Talk:Electric rodents

Why should it be deleted? Electric Rodents is not only part of the fandom (and it is part, just search deviantart, tumblre, forums etc to see for yourself), but also a "Formula" that the pokemon creators used from the 1st generation onwards. U can't deny the similarity of these pokemon(Not only in appearance but in their "place" in the pokemon universe), even if the don't share an evolution line with each other. Mr. Bell (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not a formula in-game. Look at their base stat totals (which is probably the most significant way of comparing unrelated Pokemon) and most of their other numerical values. They're just plain not all the same in almost any category. There is a recurring design motif, but that's an opinionated statement (no matter how obvious it is), so it doesn't belong in the mainspace of a fact-based encyclopedia like Bulbapedia. If you want to expand the entry on Appendix:Fan terminology*, that's your prerogative, but I really don't think this has enough factual information to support a full article. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

And in response to Glik's edit summary, "It's a popular fan term for a group of related Pokémon that have no explicitly stated relation in-game but whose relation fans widely agree upon. Nowhere in the article does it say that it's a canonical group." I wouldn't call this "widely agreed upon"; anyone who's been around since Gen 2 will tell you that Marill was promoted as if it were the Pikachu counterpart in those games before Gen 3 retooled "Pikachu counterparts" to require the Electric type. As for the last part of your statement, the mainspace is for canonical content only. Like I said above, the Appendix namespace is fine for this topic, but it simply cannot go in the mainspace at all; it doesn't matter whether there's a "fan term" disclaimer at the top. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this group is more or less canon, they might not have the same BST, but their designs (and cheeks!!) and the fact that they are owned by a main character in the anime just can´t be ignored. The pseudolegendaries get less similarities every gen while the electric rodents get more. --Nico649 (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Plusle and Minun were never owned by a main character.

I would consider the early bird Pokemon for each Generation (Pidgey, Hoothoot, Taillow, Starly, Pidove, Fletchling) to be more similar than I would consider these "Electric Rodents" to be. I mean, at least you're not skipping a Generation there (Pichu is explicitly Pikachu's baby form, so it hardly "counts"). And Pachirisu and Emolga don't fit so well with all the others IMO. (That's "IMO", as in, anyone else's opinion will not sway me in the slightest, it's simply my feeling.)

The thing is, you could just as well make a page for those early bird Pokemon. Probably with better cause, even. Ash has had every single one of them. Not "a main character"; Ash. Not "all except Plusle and Minun"; all period. The only thing different about the groups is that Pikachu became the franchise's mascot, so people want to ascribe some special significance to its group of similar Pokemon. ...But nothing in the franchise actually raises any of the other "Electric Rodents" to anywhere near the same level as Pikachu (except perhaps Pichu, which is related to Pikachu and therefore not really a surprise).

Maybe if you wanted to make a single page about all the similar Pokemon between Generations (the "Electric Rodents", the early birds, the early bugs, the early ground sorts (e.g., Rattata, Poochyena), Zubat/Swoobat...the starters...and so on...), that might be moderately worth a whole page. There are trends, certainly. But most of those trend really don't deserve their own pages. That goes the same for Pikachu's group, which is not actually special just because Pikachu is in the group. Tiddlywinks (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The mainspace is not "for canonical content only". The notability requirements says "not all non-canon material is relevant, but neither is all non-canon material irrelevant". That's the whole point of Project:Fandom, to make articles on the notable bits of fandom that are not explicitly canonical. There is a large section of fandom that accepts that there is a pattern of Electric types modelled after rodents appearing every generation, that's why it's on the Appendix. I personally think that the group's members gaining a repeating, important function in the anime starting with the Diamond and Pearl series warrants the group having an article of its own. But I also agree with Tiddlywinks: the generational trends would be better if they had one combined article. Glik (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

A Couple of things I would like to say:

• First of all-presenting a different valid subject for an article (early birds) doesn't mean that this subject isn't valid. Maybe we should just have both articles?
• Secondly, u are correct that the usage of "Electric Rodents" in the canon(esp. anime) hasn't been constant. But this is true with other subjects as well, as the anime itself changed each generation(i.e. which character has starter pokemon).But for the past 3 generation there is a constant formula.
• Electric Rodents is a popular fandom term, google it and find out.
• Aside from fandom, the similarities between these pokemon is found in canon-their origin and design of course, their egg group, their base stat isn't equal but it is the lowest of all others' electric pokemon, and of course their use in anime in the past 3 gen.
• And a more meta-encyclopedia argument- i can't see why would we want to delete it? Even if one can argue about the similarity of them, it is clear that many believe it exist. Bulbapedia should be the source for knowledge about pokemon, why would we want to deny this knowledge from our readers?

Mr. Bell (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You're still just talking about a general trend that is only remotely special in this case because Pikachu is in this group. A page about all of those general trends would be great. Redirect "Electric rodents" to there, and you can add any minor comments about all their commonalities there. But the "Electric rodents" are not nearly special enough to have their own page, nor would every trend deserve its own page. A list of trends, including the Electric rodents, is the only really sensible solution. Tiddlywinks (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

There may be other trends, but i think the similarity in this one is much greater, and it is much more present in the fandom. pseudo legendaries might also be considered just "a trend", as the similarities between them differs through the timeline of the series as well. The fact is that this trend is becoming more and more a formula in the canon, and it is already present in the fandom. I think it "deserves" an article, and by putting it with other "trends" we'll just create a massive unreadable article. Mr. Bell (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Pseudo-legendaries (here, at least) have very specific and objective requirements. The only completely objective thing that every one of the "Electric rodents" have in common is that they're Electric types. And most other trends aren't likely to have such objective requirements either.

As I said above, I actually consider Pachirisu and Emolga to be poor fits* among the other "Electric rodents", as far as design goes. Who's right? I'll tell you now: that question has no right answer.

As far as creating a massive article, I imagine you believe that every trend would be roughly as big as this page currently is. But the fact is, most of this page is little more than fluff. Pretty much the only thing this page actually does that's not (I believe) done elsewhere is the top/intro section. The rest is unimportant and/or can easily be found on the pages for any of the Pokemon. If each trend is therefore only about as big as that top section, then the whole page wouldn't actually be that big (big enough perhaps, but not absolutely massive). And really, the only way to know if it can work is to try first. Tiddlywinks (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia we should present the subject in the best and easiest way to our reader-no send them to other articles. If I want a comparison about Electric Rodents, I want it to be done in a good and thorough way. I'm really against deleting this article not because of this article, but because the message it sends about how we see this encyclopedia. If u want to create a page for all the the "trends" together, it is possible to try, but we shouldn't delete this page before we find out the consequences. Mr. Bell (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with making a page about groups of similar Pokemon, it wouldn't be that large, it would only consist of a table with sprites, a description and trivia. It would be as long the Legendary Pokémon page, probably much less. --Nico649 (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

If we keep this page, we would also need to make pages about the regional birds and the regional early normal type 2-stage Pokémon. There is as much a pattern for those as there is for electric rodents. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 21:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I still think it would be better to expand the entries on Appendix:Fan terminology than to have a mainspace article about opinionated patterns like these. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

There's a key difference between Electric Rodents and Pseudolegendaries. All fans can actually agree on what an electric rodent actually is. If anything should go, it should be Pseudolegendaries. Or at least, it shouldn't be mentioned on the opening paragraph of Pokémon pages. It has about as much place as putting Electric Rodent at the start of the relevant pages, if not less, given that, again, at least EVERYONE can agree on the conditions of an electric rodent as opposed to the pseudolegendaries, which are in constant debate. Me, Hurray! (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It's exactly the opposite — pseudolegendaries have a very clear and strict definition, so there's literally no room for disagreement whatsoever about what Pokemon are or aren't pseudolegendaries. On the other hand, this is a very loose aggregation with no unarguable definition, and as I noted last week, many fans are more likely to group Marill with the Pikachu ripoffs than exclude it. (I am more in favor of moving both to the Appendix namespace than keeping both in the mainspace, if people insist they belong in the same place.) Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion. Pikaclones is the more used term anyway. C$ (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Trivia

Regardless of whether or not the article stays, I think some of the trivia needs to go. I don't mind the first two points, although the first is sorta questionable, considering Raichu is the only one who evolved from a non-baby, but I digress. The last four simply don't seem notable at all. They are, "Raichu is the tallest of the electric rodents at 2'07" (0.8 m)," "Dedenne is the shortest of the electric rodents at 0'08" (0.2 m)," "Pichu is the lightest of the electric rodents at 4.4 lbs. (2.0 kg)," and "Raichu is the heaviest of the electric rodents weighing 66.1 lbs. (30.0 kg)." While undeniably trivial, it doesn't seem notable or even interesting. It seems like a bit for me to delete, though, with no consensus. --Wynd Fox 04:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Height and weight are more important to a Pokémon to make sure each Pokémon have their own height and weight, so why it should be remove just because someone dislikes the trivia who's the tallest and who's the shortest. And there are the list of Pokémon pages about height and weight, so if you want to read it, just do it. Cinday123 (Talk) 05:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

So interesting trivia shall keep those, so don't tell anyone that height and weight trivia is not notable and not interesting, so it's true. Cinday123 (Talk) 05:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with WyndFox. All height and weight trivia on all group articles should be deleted. It's not interesting whatsoever. It's just an inane space-waster. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I'll delete trivia about height and weight, it's not interesting at all. Cinday123 (Talk) 05:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Undeleted

This page has been undeleted, due to now being a well-established, officially acknowledged group with actual content to cover. Landfish7 02:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

14 electric rodents

Is Raichu counted twice because of his Alolan Form? Isn't that technically one Pokemon species? If we're considering alternate forms then there are also all those forms of Pikachu and Pichu that could be mentioned, I think.--Rocket Grunt 09:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Good call. This was a miscalculation on my part, so I've fixed it. Thanks! Landfish7 23:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Forms and stats

I don't think the stat comparisons are super necessary here, and I also don't think we need to mention every single form/variant of Pikachu and Pichu. Landfish7 17:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I like the stat comparisons actually. It's interesting to see how the stat totals compare for the single-stage rodents versus the ones that are part of an evo line, which one is the fastest, and so on. I agree that we don't need to mention all the forms, though-we don't need multiple entries that have identical stats. Partner Pikachu can stay because it has different stats, but all the others should go. Storm Aurora (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

If the stats are to stay, I would like to propose a vertical layout such as User:Tiddlywinks/stats/r or User:SnorlaxMonster/groupstats/entry, instead of the horizontal one used currently, to make it better for thinner screens and mobile. → PikaTepig999 18:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

A lot of minutia has also been added about the different forms beyond just the base stats, which I feel adds unnecessary bloat to the article. Landfish7 18:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm okay with keeping the stats, though I agree we should mainspace one of the linked templates. I've also made an edit that I feel helps strike a balance with the details that have been added recently relating to forms/variants. Landfish7 19:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)