Talk:Generation VII

Magearna

I suppose there's not enough evidence to call Magearna new to Gen VII even though it would make her the Zoroark/Lucario/Mega Mewtwo-esque "preview Pokemon"? Nutter Butter (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I guess we just have to wait and see what her PokéDex number is. --Raltseye 16:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Gen VII?

What evidence is there that these are intended to be Gen VII and not part of Gen VI? Drake Clawfang (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

http://pokemon.gamespress.com/release.asp?i=1942&lang=en&region=United+Kingdom Undeniable proof. Torpoleon (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The best evidence at the moment is probably that you apparently can't trade directly between XY/ORAS and SM. I say "apparently" because they don't explicitly say you can't trade with them (only that you can use Bank to bring XY/ORAS Pokemon into SM), but if you could, then you'd be able to move VC RBY Pokemon to XY/ORAS, but that doesn't seem likely when that same page explicitly says you can't Bank VC RBY Pokemon to XY/ORAS... Tiddlywinks (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I don't see anything there that can be considered proof. Flain (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

"Newest Generation of Pokémon Core Series Games coming to Nintendo 3DS Late 2016" isn't proof? Nutter Butter (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily mean Generation 7. It is possible they mean something else by it.Flain (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

What else could it mean? 6.5 isn't really a new generation as it's still within Generation VI. It literally say "Newest Generation", that's as clear as clear can get.--ForceFire 03:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Look I just don't think it should be called Generation VII until we actually know more about the games because there's no way to know what could happen at this point since we know next to nothing. That's just how I see it.Flain (talk) 04:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I know Bulbapedia has pretty ridiculous concepts of what is "confirmed", but saying "there's a 1% chance they could mean something besides what they said" is just overkill. Nutter Butter (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Isn't "generation" a fan term? Has it ever been used officially? N. Harmonik (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Nintendo nor Game Freak have never used the term. This could mean anything given it's just a marketing headline. Rebmcr (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It was in the official press releases...

• http://bulbanews.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon_Sun_and_Moon_announced_in_Pok%C3%A9mon_Direct#Press_release
• http://pokemon.gamespress.com/release.asp?i=1942&lang=en&region=United+Kingdom

Tiddlywinks (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

(resetting indent)It has been used officially in the past for the first games of a generation:

• "Welcome to the next generation of Pokémon!" (back of the box for Diamond and Pearl)
• "Pokémon Diamond and Pokémon Pearl, exclusively on Nintendo DS, prove that the next generation of Pokémon games is taking the hugely popular franchise to amazing new levels." (Nintendo.com)
• "Pokémon Black Version and Pokémon White Version features a new generation of amazing Pokémon." (Pokemon.com)
• "Pokémon Black Version and Pokémon White Version will feature a new generation of amazing Pokémon." (Nintendo.com)
• "An all-new 3D Pokémon adventure packed with never-before-seen Pokémon has launched! Pokémon X and Pokémon Y presents a new generation of Pokémon and introduces players to an exciting new adventure in a breathtaking 3D world." (Pokemon.com)

--Abcboy (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Pokemon No.s

What you should add

"Currently there have been 6 Pokemon Revealed, along with the Starter Evolutions and 3rd Legendary, this brings the official number of Pokemon to 734." - unsigned comment from Theexploringgamer (talk • contribs)

I think they are waiting until the rest are revealed. Technically, the starter Evolutions haven't even been revealed yet. Yeah, one can assume that there will be two evolutions per starter, but it is safe to wait until they are officially revealed. Same with the "3rd Legendary". Who knows, as strange as it may sound, there might end up not being a "3rd Legendary", people assumed that there would be a "Gray version" after Black and White, and a "Z version" after X and Y. Overall, it is best to just not put assumptions on the pages no matter how obvious they may seem to you, that seems to be the rule, and it makes sense. Also, please remember to sign your posts before saving them (there is no need to rush, I would hope anyway :P ). ----NateVirus(Talk|Contributions) 17:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

But then why can't we add the total number of Pokemon including the starter evolutions. They would never make a starter with only a basic and 1st stage. - unsigned comment from Theexploringgamer (talk • contribs)

There is no need whatsoever for us to make such assumptions. That's not what Bulbapedia is for. Tiddlywinks (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

^What Tiddlywinks said. Which is practically what I said before. LOL. :P Please, avoid making assumptions, exploringgamer, even if they seem very obvious to you. Also, remember four "~"s to sign your posts. ----NateVirus(Talk|Contributions) 23:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Additions

Well, shouldn't it be noted that the 100% Zygarde will debute in Pokémon Sun and Moon and that is also an addition? Lokki (talk) 08:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Obtaining Pokémon Caught in Previous Generations

Would it be worth mentioning that the Generation II games (Pokémon Gold, Pokémon Silver, and Pokémon Crystal) are the only Core series games that you can't bring forward Pokémon from? Pokemonred200 (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

We don't know that for sure yet. I mean, it's pretty likely, but the generation isn't out yet, and they could release Gen II on the VC. Nutter Butter (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Regional Variants

No word on the addition of Regional Variants? Fond the name on the International Press site: (http://pokemon.gamespress.com/release.asp?i=2118). Also I'd have expected a page to be made by now, though I suppose we dont know enough. Smear-Gel (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

update number of revealed pokémon

39 should become 41 and 760 should become 762 MannedTooth (Talk) 14:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Those counts are automated based on the number of articles we have for new Pokémon. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

My bad, when I was looking at them, it wasn't updated yet! Thanks !:) MannedTooth (Talk) 16:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Now it should be updated again, because there are now 52 of them, excluding Ultra Beasts. Lokki (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Please read Pumpkinking's comment, the number corresponds to the amount of pages in the category, it is not manually updated.--ForceFire 16:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, right, I forgot about the forms... Lokki (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Feel Free?

This article is incomplete and it's yet not updated. Above, you can see the notice "Please feel free to edit this article to add missing information and complete it. " But how could everyone help, since this article is protected, and the staff doesn't update it? Lokki (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

That notice is part of the generic "incomplete" template that is used all across this wiki. Don't take it literally. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Advances in gameplay: evolution moves

It should be mentioned that in Generation VII moves obtainable upon first evolving in previous generations can now be obtained after evolving at any level. Xfing (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Unprotect request

Will you please unprotect this page? SaturnMario, his talk and his contributions 23:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, dude! now you can edit --HoopsterJohn (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Alolan variants

Would alolan variants count as Generation VII Pokemon? If not then the trivia section could state that Gen 7 is the only generation to not introduce a Pokemon that evolves by stone(if alolan variants count then this would be disproved as Alolan Sandshrew evolves via Ice Stone). Nikuriku (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

New species

We seriously need to find a different way to word this. The current choice is bound to lead to confusion, and just sounds bad overall. "Secretly coded" is a bad excuse. Everyone knows there are Mythical Pokémon that are not publicly revealed at first. --HoennMaster 23:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

If you have a better wording to suggest, I'm all ears. I haven't been able to think of anything better that doesn't sacrifice accuracy. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 02:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I feel like my choice was just fine. Whether they were available or not or publicly revealed, new Pokémon always made their first appearance in the first games of a generation prior to USUM. I see it has been changed and while I think it is better, I really think we are over complicating it. --HoennMaster 04:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I think Tiddlywinks' edit is better than both of ours and does not sacrifice accuracy at all (the trading clause suffices to address them not being coded into earlier games). I think we should stick with what's there now. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Gonna be picky about this again (sorry), has it been confirmed that they won't be made tradeable to S/M through DLC or similar?--Cold (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

DLC/Patching has been an easy option for at least the past generation. I'm not certain whether we've worried about patches previously, but personally, since they've declined some simple patches so far (like adding Origin Pulse to XY so you could trade without having to delete the move, to name one thing), I don't think it's something we should worry about at this point. And if something does happen, we could add in "without patching".

HoennMaster: I think it depends on what you think "in the middle of a generation" is. Because that can very reasonably mean, at any point before the start of the next generation. And new Pokemon have commonly been introduced through the movies before the proper release of the next generation (i.e., "in the middle of a generation"). Tiddlywinks (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should use the phrase "middle of", and I disagree with its usage because of said cases like Munchlax, Zoroark, Gogaat, etc. But saying debuting in a game other than the first two games of a generation seems pretty clear to me. I'm fine with what it was change to, I was just saying at this point we are really nitpicking for no reason. --HoennMaster 00:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, I was looking earlier in the revision history (and I half thought you added the trivia entirely), I didn't notice your later edit where you wrote "debut".

If you're fine with it currently, though, then I'm glad of that much! Tiddlywinks (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

"Further Additions" section

Should we start adding the "Further Additions/Additions" section in the page based on what is currently revealed about the new features in USUM?

Here is what I have listed so far. Feel free to add more or change the content. --AwesomeDJPokémon 15:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Further Additions in Ultra Sun and Ultra Moon

• A new pair of games with a different storyline than the first pair.
• Over 400 new Pokémon from previous generations are found in the Alola region.
• Brand new species of Pokémon are introduced. (could be later changed to 'The addition of X new Pokémon...' or something)
• The addition of X new moves.
• The inclusion of the new Poké Ride, Mantine Surf, a new way to travel between islands and perform tricks to earn the highest score in a new minigame.
• The addition of the Alola Photo Club.
• The introduction of the Ultra Recon Squad and Ultra Megalopolis.
• The introduction of Team Rainbow Rocket and the return of Giovanni as its leader and other bosses of previous games.
• The introduction of a new battle facility, the Battle Agency.
• Several new locations where certain Ultra Beasts are found have been added.

I don't think something like this is necessary until the games have been released. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Trivium dispute

Taking this to talk to avoid an edit war.

Sumwun attempted to add the following trivium:

• Every new evolution family in this generation has at least one signature move or signature ability, if Beast Boost counts as a signature ability.

I reverted, in good faith from my perspective, with the following edit summary: "Everything has either X or Y" is an arbitrary Venn diagram, not a triviaworthy note.

Blueapple128 counter-reverted with the following edit summary: It's not "either X or Y", it's "either X1 or X2" since signature moves and signature Abilities are strongly related. Then "Everything has X" becomes trivia-worthy.

I strongly disagree with this logic; moves and Abilities are fundamentally different things, and having a signature of one has no bearing on whether something is able or likely to have a signature of the other. Beast Boost is already an extremely dubious inclusion (and I'd like comments on my complaint on that talk page as well, by the way), and by furthermore lumping moves and Abilities together, the note becomes virtually meaningless.

I also didn't have room to write this in my first edit summary, but on top of all those problems, here's an additional one: it's completely arbitrary to group this by evolution family, and it seems like that's just a sneaky way to get around the Pokemon that disqualify the trivium: Litten, Torracat, Pikipek, Trumbeak, Grubbin, Vikavolt, Crabrawler, Rockruff, Fomantis, Bounsweet, Steenee, Type: Null, Jangmo-o, Hakamo-o, Cosmog, and Cosmoem all lack both. That's 16 of the 86 new Pokemon this generation, or nearly a full 20%. I rest my case. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

It shows that Game Freak has attempted to give something unique to every evolution family, so that (at least hypothetically) they all have a battling niche. Then not including NFEs makes sense because in battle, one generally considers fully evolved 'mons only. A counterpart would be like saying "'this evolution family has a unique type combination' is invalid trivia because more than one Pokemon has that type combination so it's not unique anymore". Blueapple128 (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

We absolutely don't write that an evolution family has a unique type combination [later edit to clarify: if they don't all have one]. We only write about a unique type combination on the pages of the individual members that do have one. Look at, for example, Diggersby versus Bunnelby. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Uh, I see that a lot in trivia, actually. There's Aegislash, Jynx, Sawsbuck, and I forgot what else. ¿¡Unowninator?! (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, if the whole evolution family has the same unique type combination we mention it. But if some do and some don't (like this signature move/Ability thing), we only list the ones that do, not the ones that don't. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The point is that "these two Pokemon are the only ones to have this type combination" is normally invalid since there's more than one, unless both are part of the same evolution family. This means that grouping stuff by evolution family and treating them as one group is allowed and not arbitrary. Blueapple128 (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

That's only if they all share the typing. To borrow Pumpkinking's example, Bunnelby doesn't have a unique typing, so it's not grouped with Diggersby for unique typing trivia. Hakamo-o doesn't get Clanging Scales, so it shouldn't be grouped with Kommo-o for signature move trivia.--Cold (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I feel it is best if this trivia is left out altogether. It lumps two different categories together. It also leaves out that quite a few of the Pokémon do not share the signature move or ability. It lastly does not factor in that some of the signature abilities or moves are possibly abilities or moves that the Pokémon cannot currently legally have. Just my opinion on the matter. Frozen Fennec 23:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

USUM Title screens

So, I checked the Archives, and the only USUM Title screens I could find were mine. Please restore them to the Gen VII Page!LugiaLunala (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Please check your Archives talk page, and also please read the banner that appears at the top of all Archives pages. Those two things will explain why your files were deleted. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I read them, and now I understand. Can you please restore them now? - unsigned comment from LugiaLunala (talk • contribs)

No, since you still haven't answered the question; where did you get the images? Someone else will upload them when they can get them in the mean time.--ForceFire 06:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh! The images, I screen shotted them from an official YouTube video and them I uploaded them. Please restore the images! - unsigned comment from LugiaLunala (talk • contribs)

I'm sure you're quite preoccupied with what you want, LugiaLunala, but please try to follow directions better. We're not asking you to respond here. The question was posed on the Archives for a reason, please answer it there. I'm going to decline to respond in any greater substance here. If you respond properly on the Archives, it can continue there.

Also, please do not resign unsigned comments. Tiddlywinks (talk) 10:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Fine. I will try to get new ones directly from the game. But it is very hard, are you sure? LugiaLunala (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Let's Go, Pikachu! and Let's Go, Eevee!

So Bulbapedia has decided to list Let's Go, Pikachu! and Let's Go, Eevee! as core series Generation VII games. If that's the case, why aren't they added to this page, yet? SquirtleLover1999 (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

There's currently a discussion and uncertainty on wether they are fullt core series games or not. --Raltseye prata med mej 12:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Wasn't it stated by Ishihara or someone else from Game Freak that they are core RPGs/mainline games/whatever terms? Either way, if they are then that would make Generation VII the only generation where the games are split over two non-compatible consoles, right? Azureprism (talk) 09:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Tense error

The history section states, "The games will once again take place in Alola, but with a new story and will include Pokémon that cannot be found in Sun and Moon." Since USUM have come out already, it should be changed to say "The games once again take place in Alola, but with a new story. Ultra Sun and Ultra Moon also included Pokémon that could not be found in Sun and Moon." --Celadonkey 14:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Question about page Protection

Why is this page fully protected but Pokémon: Let's Go, Pikachu! and Let's Go, Eevee! isn't? Seems like that page would have much more speculation . Tag365 (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's Go Pikachu and Eevee title screens

Aren't the Let's Go title screens going to be added? I have a screenshot of the Eevee title screen, somebody just needs to add the Pikachu version & Japanese versions. Unless that's what being looked for.

Let's Go Eevee screenshotArgentarus (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Does anybody know how to add new games title screens to the infobox? Just put in the title screens. Argentarus (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

In regards to the the starter Pokémon evolution lines

Came across a post detailing Incineroar's belt and "abs" forming an alchemical symbol. Thought it was interesting and made sense considering the inspirations laid down by the first evolutions.

Here's my compilation of the corresponding alchemical symbols to the starter Pokémon: https://forums.serebii.net/threads/alchemical-symbols-in-the-designs-of-the-starter-evolutionary-lines.666011/ Argentarus (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Green trivia

"Generation VII is the first generation to introduce a character from the manga, being Green from the Pokémon Adventures manga series." Should this really be here? Is she really based on the manga, or the supposed female protagonist that the manga Green is based on? -Pokeant (talk) 06:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

LGPE and Pokemon Yellow are based on the anime and Green only appeared in the manga up until FRLG. And then she was Leaf, as the playable character, in FRLG.

Her manga counterpart comes from the original design, but her personality in the game comes from her manga appearance. So, in a technicality, she is the first character from the manga, considering the nature of Yellow and LGPE. But she still physicallyappeared, in a different form and as a different person, in FRLG as Leaf. - unsigned comment from Argentarus (talk • contribs)

Manga and games are not the same medium. Just like how anime and the games aren't the same. In other words, manga Green is not game Green (the trivia is implying that LGPE Green came straight from the manga).--ForceFire 03:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

89 Pokemon

Are we sure it's 89 Pokemon introduced in total, not 88?

151 + 100 + 135 + 107 + 156 + 72 + 88 = 809 (which is Melmetal's Pokedex number). 89 makes one too many.

Melmetal-Rowlet: 809-722 = 87 plus 1 to get the number of Pokemon in the generation = 88.

compare to: Celebi-Chikorita: 251-152 = 99 plus an extra one to get to the 100 total.

I suspect Zeraora has been counted twice? - unsigned comment from Countinggame (talk • contribs)

I don't think the number 89 is mentioned anywhere on the page... --celadonk (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I think Countinggame could be miscounting. 81+5+2 is 88, not 89.--ForceFire 05:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

(That being said, I think that the number of total Pokemon introduced, 88, should be mentioned somewhere on the page, rather than just its parts.) --celadonk (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Title Screens

I think that the title screen at the top of the page should be Sun, Moon, Ultra Sun, or Ultra Moon, not Let's Go Eevee. When most people think of Gen 7, they think of Alola, not Kanto. Likewise, I think the title screen on Gen 6's page should be X or Y, not Omega Ruby, and Gen 4's should be Diamond, Pearl, or Platinum, not HeartGold. Alolan Ninetales (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC) Yeah, no. The remakes were still released in their respective generations. It doesn't matter if the setting is not the main setting.--ForceFire 04:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

You might have known this, but also worth mentioning is the fact that the infobox picture rotates. So it’s not always Let’s Go Eevee. Some (most, actually) of the time it will be an “Alola game”.

Honestly, I feel like the rotation is a flawed system regardless. I wish there was some way to reasonably display all of the Gen 7 games without bloating the infobox. I may experiment with this later. --celadonk (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Alchemical symbols?

It seems a little strange to me that the Thematic motif section says so definitively that the starters are based on alchemical symbols. It's even stated as a direct fact- "Rowlet, Litten, and Popplio's designs are based on the alchemical symbols". Not even their species origin is said so definitively, Popplio's page says it "may be based on a sea lion", and Litten's says it "may be based on mackerel tabbies".

The only source provided for the idea that the starters are all based on alchemical symbols is the speculation Argentarus linked in this talk page, and while I see the resemblance to some symbols, a large number of them seem to be quite a stretch. For example, Decidueye's arrows are supposedly the symbol for iron rotated slightly, but that's solely on the basis of the symbol for iron being an arrow. Torracat's bell is supposed to represent gold, because it's a circle with hole in the center- but that's also just how bells on cat collars are typically represented in media. These Pokemon have no other connection to these elements- doesn't it make more sense to believe that these are just due to the fact that arrows and circles are pretty basic shapes? Following this line of reasoning, we could argue that the Voltorb line, a circle with a line in the middle, is also based on the symbol for salt, and that Unown, with its circular eyes with a pupil in the center, are also referencing the symbol for gold. (And, again, if we can't definitely state that a Pokemon whose dex category is "the Sea Lion Pokemon" is based on sea lions, I see no reason why we should be saying that its evolution is definitely based on alchemical symbols for mercury, platinum, and red lead)

In addition, some of the connections made seem to be at odds with the Pokemon's design, or with the origins of the symbols themselves. For example, Litten is supposedly based on sulfur, representing spirit, while Rowlet is based on salt, representing the body. But wouldn't it make more sense to have the Ghost-type Pokemon based on spirit, and the muscular wrestler based on body? And while Argentarus' image states that salt relates to earth, sulfur to fire, and mercury to water, Wikipedia says the three primes are a separate concept from the classical elements, which have their own symbols. (I found two other sites that are similarly different; one says it's a separate concept, and another claims that the three primes are a mixture of the classical elements, not each representing one of them)

The legendary trio also doesn't seem to have any basis for any connection beyond Solgaleo's reference to the alchemical lion. What evidence is there that Necrozma is intended to represent the body, or that Solgaleo is intended to take all the symbolism of the sun representing the soul?

It's worth mentioning, too, that while the concept of Aether does appear in alchemy, it didn't originate there- it goes back as early as Plato and Aristotle, while alchemy didn't appear until the common era. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_(classical_element) )

I know it makes logical sense to look for other connections to alchemy, given the near-explicit reference in Solgaleo's dex entry, but the current evidence in favor of it seems too much like fan speculation to me. There is no official source information claiming that they were designed with alchemical symbols in mind, and it doesn't connect to the Pokemon's lore at all.

TechSkylander1518 (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed... Admittedly, I can see the starters' resemblance to the symbols, but I think a lot of people took that and ran with it. It's easy to see what you want to see. I think this speculation should be removed as well. --celadonk (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

No new Mystery Dungeon game

You think it’s worth mentioning that this is the only generation to not have a new Mystery Dungeon game since the series was first introduced? Because I personally think it’s a significant detail.Flain (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Move this page

The Pokémon Company officially calls this generation the "seventh generation". I suppose that there's a possibility to move "Generation VII" to "Seventh generation" per here. --SaturnMario, his talk and his contributions 15:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)