposition can see what drove Smogon to this point. At the very least, if they are unconvinced, those people can plainly see that the userbase of Smogon cares a lot about the way they play Pokémon, and that Dynamax doesn't quite jive with that. TFWiki has probably one of the most lienient coverage policies in existence: Everything officially licensed is eligible for an article, and if it happens to be Transformers fiction any character in it gets an article or a section of a related article. For the longest time there was one exception: Go-Bot characters from Facebook stories. Why? Well you can read an edited together version of that debate, and the shorter overtunring of that decision, on this page. Want to know why most of the Smash Bros coverage on Super Mario Wiki was cut to ribbons to only cover Mario content in detail and gloss over the rest? Head to the Proposals archive, Ctrl-F "Smash", and reread all of the exciting reasoning that brought the wiki to where it is today!

Where's our equivalent of that? Something to direct people to if they say, "this is unreasonable", which proves "Okay, there are reasons, and I can either take them or leave them"? - unsigned comment from Salmancer (talk • contribs)

Have you read my last message above or the newest Message from the Editor? These answer a lot of your questions. Landfish7 07:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)