Talk:Ho-Oh (Neo Revelation 18)

Yes that move template is serious. "Ho-oh"

This is probably a record for most inconsequential move template ever. But there is a reason. This article is not about a species, it is about a physical card object. Which happens to have the name "Ho-oh" rather than "Ho-Oh". As far as I'm aware, there isn't an errata anywhere which makes this card's name "Ho-Oh". Now, obviously the card is still a Ho-Oh, and no one is going to say an effect which calls for "Ho-Oh" doesn't work on this card (not that any exist), but the article should be a representation of what the card object is and not what it would be if WOTC was on the up and up on everything Pokemon related. (You know, like the policy on article names says.)

The closest comparison is Cast-off Shell. Or maybe Cast-Off Shell. It depends on which card one is looking at, be that Ninjask (Dragons Exalted 11) or Ninjask (Vivid Voltage 14). This wiki does not correct the name of one Ability to match the other. Same goes here.

(Yes, this would break every template referencing this card simultaneously. It would also break templates referencing three other old cards named "Ho-oh". All for the sake of capitalization. We can just fix them all later, taking advantage of "What links here" and/or a bot. Or just keep the redirect at "Ho-Oh (Neo Revelation 18)" Either way, not a big deal.) Salmancer (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

We don't prioritize typos. That's what this boils down to, even if it wasn't standardized until after this card was released. Just like we don't have Drowzee as Drowsee, we have editorial discretion to present our content with a certain amount of intended factuality and note minor issues as trivial instead of forcing ourselves to prioritize them. Similarly, Zapdos (Wizards Promo 23) was illustrated by Naoyo Kimura. The typo doesn't change the fact of who illustrated it because it was printed as Toshinao Aoki. The typo here doesn't change the fact that the Pokemon represented on this card is "Ho-Oh". ^Maverick_Nate 02:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

But this article's title doesn't care about what the Pokemon is. It cares about the name of the subject, which is the card. Which is less "typo" and more "decision that was later proven wrong" because the transcriptions from the Compendium print "Ho-oh". Doing it this way is perhaps more helpful because it means one can look at the card list and learn "oh, this species's name was established as "Ho-Oh" only after these cards were released". There's a portion of the infobox which handles stating the species of the Pokémon. (The bottom part, the one with "For more information on this Pokémon's species, see Ho-Oh".), so the article title doesn't have to represent that.

I think artist credits is different here because 1) it can be quantified as a mistake, and 2) Obviously the card does not proceed to change history by saying artwork drawn by one artist was actually drawn by a different artist. Additionlly, there does happen to be errata for "Drowsee", though the search says it's in a rulebook which isn't online. The compendium has a listing under errata, but it reads, "For purposes of proper Pokémon names, treat all cards referring to 'Drowsee' as 'Drowzee'". As written, it's less of a correction and more of an additional rule that makes the cards play as one expects. Eh, close enough one supposes, but it does also mean it's not really a comparable situation because TCPi weighed in on this but not on "Ho-oh" Salmancer (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to note that this is treated in gameplay as Ho-Oh. We can't have more than 4 Pokémon cards with the same name. If "Ho-oh" were considered a separate name, we would be able to have 4 Ho-Oh and 4 Ho-oh cards. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

As Level X Pokémon establish, a Pokémon card can have a name printed on it that is different from the card's name in terms of deck construction. And we have a field in the infobox explicitly for resolving these differences. Salmancer (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)