Talk:Proton

Art

I've found the Sugimori artwork for Lance. Should I put it in the infobox or no? ZestyCactus 17:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Where did you find it? If it's the legit Sugimori art, yeah, Go for it. --electAbuzzzz 17:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. And this art is from the HG/SS main website, so it's legit. --Jonouchi 19:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Green Hair

What is up with green hair in Pokémon? The Galactic grunts have it as does Lance. Why do people have a non-existant hair colour. And, could this mean that Lance was related to Galactic Grunts or used to be a member of them? Solar Dragon 20:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

wp:Hair dye. The second one's speculation.--Dark ICE (User:Cold)^{(page, talk)} 20:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Should have used the forums for that. Solar Dragon 20:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Promotion?

This is probably as fanon as all get out, but isn't it possible that Lance was that Grunt from the Slowpoke Well and just got Promoted? I mean, HGSS Lance uses Golbat and Weezing, where the Well Grunt used a Koffing and the Executive used a Golbat. It's possible, I guess. But there's no proof.. I dunno. Notable?--Purimpopoie 18:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well. I was wondering about that, too. Lance in Gen. IV is like a blending of that Grunt and the Executive from Radio Tower, who trained a Golbat. In HGSS, Lance was the Executive since the beginning. In Generation II, there was no word about that Grunt getting promoted (he'd still have a Koffing or Weezing after promotion, wouldn't he?). So, I'm rather thinking that Lance is a Gen. IV version of that Executive and that they decided to retcon that Grunt by placing Lance in his place (If they didn't do that, Lance would be an underused character). --Maxim 18:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, saying that 'he existed since GSC' is presumptuous. I think that should at least be changed to say 'Lance may have existed as an Executive in the Radio Tower in Gen 2.' Also, just because Gen 2 Executive has a Golbat and appears in the same place isn't enough to say he definitely is Lance. --The Great Butler 00:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Then what? A "spiritual replacement"? Invisible evil twin brother? --Maxim 13:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If nothing else, Lance is based on the original Executive. He isn't the exact same guy like Apollo is. --The Great Butler 01:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

US Name

His name is officialy Proton [1]

I know that his name was changed, but I don't think the other rocket admins needed new names. --~Sparen of Iría~ 21:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

We know but aren't changing it because serebii didn't reveal his source. This means that we can't check to see if it is official. Turtwig A (talk | contribs) 21:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Why must there be a topic like this on every character's article?! Anyways... like Turtwig A said, Serebii.net is not an official source, so we're waiting either for Serebii to reveal where he got this info, or for the names to be confirmed by an official source. --ZestyCactus 21:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Error

There's an error in this section of the page, specifically that his name is listed in the template as "Pokémon Gold, Silver and Crystal" when it should be "Rocket Executive". Since the page is protected... yeah, just pointing it out. -- Dlakii ^(Talk!) 10:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not Proton and Petrel existed

Now, I know this has probably been debated before, but... Admittedly, there is more than one male Executive in the original G/S/C, but I really don't think that we can act like Game Freak has had Proton and Petrel designed since those games. Sure, the Executives in their places may have existed, but it's not like those Executives were really intended to be Proton and Petrel all those years ago. Their designs and names originate in HG/SS, and they ought to be treated as though they were created and designed for those games. Indeed, there were Executives who we can say were technically Proton and Petrel, or just equivalents to them, even if they didn't have their personalities or dialogue as shown in HG/SS. But can we really say that they definitively were Proton and Petrel, just without names or individual designs? I don't think it ought to be worded like that, since their designs and names have only ever appeared in HG/SS and we've heard no proof from anyone at Game Freak that they originally intended for all the Executives to be characterized and designed differently as they are in HG/SS.

Alright, that's my two cents, now someone shoot me down. For some reason, it happens every time I try to bring an argument to the table on a talk page, no matter what wiki I'm on and no matter how much I've thought my argument through. XD Teamrocketspy621 22:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's obvious that the Executives originally weren't called Proton and Petrel or designed originally to be like them, but it's probably simpler to leave things as they are, and list the Executives on Proton and Petrel's pages, and just assume that Game Freak meant for Pro. and Petrel to directly take those original Executive's places. - Takoto 23:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Game Freak meant for Proton and Petrel to be those two Executives. BUT, the article words it as though they have always been Proton and Petrel, and I see that as more of a misconception, since they obviously weren't. Teamrocketspy621 18:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Names isn't everything. They're meant to be the same Executives. Why wouldn't they? Their existence doesn't retcon anything or even contradict with GSC, so why wouldn't we call them same characters? Sure, when they were creating GSC they had no idea that they'd give those generic Executives new designs and names. Why should we delete that just because they didn't intend it from the start? There were many things that weren't intended from the start. TMs weren't always intended to be CDs. GSC male wasn't always intended to be Ethan. But now they are. The only thing we should care is canon. Canonically, they're the same character. Dismissing the canon facts because of some assumption "what Game Freak could be thinking eleven years ago" is idiotic. All that matters is what there IS, not what COULD BE. --Maxim 18:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)