Talk:Ash's Greninja

Is this trivia worthy?

Is it worth noting that Froakie is Ash's first Pokémon that was originally own by another trainer before being released that is not a Fire-type? --PKMNAdventurer (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Frubble

Frubble is dat word from a episode? which the character say this? --Altruis _でんき 08:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Clemont. XY001 ^★Jo the Marten^★ ಠ_ಠ♥ 08:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Only Starter

Is it notable that this is Ash's only Kalos starter? The series is really new, so he might get another one. It's unlikely for two main characters to have the same Pokémon, but May and Ash both have Bulbasaur. --Wynd Fox 21:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Not quite sure; Sceptile was Ash's only Hoenn starter, but that face isn't mentioned, so I don't think we should add it here. ZappaOMati 15:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Quick Attack

Shouldn't we wait to add Quick Attack given he didn't actually use it correctly yet?? He hasn't used the full move even once yet.RBK (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes it did, alongside Frogadier, but unlike Frogadier, Froakie was countered by Team Rocket. Plus, Ash commanded it to use it and it did use it a few times, watch the episode!!--Omojuzeforever (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I've watched it lol. Ash commanded him to use it but he never actually used the whole attack. Not the way Frogadier or Pikachu use it at least. He started to learn in it this episode, he hasn't learned it fully yet.RBK (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

froakie IS male

In the episode where ash and friends visit a kindagarten, sylveon uses attract on froakie. Later, meowth falls in love with sylveon. Therefore sylveon is female, meaning froakie must be male. - unsigned comment from Lu-igi board (talk • contribs)

That's no plausible evidence. We're not (and will never be) 100% sure on that particular Sylveon's gender, even if Meowth fell in love with it. We don't add genders on assumption. ☼ BlazingFist ☼ 11:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

But Meowth is obviously a male, and Attract only works on the opposite gender, therefore Sylveon MUST be female and Froakie MUST be male. --SuperPikaBros 14:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Froakie was the one inflicted with Attract. Meowth was never targeted with that move in that episode. Berrenta (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Meowth still fell in love with the Sylveon, though, Attract or not. That's gotta mean Sylveon's female, and since the obviously female Sylveon's Attract worked on Froakie, there you go. Or is there a reason it's not that simple? Because I have a feeling that if it was that simple, we wouldn't be discussing this. - unsigned comment from Missingno. Master (talk • contribs) 14:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Meowth fell in love with a male Purrloin back in BW044, so we can't assume that Sylveon is female. Like the aforementioned Purrloin, it could be male for all we know. He's here! The one and only...Uncle Edit! (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, forgot about that. Alright, then, yeah I'd say that Froakie's gender remains unconfirmed, though is still pretty likely to be male IMO. - unsigned comment from Missingno. Master (talk • contribs) 04:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Why does the rules for confirming gender have to be so strict? º_º' Like, why can't we just figure gender out by looking at the behavior of the Pokémon? Or at least verify gender through it's voice? Trip's Snivy and Ash's Snivy had different voices, with Ash's having the girl-like voice and Trip's having the more boyish voice. --リックEO (オープン for discussion) 07:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

We don't confirm genders based on behavior or voices because we could still be wrong. For all we know, Trip's Snivy can really just be a very masculine female.--ForceFire 07:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually in some cases we can. DuArt has confirmed numerous times that they have Pokémon voices universal. So in Snivy's case, Michele Knotz always is the voice of female Snivy, and so on. However, Froakie is an unconfirmed case, so the same can't apply here until there's more confirmation. ^★Jo the Marten^★ ಠ_ಠ♥ 07:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

When Froakie evolves...

Can someone put in the trivia section that Frogadier is Ash's first Water-type starter Pokémon to evolve? --PKMNAdventurer (talk) 03:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Once the episode airs, sure. --リックEO (My message board) 04:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It's out

The episode is out now. Could somebody unprotect and move the page now? --FinnishPokéFan92 (talk) 11:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Frogadier's moves

With the new release of XY052, Frogadier has learned Aerial Ace, and so far that was only move shown (possibly Cut as well, but I'm not sure about that one), so I changed it to only Aerial Ace being the recent move, however a user, JasonL changed it to Water Pulse, Bubble and Cut also being recent, since a Pokémon can only know four moves, I only put down Aerial Ace as recent since we cannot speculate on the other 3 moves kept until we see them in a episode (I wasn't sure what he meant by "Just think of the moves as so far" in his/her edit summary). Can anyone else confirm if I'm right or wrong since I don't want to start an edit war S 16:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC) - StephenWalker97

Before Evolution, Froakie only used Water Pulse, Cut and Double Team so far, but didn't use Bubble. After it evolved it used Cut and that other move I'm not sure if its Aerial Ace or something else.--JasonL 23:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Not related to JasonL's post (and put :, ::, ::: when you add a new edit/discussion of text), but to those who keep adding Water Pulse and Double Team as recent, don't, even if its confirmed by other sources e.g. CoroCoro in a episode preview, you don't add it as recent until the episode in which Frogadier uses the new move airs. StephenWalker97 (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not involved, but...just wondering. If it's already known in the Japanese dub that, let's say, in XY055 Frogadier uses Water Pulse (I'm not saying it does, I'm just saying let's assume it), why are we not putting that in now? Is it just something to do with waiting for the English dub to air before updating the article? The reason I ask is because articles on the various Pokémon are already updated based on happenings in episodes not aired in English; see Ash's Goomy for example. (And kind of a spoiler now.) So if we're trying to prevent spoilers, then Japanese airings should not update in here at all. Otherw3ise it's a double standard.

If I have the reasoning wrong, please enlighten me. CycloneGU (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

One of our thesis is right Frogadier did use Water Pulse, Double Team, Cut and Aerial Ace.--JasonL 15:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Frogadier's New Move

Did Frogadier learned Aerial Ace? It's hard to tell because I saw one of its arms glow blue and it did some kicks. And I know it used Cut.--JasonL 23:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Proof for Frogadier's English VA

[1] Technickal (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Didn't specify Ash's Frogadier. Thompson may have thought they were talking about Frogadier in general.--ForceFire 02:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Greninja

Hey guys, it's looking like Frogadier is gonna be evolving into Greninja sometime soon: linkRBK (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

You might be right althought Frogadier's evolution into Greninja might be little bit late

Thanks to Data broadcast we know he won't evolve not before 93 episode, after that sure he might.

Cool pic where you get it - unsigned comment from Makarov5 (talk • contribs)

Well, that would be a spoiler if I've ever seen one. We had this with Fletchinder's evolution, as well, I think. At least, I think it was Fletchinder; it evolved just before the movie. CycloneGU (talk) 00:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Conflicting Perspective in Regards to Evolution

I remember that it was said that changes to articles of Pokemon evolving were "protected" and not changed to prevent speculation from getting rampant. But I don't see how its considered speculation when official sources straight out say that a main character's Pokemon is going to evolve. Like here, Frogadier is evolving into Greninja, there's no speculation here, it's been 110% confirmed by official sources. But then I thought about something else, is the actual reason why these type of articles remain the same until the evolution occurs because the evolution hasn't actually happened yet? I feel as if that makes more sense than because it doesn't change because it's cracking down on speculation that articles remain they way they are until the actual episode airs. I just realized now, how weird it is, to say that an article is protected because of speculation crackdown rather than maintaining the current (as of now) status of said Pokemon. --Dman dustin (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

When you consider that the evolution is at an unspecified future time and nothing is known about the situation or the changes in personality, it would all be speculation. The only information (using Frogadier/Greninja as an example) that we know for a fact right now is that the evolution will occur in the future and that even further in the future it can take on a new form. So with that limited information, it is pretty pointless to post that an evolution will occur in the future, as it is going to be a very small amount of information that is very likely to provoke speculation (which it seems to have in the past). Of course I'm a newer member here, and this is just my view of it from glancing around, but it makes sense to call it speculation to me.ChE clarinetist (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Information regarding things like evolution is not added to Bulbapedia's anime-related articles until it actually happens. I don't really have an answer for the speculation part though. AGGRON989 19:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe ChE clarinetist pretty much hit the nail on the head. When protecting articles, Administrators are given a drop down menu with a few general pre-written reasons that you can click on when protecting because it's easier/quicker when protecting numerous articles, "speculation crackdown" is one of them. So, while we do know that the evolution is confirmed, there's a lot about it that we don't know either. --Pokemaster97 20:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Egg

Since the latest episode showed Frogadier's Egg, shouldn't this be added into the infobox by someone who can still edit the page? Obviously with an "unknown amount of episodes" duration. _{Sneaking from page to page... It's the page-editing purple ghost...} Gengarzilla! 18:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes it should be. When the egg was added to the page whoever did it didn't finish the job. Just ask an admin.--Rahl (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the trivia about being hatch from egg don't all pokemon hatch from egg. Shouldn't we say this is the first Ash pokemon to been showed hatch from egg as starter. --SilverioBOMB (talk) 11:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Shouldnt it--SilverioBOMB (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

It already says that it's Ash's first starter to hatch from an egg.--ForceFire 05:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

His japanese name is Gekogashira, please change this

Source -> [2]. They have passed several hours and I cannot edit it... Do it, please :'D --DarkPikaDex123 (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Ash-Greninja

I personally think Greninja's "Ash-Greninja" form should have its own section.

Can there be one?-- --Handmaiden 101 (tAlk) 20:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Did the episode explain what exactly it is or how it affects Greninja? glik^glak 21:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

No, not really. It appears momentarily and was briefly discussed at the end by the ninjas, but I don't think it was anything important. I just think it should have its own section since this is the first time anything like it has happened, not to mention specifically exclusive to Ash's Greninja. As it gets more insight during the episodes Greninja transforms, that's when a section should be made. I was just asking beforehand.-- --Handmaiden 101 (tAlk) 23:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Greninja "revealed" to have hatched from an egg

Okay I think that piece of trivia is pointless. It's been made obvious on multiple occasions that all Pokémon hatch from eggs even in the anime as evidenced here: http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Pokémon_Egg#In_the_anime so every Pokémon Ash has hatched from an egg including all of the starters he has. Not a single Pokémon is an exception and no Pokémon ever will be. Not counting clones obviously because that is a completely different situation.- unsigned comment from Flain (talk • contribs)

I have to agree here. The trivia directly implies that "it is not confirmed that Ash's other starter Pokémon have hatched from an Egg", which is very redundant statement to readers since all normal Pokémon hatch from an Egg. If we're not removing the trivia, at least change it to "Greninja is Ash's first starter Pokémon to have been seen as an Egg." or something. Just because something is technically true doesn't mean it's not notable.--電禅Den Zen 19:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank Arceus someone agrees with me. Flain (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Rewording is fine, but the trivia is still valid. And it technically is unconfirmed that Ash's other starters hatched from an egg, especially the kanto crew, since eggs weren't a thing in Gen I.--ForceFire 04:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Dude it doesn't even matter whether or not eggs were introduced at the time. Okay you know what? How about this: if at any point I show you evidence that that at least one of Ash's Pokémon hatched from an egg or if it's proven in the show than you have to admit that you were wrong about everything and I was right. I think that sounds fair don't you? And I'm just trying to find a way to permanently end this dispute just so you know. - unsigned comment from Flain (talk • contribs)

Um, yes it does. It's the exact same reason with the genders, Pokémon [with Gender Differences] caught before Gen VI don't have their genders because Gender Differences weren't a thing when they were caught. Same thing here. One of Ash's STARTER (not just a Pokémon). Unless they reveal that one of Ash's other starter Pokémon hatched from an egg, then yes, it's unnotable. And I'm singling out starter Pokémon because Ash has plenty of those.--ForceFire 07:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

You have no idea what I think about you right now.Flain (talk) 08:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It's been confirmed in both the games and the anime that each Pokémon comes from an Egg. I'm fine with rewording the trivia point, but I think it should be removed from the infobox as it gives the idea that Ash obtained Froakie as an Egg prior to the events of XY001, when he didn't. Every Pokémon was an Egg at some point in time, mentioning it in the infobox is pointless, that parameter should be used to a Pokémon that actually hatched under Ash's care, otherwise it's just stating the obvious. --Mikuri 14:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

About Gen I, well...

--Hikaru Wazana (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

well, May's Eevee had an egg, so that validates that Gen I pokemon also come from egg Pratik_12 _Talk 14:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Ash never had Primeape as a Mankey, yet we mention it because it was a Mankey at one point. Same here, we mention the egg because it was shown to have hatched from an egg. The trivia is about what is revealed and what isn't, all Pokémon hatch from eggs, but Greninja is the first starter to have its egg revealed.

Ah, Togepi. There's a reason why I forgot it. And Eevee was caught well after Eggs were introduced. All Pokémon come from eggs, it's a question of whether the anime will outright show it (the egg).--ForceFire 15:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

You know you kinda just admitted I was right don't you?Flain (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

... You were never wrong? All you've pointed out is that all Pokémon hatched from eggs. All I'm saying is that Greninja is the first starer to havve that revealed.--ForceFire 16:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

(resetting indent) I'm agreeing with what Mikuri said. We don't really need to say that Froakie hatched from an egg an unknown number of episodes before. Makes it seem like it happened when it was with Ash. Otherwise, we might as well put that in front of all the other 100+ Pokémon bio pages because sure enough, almost everyone else hatched from an egg an unknown number of episodes ago. --リックEO (メッセージ) 17:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

But on Ash's Primeape's and Ash's Krookodile's page it's mentioned in their infobox they had been a Mankey and a Sandile, despite not being Ash's at the time. This is because they have seen as a Mankey and a Sandile. Greninja has been seen as an Egg, so I think it's worth mentioning in the infobox. Also in the infobox of Iris's Axew it's mentioned it has spent an unknown number of episodes in its egg, because it has been explicitly said to have hatched from an egg, just like Greninja. Satsjoe (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Like Mikuri and Rikeo said, attempting to shoehorn Greninja's Egg form (and also Iris's Axew) into the "Egg obtained" field is just bad; Iris and Ash plainly never had/"obtained" those Eggs. If you really want that info in the infobox, you probably need to add a new/alternative type of field to the template instead.

(FWIW) "Hatches in" is also a problematic field to use IMO; "Hatches in: prior to [the start of the series]" is just nothing but bad. James's Victreebel also has the same sort of problem with "Evolves in: Prior to The Breeding Center Secret", and probably others do. In these sort of places, y'all are again trying to shoehorn in flashback info where it plainly wasn't intended and doesn't strictly fit. Those fields are meant for when it happens in the normal course of the show, like Ash's Primeape or Misty's Togetic. But, since this perhaps has wider-ranging effects, I'm not going to insist too hard that that practice change or be "fixed" somehow... Tiddlywinks (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this. - unsigned comment from Flain (talk • contribs)

Episodes spent as an Egg

The only logical number for "number of episodes Greninja spent as an Egg" is 0. (Given the rest of the infobox at this point, at least.)

The other parameters all count the number of episodes when a Pokemon has been seen.

Froakie was caught in XY002. It evolved in XY052. 052 - 002 + 1 = 51 episdoes spent as Froakie, that were seen. No accounting is allowed there for any vague amount of time before Froakie's debut.

So long as that remains the same, the only logical number for Greninja's time as an Egg is 0.

If, I suppose, you want to change the parameter for time spent as Froakie to allow that Greninja may have spent more than 51 episodes as Froakie (and likewise for every other Pokemon that has ever evolved since its Trainer captured it or it debuted), I suppose that's fine. But that solution seems rather the worse option to me. Especially since it's almost surely a larger set of Pokemon (i.e., changes required) than "those that were seen in earlier forms in flashbacks".

The infobox should say that Greninja spent 0 episodes as an Egg. Tiddlywinks (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

By saying that Froakie was in its egg for 0 episodes would mean that the egg was obtained and hatched in the same episode, and we are not sure if that happened. --リックEO (メッセージ) 23:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

That's faulty logic.

Firstly, by that logic, since Greninja spent 51 episodes as Froakie, then Froakie must have hatched from its Egg right before XY002. You don't know that at all.

Secondly, that's also treating its time spent as an Egg differently from its time spent as Froakie. If you only want to count the episodes where it was explicitly seen for its time as Froakie, you must do the same for its Egg. And when you do that, the only logical answer for its time as an Egg is 0.

And if someone makes the wrong conclusion as you suggest (especially in a case like this): who cares? There's a difference between what it means and what you think it means, and in this case I don't think the latter necessarily matters. Ultimately at any rate, the worse thing is to treat time-as-an-Egg and time-as-Froakie differently: that is purely wrong, not just subjectively (and maybe) wrong. Tiddlywinks (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand why we are listing the time as an egg in the infobox in the first place honestly. From my understanding, I thought we've only listed the stages that appeared while under the trainer's possession. For example, on Ash's Noctowl's page, we don't list "this Pokémon spent an unknown amount of episodes as a HootHoot". I understand how the situations are technically different, since the egg was shown in a flashback, but this Pokemon was a Froakie when it first came into Ash's possession, which is what I think should be the start of the listing in the infobox. It's been established by this point in the series that Pokémon come from eggs, just like it's been established that Pokémon evolve to reach higher stages. Just like it's obvious that Ash's Noctowl evolved from Hoothoot that evolved from an egg at some point, I think it's just unnecessarily messy to try to calculate and list the time spent as an egg. --Pokemaster97 03:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I agree with that sentiment as well. Tiddlywinks (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, Primeape. Ash never had Primeape as a Mankey, but we still mention it because it was a Mankey at one point. Noctowl may have a been a Hoothoot at one point, but we have no evidence of that. We have evidence of Mankey, no evidence of Hoothoot. The infobox is about the individual, not the amount of time the individual spent with their trainer.--ForceFire 04:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I get that, personally. Primeape was seen as Mankey in the normal course of the show (not in a flashback), so sure, it can fit in the infobox—the infobox is rather explicitly designed to handle that ("Debuts in"). What it's not designed to handle is flashback info...

And, to gracelessly re-present the original point: The infobox should say that Greninja spent 0 episodes as an Egg. Tiddlywinks (talk) 05:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Once again I don't care how old the comment is. You said "Noctowl may have a been a Hoothoot at one point" but the fact is that Noctowl WAS a Hoothoot before it debuted there is no 'may have' about it. It's one of the things that doesn't need to be proven because it's just plain common sense. You guys need to get that get that through your heads and quit living in denial about this stuff. - unsigned comment from Flain (talk • contribs)

First of Ash's Pokémon To Know An HM Move

Is Greninja the first Pokémon that Ash owns to know an HM attack? And if so, is that trivia worthy?Pikatwig (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Ash's Torterra knows Rock Climb. --Carmen★ (Talk | contribs) 20:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Gible also knew Rock Smash which was still a HM in Sinnoh Azure/ChromeVoid42 (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh right... I honestly forgot. My bad. Pikatwig (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

"Form" versus "Forme"

I wanted to get some clarification and feedback on this point, since even the List of Pokémon with form differences page does not follow its own standards and conflicts with some of the specific Pokémon pages it links to. I was under the impression that a Pokémon that can change its appearance, as well as changing either its ability, type, or stats, on its own will gets "Forme" used to describe it. I know Ash's Greninja requires Ash in order to transform, but that is still able to be controlled, unlike Castform that requires weather, for example. What is the consensus for the word that should be used to describe Ash-Greninja, "form" or "Forme"? ChE clarinetist (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Ash-Greninja Water Shuriken Form/ Mode pic

Can some make and put a Pic of Ash-Greninja when he has his Giant Shuriken on it's back. I know picture would be when he is in air but that is the closest pic we have in the anime. - unsigned comment from Makarov5 (talk • contribs)

Done, the filename is: File:Ash-Greninja water shuriken.png. I am not sure where to put it, though, because the article currently has one other picture of Ash-Greninja covered in the water veil. Chenzw (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, looks like I was blind, there is already such an image in the infobox. Chenzw (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Water "Fuma" Shuriken?

I may have missed something in XY118 or XY119, but when was it referred to as a "Water Fuma Shuriken"? As much as this would make sense, the title of XY122 says "Hatsudou kyodai Mizu Shuriken!", or Unleash (hatsudou) the Giant Water Shuriken (kyodai Mizu Shuriken). If there's a source for this then so be it, but I just wanna make sure because it seems like if Water Fuma Shuriken is just a fan name, Giant Water Shuriken would actually make more sense since I recall Bonnie calling it a big Water Shuriken in XY119 too. --TheMaskedMeowth (talk) 02:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Image

Why do we use a screenshot in the anime when we have an official artwork of Ash-Greninja? Theexploringgamer (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)