Talk:Baby Pokémon

Togepi

Is Togepi a baby? I've never heard that before...Although it makes sense. Anyone wanna verify? The only "baby" PKMN I knew of were the pre-evos of preexisting pogeys. - unsigned comment from Evkl (talk • contribs)

Well, that's exactly why I added that note on the bottom. But if you compare other babies to Togepi, the only thing it's messing is an old evolution. It's not a pre-evolution, but it is a baby. - Ferret 20:42, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Same could be said about Riolu, as it's obtained in a similar way to Togepi in DP. Tom Temprotran 03:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Togepi is a Baby Pokemon as of Generation IV because of it's final evolution... if you catch my drift Tesh 21:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Then that would imply that any other Pokémon that evolves twice would be a baby Pokémon. Charmander isn't. Oddish isn't. I think essentially the definition is that a baby Pokémon is a Pokémon that can't breed, but its evolution(s) can. T T Echidna 21:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that seems to sound better. oh yeah and how come the tables titles are all black when the background is back as well? Tesh 21:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There's one problem with the idea of Riolu being a Baby... the TCG doesn't agree. In the cards, Riolu's a Basic and Lucario's Stage-1. And frankly, given Lucario's D/P base stats, Stage-1 makes more sense. - Cassius335 18:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That's the same problem with Togepi. But remember, the TCG still regards Pikachu as Basic to maintain cross-gen compatability, when really it's a Stage 1 now. TTEchidna 02:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? The system as I understand it is Baby > Basic > Stage 1 > Stage 2. Pichu's Baby level, Pikachu's Basic, Raichu's Stage-1. How the heck would Pikachu be a Stage-1? - Cassius335 11:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, quite frankly Pikachu is the first evolved stage of its family lane - better yet, since there is no "Chu Laxence", in the Pokémon world biota all the Pikachus are born as Pichus. One could assume that even the Pikachu that are found in the wild have evolved already, making it a natural stage 1 evolution. The TCG is always a different media - why should Togepi or Riolu be stripped from their (in my opinion obvious) status of Baby Pokémon according to the Card Game when the very same game also lets us know that Nidoran and Gastly are Psychic Pokémon, Charizard learns attacks called 'Nail Flick' and 'Continuous Fireball', Erika has a Clefairy and evolving a Pokémon heals it from Status conditions? Sipulichu 19:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Phione

I don't know who added it, but Phione's baby status is illogical. It can breed, therefore it can't be a baby. I'm taking it out unless there's some sort of general consensus with some good logic behind it. --Kaoz 15:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That won't get you a Manaphy. --FabuVinny ^T-C-S 16:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be a small note about Phione. It should mention that, because of it's ability to breed, it can't be considered a Baby Pokémon. --JMS 20:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally think it shouldn't really even be here in the first place anyway. It's as much a baby as the legendary birds are related like the Hitmon family. TTEchidna 03:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yea, it should be taken out. I'll do that now. --Theryguy 5 1 2 11:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it has been taken out already. --Theryguy 5 1 2 11:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Tyrogue and Hitmontop

If we apply the same rules of Togepi and Riolu to Tyrogue, considering an evolution was introduced in the same generation, should we take Hitmontop out?--Kuki Talk 00:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No, because of Hitmonchan and Hitmonlee... - Cassius335 13:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Togepi and Riolu are here last I checked. They only aren't babies because the TCG was stupid when making the families based off of one evolutionary level... TTEchidna 20:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Baby Pokémon can by classified as such by these four simple rules:

Can be obtainable by hatching an egg.
Must be lowest form in a family chain.
Must be able to evolve at least once.
Cannot breed.

This should clear up some confusion, right? ~$aturn¥oshi ^{THE VOICES} 23:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that should go in the article --Blackstone Dresden 16:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wynaut

The article says "In addition, until Generation IV, they were not found in the wild with the exception of Wynaut." Since Wynaut is a baby Pokémon, the first time they were found in the wild is Gen III. The way the line is typed doesn't make much sense. Why exclude Wynaut? I think it should be re-written. Sean... Lord of the Shadows!!! 18:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Riolu

How is Riolu a baby Pokemon? Considering the fact they appeared in the same generation as it's evolved form. Even Lucario's trading card states it's a stage 1 Pokemon thus disproving that Riolu is NOT a baby Pokemon. - User:Parasector

Riolu is a baby Pokémon the same way Togepi is: both are unable to breed until they evolve. That's our definition, as stated at the top of the page. The TCG doesn't write the rules for the series. --Andy^P_K^M_N 23:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Phione forever

I think that we should add a special category for Phione in this Page because of its special condition. Phione since can only be obtanaible by breeding which makes it as a Baby Pokémon that's because I think it is a Baby Pokémon, but it do can breed, but it doesn't imply the way its born. - unsigned comment from Igor Castro Chucre (talk • contribs)

However, not only can it breed itself but it also cannot evolve into the Pokémon that is its parent, which is true for every other Baby Pokémon. Phione doesn't fit the requirements. - Blazios _talk 16:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Outdated trivia

If there are no objections in a week, I'm going to remove "Generation I and Generation V are the only generations in which no baby Pokémon were introduced," as that just doesn't seem notable by Gen VI, as it didn't, either. Maybe 2/5 was okay, but 3/6 (1/2) just seems unnotable. --Wynd Fox 06:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Pokédex entry closeness

I'm thinking that it might be worth noting that in each generation, excluding generation III, with Baby Pokémon, the Pokédex entries of the Baby Pokémon introduced in that generation are extremely close to the Pokédex entries of other Baby Pokémon introduced in that generation, with the exception of Budew. But as I said, I'm not completely sure if I should. I guess I'm asking for the OK to do it. Mangaman13 (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I've looked at three baby Pokemon from Gen II, and they aren't that similar at all. --It's Funktastic~!_{話してください} 18:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that. The Pokédex entries are extremely close together. Mangaman13 (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Like how #238, #239, and #240 are Smoochum, Elekid, and Magby, etc? Luna Tiger * the Arc Toraph 18:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, like that. Mangaman13 (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Mantyke also isn't close to any other, so there are too many exceptions.--電禅Den Zen 18:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. Mangaman13 (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

TCG

Is this needed? I know there are a lot more cards with Baby Pokémon on them. If we are addding any, we should add them all. ZeroLinkYoshi (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Instead of a list, the section should explain what Baby Pokémon are in reference to the TCG. Glik (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Evidence

You know how if you look at a Pikachu card and it says "Basic" on it? We know it's because it's pre evolution is a baby. But Lucario's card says "Stage 1", as does Togetic's. That is proof that Togepi and Riolu are not babies. Crum Mum 16:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The games define baby Pokémon, not the TCG; just because they're not treated as baby Pokémon in the TCG doesn't mean they don't fit the criteria for the games. Togepi and Riolu are the only baby Pokémon introduced in the same generation as their evolutions, so the TCG didn't have to do what it normally does with babies, since one did not exist before the other. Also, your signature has to link to your user page. glik^glak 16:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Does Mega Lucario not count as an evolution in regard to baby pokemon?

Hello. I noticed that it says Lucario cannot evolve. It can through Mega Evolution, so does Mega Evolution status not count in regard to baby pokemon and the listings of this page? If it counts, that would also change the trivia.--Pokemon26 (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Mega Evolution is a transformation method, not an actual evolution. - Kogoro - Talk to me - 01:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Criteria

Where does the criteria for baby Pokémon come from. Is it officially stated, or reverse-written by Bulbapedia/fans? --Celad onkey 20:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

"The only baby Pokémon introduced alongside their evolved form" false. if they were introduced alongside their evolved form, they are not babies. Pikachu210 (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Riolu and Togepi? --celadonk (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

those aren't babies. Pikachu210 (talk) 04:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any outside sources that can confirm this? GrammarFreak01 (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Definition / Togepi and Riolu

I had tried to fill out the "In other languages" section a fair while ago, and therefore went on the hunt for official sources. Apparently, there's nothing in the text dumps of GSC or HGSS (and I personally don't recall that as a term from any game), I believe I also checked the booklets with nothing in them, so the most official source I could use was TCG cards. (Please note that apparently someone else has edited my additions in the meantime.)

Given the lack of definition, I tried to reverse-engineer: what species are confirmed baby Pokémon? TCG cards are also the only source I could track down that confirm species (plus AG156's blurb, which confirmed Bonsly I guess). For all other species, I found no source that confirm they are baby Pokémon*.

That said, I also noticed that on the German wiki, the definition is the very simple "preevolution introduced in a later generation", notably excluding Togepi and Riolu. Given the four species' Candy yield in GO and how the TCG handles it, I think this is a discussion that's still relevant. If the current definition is entirely fan-made, it could deviate from the "intended" definition/design/pattern (which could very well be the one the German wiki uses).

(I might be unaware of handbook sources or something, but) Just to summarize, I know of no source that gives a definition of the term, and of no confirmation for many species listed on this page. (On top of that, very strictly speaking, "baby Pokémon" as a term could be relevant for the TCG only, and not for the games.) Nescientist (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

For reference, a GS-era Prima guidebook does use the term, and also includes Togepi. [1] Nescientist (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Cosmog

Would Cosmog be a baby pokemon? It cannot bred(it can sorta bred as Solegao and Lunala because how you get another Cosmog in the Sun and Moon games) - unsigned comment from N031iz (talk • contribs)

There is no way to breed it or the evolutions, so it doesn't fit the requirements. Pallukun (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Munchlax and Tyrogue

I know that they are Baby Pokemon, but Munchlax and Tyrogue don't really feel that baby-like to me. Toxel, Togepi and Pichu all very baby-ish in appearance, but how are Munchlax and Tyrogue? --Dogleader (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

They belong to the Undiscovered Egg group, are the lowest form of their evo line, and more often than not, acquired through breeding rather than being caught anywhere. Frozen Fennec 14:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Sinstea? Milcery?

Can they be considered baby pokemon? - unsigned comment from Totodile star (talk • contribs)

No, this has already been explained why above.--Force Fire 16:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Section tables

Just wanted to bring up that the Johtonian section's table has the "After Evolution" section offset one column to the right compared to the others. I'd fix it myself, but last time I tried to fix a table on a MediaWiki I rendered the whole thing unreadable. Giratina's Embodiment - Please don't hurt us... 21:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Marill

Marill is listed under the Non-incense babies section, but it is listed as an After-Evolution to Azumarill further up on the page. Additionally, neither the Non-Incense Babies nor the Incense babies section include Toxel. Jpank13 (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

In "exclusive moves" section there are listed moves that are exclusive to baby Pokemon or are mutually exclusive to baby Pokemon or its evolutions if they were bred without the incense, like Marill. Toxel doesn't learn any moves that Toxtricity couldn't learn that's why it's not listed there.--Rocket Grunt 20:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

TCG: Differences Between Japan and US

Ambassador runs a Pokemon TCG Substack blog, and it has a particular article. [2] The long and short of it is that in the Japanese game, the Baby stage of evolution is not considered a subset of the Basic stage. In the US game, Baby was made a subset of Basic with all manner of text on other cards changed to make the gameplay identical between languages. I don't even know where or how to begin with putting all of that in this article, so I'm just leaving this here for some one else to figure out. (Bulbapedia is allowed to use information from that blog, but as per its terms of service, it needs a reference note.) Forgot to sign. Salmancer (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Rules Bearing Split

Technical Machine is split between itself and List of Technical Machine cards because they are a former distinct card type. This article should be handled in the same manner, for basically the same reasons. (Actually, more than that, because it prevents the translation shenanigans of the above section from making the part about the card type so long it appears that other conventions for these species are merely footnotes.) Salmancer (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion in Discord noted that "Baby Pokémon" is a term used exclusively in the TCG, with its application to other pre-evolutions seemingly fan terminology. These uses aren't equivalent, since the TCG only applies the term to pre-evolutions introduced after their evolved forms (presumably for rules continuity reasons). I would also support splitting this page. --Apopheniac (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)