Talk:Elite Four

Where are the sprites of Will and Karen from? Rahin 19:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably Pie. TinaTheKirlia ♥ File:281MS.gif 01:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No, they're from Exotorchic (I apologize if I misspelled that). --Shiny Noctowl^{Talk|Contribs}File:Ani490MS.gif 01:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah. ^^; TinaTheKirlia ♥ File:281MS.gif 01:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

But aren't they fake? Rahin 19:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Better than the older G/S sprites, I think. Sure it's fake, but it blends in better with the two FR/LG sprites. Besides, the older G/S ones are a little... low on the colors. TinaTheKirlia ♥ File:281MS.gif 20:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That's true Rahin^Talk 21:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait, those sprites are by Coronis. They're from Serebii.net's manga bios section. I hope we have permission to use them... --Manga-in-a-bottle 21:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we're using the FR/LG sprites (and some fan-made ones as well) in the GSC section when we use the game-specific sprites in every other trainer class. IIMarckus 04:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Dark - Ghost - Ice - Dragon = Dark beats Ghost, Ghost doesn't beat any type here or is resistant to any, Ice beats Dragon, Dragon does not have a type advantage

Bug - Ground - Fire - Psychic = Bug beats Psychic, Ground beats Fire, Fire beats Bug, Psychic has no advantage.

So technically, if Generation III has a missing link (Ghost and Ice), and considering Generation IV does not have a consistent relationship (i.e. the type before beats the previous or the type after beats next type) and also has a missing link (Psychic)then shouldn't both Generations' Elite Fours' types be considered to have a relationship? They're both pretty loose relationships.

Needs to be less ambiguous

From the article:

• Pokémon Ruby, Sapphire and Emerald are the only games in the series where only the champion has Pokémon of a different type. Though Wallace is the champion in Emerald and all his Pokémon are water.

This needs to be made clearer. If by "different type" it means "not one consistent type", then Emerald shouldn't be included, but all of the Kanto and Sinnoh games should. I can't see any meaning of the phrase which would only include the Hoenn games and nothing else. But I'm posting it here before editing in case I've misunderstood. Flicky1991 19:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Lance's Deviation from Dragon-types.

In Generation II, Lance has a Charizard (Fire/Flying-type) even though he is a Dragon-type trainer. I added that to the Trivia. Sting the Trainer 22:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Due to the lack of X-type Pokemon, the Generation II Elite Four often has Y-type Pokemon with X-type characteristics. See whats-her-face and the Vileplume, and Bruno with half of his. — THE TROM — 22:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Still, Lance's speciality in G/S/C is undenably FLYING. His ENTIRE TEAM is made of Flying types. If they wanted him to be Dragon, they could have given him a Dragonair or a Kingdra in place of one of his Dragonite Trio.

Note

I seem to notice that Pokémon Crystal's the only game not mentioned on the Generation II and IV section for the Johto Elite Four. -Tyler53841 16:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It is now. Diablocon 17:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Challenge Sprites

For Generation I elite four members, we don't have any challenge sprites for them, because the game hasn't provided them yet. But can't we use Lance's, Bruno's, and Blue's challenge sprites from Generation IV? ----Zewis29 (Talk, Contribs) 17:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No. That would be messy because not all Generation I E4s have the sprite. The VS sprites also show them three years older. —darklordtrom 01:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It makes sense when you put it like that... Let's hope that they re-remake them so it doesn't look weird...----Zewis (29) 15:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(Trainer class)

I don't think we need that. They're more than a trainer class. CuboneKing 22:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, some pages got moved in the excitement of it all. —darklordtrom 08:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Isshu

We'll, technically there's no correct order. So, shouldn't we make their sequence something randomly generated? - Taylor 02:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Types

"Of all 17 elemental types, each type has been represented by an Elite Four member or Champion with the exception of the Electric-type. " This misinformation is so bizarre that I didn't want to delete it, as someone must have a reason to believe it. Normal? Rock? Grass? Am I misunderstanding this? Colintron 14:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Flint has a Lopunny, Bruno has an Onix, and Cynthia has a Roserade.

Even so, the trivia's wrong. Blue can have Jolteon in Yellow.--Cold (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

OH, 'represented' in that fashion. I thought it meant as the leader's favoured type. I'd suggest we improve the wording, but the Jolteon thing trumps it anyway. Colintron 15:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Psuedo-legendary Pokémon

Is it worth noting that the Isshu Elite Four/Champion is the only one not to use a psuedo-legendary Pokémon anywhere in their parties on the first battle? --Nebula 01:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Do we need...?

First, do we really need the Pokémon list for each member? And the Japanese name? (Except for the Isshu ones for now, of course.) It's information that's better suited for each character's individual page (and of course it's already there), and it just seems to serve as a way to make the tables bigger so they don't look too thin on the page. I suggest we just drop both of those and leave only sprite,( English) name, and specialty type, and make the tables horizontal (sort of like the templates we already use, but with the type). Less trivially, should we include the Champions here? AFAIK they're not actually members of the Elite Four, and they do have their own page...s (We should do something about that too.) --Memo³²⁶ 23:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with their original names being there? Ataro 23:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both Memo and Ataro, I think that we should drop the Pokemon Lists (sprites) for each member, as they are just taking up space. However, I think that we should leave the Japanese names there. The games originate in Japan, so having their Japanese (original) names there is important. Also I think that we should include the Champions here, as they need to be battled to defeat the game, and are therefore, honorary members of the Elite Four (and sometimes former members of the Elite Four). So in closing, I think that we should include their Sprite, Japanese Name, English Name, and Specialty Type. --JediKnightDTV 00:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Not taking either side here, but some people just type in "Elite Four" when looking for information and trying to beat their game. The party lists save them the trouble of clicking to get to the individual pages.--Cold (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

gen v rematch addons

in the rematches vs the isshu elite four, they each get one gen iii pokémon and one gen iv pokémon, with the exception of shikimi who has frosslass (which is from a gen iii family) instead. also pre-rematch rembu's team is all pure fighting, that's a first right? Kanjo 13:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Froslass counts as Gen IV, so that trivia can be added. However, Renbu's trivia can go on his own page. --SnorlaxMonster 08:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Gen V Elite Four Trivia

Let's take the numbers of previous Elites who used the types used in Gen V, in order of appearance:

Ghost- Agatha (third) and Phoebe (second) 3+2=5

Dark- Karen (fourth) and Sidney (first) 4+1=5

Psychic- Will (first) and Lucian (fourth) 1+4=5

Fighting- Bruno (second) and Bruno again (third) 2+3=5

All of them sum up to 5. Fifth generation.

Is this enough to appear in trivia?--Saxton Hale 22:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You make no sense. Agatha is the third what? Phoebe is the second what? You need to be more specific. --HoennMaster 00:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Order of appearance in the Elite 4, it makes sense. Miscs 11:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That is interesting. I think that it could be added, as long as it is explained clearer than you did there (see HoennMaster's confusion). --SnorlaxMonster 08:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)