Talk:Novelty Pokémon

Smeargle

Smeargle is in the OU tier, but the article states that it is not used frequentlyEdge578 17:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

We generally don't base the content of the articles here off of Smogon's tiers. Missingno. Master wants YOU! Join the Order of the Glitch! (my talk page) 18:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

'Cute' Pokémon

should we list some of the pokemon that seem to only be there to attr4act customers (eg. Pichu, Pachirisu etc) --TiTAn 18:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be too opinionated. Some people might think that Probopass is cute, and want to add it to this list. —darklordtrom 22:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is Pachirisu novelty?

It has decent stats. I don't see why it's in here. --ケンジのガール 03:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's novelty because its stats are not competitive-reliable. A combination of Speed and Special Defense for an Electric Pokemon is weird. It does not have very high Special Attack, like most Electrics do. Its movepool is extremely shadowed, and its paper-thin regular Defense stat really hurts its butt. Timson622222 03:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Those are all good reasons for why Pachirisu isn't viable competitively, but they don't make it a novelty (That's not intended as a slight at Timson622222, since the question did relate to stats). I really think the definition of novelty Pokémon needs to be tightened, before this page ends up listing every non-evolving Pokémon with poor stats. Pachirisu, Volbeat, Luvdisc and Sableye don't have any compelling reasons to be here. Even Farfetch'd is stretching things a bit, to be honest.Bikini Miltank 21:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

So in your opinion, what IS a novelty Pokemon? Oh yeah, and Luvdisc is pathetic. Timson622222 00:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion? A Pokémon designed around a particular novelty or gimmick, in terms of in-game function. Thus you have Ditto, Kecleon, Castform, Unown, Smeargle and so on. Spinda's gimmick is purely cosmetic, but it probably qualifies too. Your opinion on the parameters may vary, but that's my understanding of the term.

Now, it's true that the article as currently written defines a novelty Pokémon as basically any non-evolving weak Pokémon with a shallow movepool. Firstly, this has never been my understanding of the term 'novelty Pokémon', and secondly, if we're going to use that definition then we might as well give up now, since what constitutes a weak Pokémon is highly subjective. Bikini Miltank 11:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Most Pokémon on that list have something unique. My opinion is that Sableye (unique type combination, so what? unique abilities, others have them too), Kecleon (again, unique abilities), Volbeat (Signature move is for that), Delibird (see the previous one), Luvdisc (unique held item, so what?) and Pachirisu (NOTHING special) do not belong here. Others have something notable to mention. UltimateSephiroth ^{(about me · chat · edits)} 11:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Pachirisu being taken off. The page only puts Pachirisu there because of it being "weak" and the only other reason it gives is that it can learn Super Fang. By that definition Rattata should be on this list. Turtwig A Contributions Talk 11:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, the assumption that these Pokémon are "novelty Pokémon" means that the list may not be able to remain very consistent. After all, Pachirisu could be made infinitely more usable if given a stronger evolution. Ditto (not the Pokémon!) for Farfetch'd and Sableye, although I think Luvdisc's only real role being a source for Heart Scales, it's plenty appropriate on this list. Similarly, Volbeat and Illumise were basically made for the same reason as Plusle and Minun: to showcase the double battle system. --AndyPKMN 11:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a case to be made for Kecleon remaining, at least. Kecleon is built around its unique ability, whereas the same can't be said for Sableye, which only has Stall in 50% of cases. Back in Gen 1, Porygon's possession of two unique moves, one of them (Conversion) being rather quirky, might have put it in contention for this list too. Of course, if we're restricting this list to Pokémon with no evolutions, then it no longer qualifies.

We need to decide which features define novelty Pokémon, and which are features that novelty Pokémon just usually have. The most contentious one, to my mind, is 'weakness'. Does a Pokémon have to be weak in order to qualify as a novelty, or is it just the case that most novelty Pokémon happen to be weak? You can make the case for either. The term 'novelty' does imply something that is entertaining but of limited practical use. On the other hand, Arceus is designed around the Multitype gimmick, and certainly isn't weak.

I'm willing to be persuaded either way on this. I just think that we need some proper criteria for inclusion, be they strict or inclusive, because right now the article is very muddled. Bikini Miltank 14:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Abra

Do you think Abra could be classed as a novelty Pokémon? Although it has useful evolutions, it is not particularly useful unevolved, except for Teleporting. And being able to teleport is a novelty! Taromon 22:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Pokemon that evolve arent novelty because they evolve. also, Abra can learn TMs, making it useful. -- MAGNEDETH 22:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Illumise

Volbeat is classified here (and to be honest, I agree). However shouldn't that classify Illumise as one as well. I think that they, like Plusle and Minun, where added for the sake of double battles. --Hyurnat4 22:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Legitimacy of this page

Is it just me, or is this page really just a list of of Pokémon that people consider weak? Rather then ones with unusual gimmicks to them. It may need a rewrite to reflect this... PDL 04:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with you on that one. Basically this page considers every small non-legendary Pokémon that can't evolve as novelty. I trained a Pachirisu before, and it's actually stronger than a Pikachu. Yet it's on this page and Pikachu isn't.

I believed novelty Pokémon as ones that have something particularly unique about them (like the learn only one move or have different forms). But now it just means "weak" Pokémon. --ケンジのガール 05:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Which ones do you specifically find fault with? I agree, a Pokémon should not be listed here because it is not useful in battle. So let's have some discussion about what doesn't belong. —darklordtrom 07:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Farfetch'd, Sableye, Volbeat, Luvdisc, and Pachirisu. They don't have any real visible gimmicks to them. --ケンジのガール 09:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Luvdisc and Heart Scale? —darklordtrom 09:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Combee and Honey? Paras/Parasect and Mushrooms? How come those are not there but Luvdisc is? --ケンジのガール 21:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Paras(ect) wasn't created for the sake of giving out mushrooms, it got that "attribute" in GSC, therefore it doesn't count. Though Combee/Vespiqueen might fit in the novelty category, not only for giving out honeys, but also for being created to showcase Gen IV's "feature" of gender-based evolutions. - Pokéman 23:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh. And how do you know that Luvdisc was created solely for giving out Heart Scales? Did you ask its creators? --ケンジのガール 04:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Because a) They're heart-shaped, b) they debuted in the same gen as Heart Scales (unlike Paras which debuted a gen prior to the introduction of mushrooms as items), c) they're the main source of Heart Scales (the other source, the use of the Itemfinder, doesn't provide you with infinite scales), and d) providing with Heart Scales is the only thing they're good at? - Pokéman 04:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That's all a matter of opinion. Unless you have words from the creator that they were only made for getting Heart Scales then it's speculations. And not every Luvdisc holds a Heart Scale. Also, it seems the only reason that Paras isn't a gimmick Pokémon is because it happened to be made BEFORE Gen II. Well who's to say that they didn't make Luvdisc first and then the Heart Scales? So was Bibarel made to give out Oran Berries? --ケンジのガール 04:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"It seems the only reason that Paras isn't a gimmick Pokémon is because it happened to be made BEFORE Gen II."

If you're trying to say that I'm defending it just because I'm biased in favor of Gen I Pokémon, then you're wrong. I have no problem with Ditto or Farfetch'd being here.

"Well who's to say that they didn't make Luvdisc first and then the Heart Scales?"

The same could be said about most Pokémon in the list. Who's to say that they didn't make Smeargle first and then the move Sketch?

"So was Bibarel made to give out Oran Berries?"

Was Bibarel introduced along with Oran Berries? Is Bibarel shaped like a Oran Berry? Is Bibarel the only Pokémon that can be found holding a Oran Berry? Then bad comparison. - Pokéman 05:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"Providing Heart Scales is the only thing they're good at"

That's sounds like a biased statement. Unlike with Smeargle, they actually do more than just hold Heart Scales. They are compatible with many TMs and HMs and can learn a variety of different moves by leveling up.

Smeargle is an entirely different story. The only thing it can do is learn Sketch. It's painfully obvious that's its gimmick. It doesn't matter whether the move Sketch was first or not. Sketch is all Smeargle can do. Another difference between Smeargle.

And Luvdisc isn't exactly the main source of Heart Scales anymore. While that was the most effected way to get them in Generation III, You neglected to mention the mass amounts of Heart Scales found in the Underground in Sinnoh. It's a way more effective way of obtaining them. Of course, this doesn't do any good in HGSS, but Luvdisc can't be found at all in those game. --ケンジのガール 06:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

its a fanon term, so its definition lies solely on the fans. for example, Pachirisu is useable, but most fans consider them a novelty because they are severely outclassed by other Pokemon that do the same job. -- MAGNEDETH 07:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

But there are a lot of fans HERE who are disputing which Pokémon on the list could truly be considered novelty. In fact, everywhere that I've seen such a list the acceptance of its contents has been anything but unanimous. Couldn't the list be revised in accordance with some of these (IMO) well thought-out and logical arguments?

(I too have issues with some of the things on this list. Pachirisu is hardly just a novelty Pokémon, as it is one of the few Pokémon which can have the ability Pickup. And Farfetch'd is the only flying-type which can have False Swipe by normal means.) --AndyPKMN 12:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

it refers to competitive battling. using a Pokemon for False Swipe or Pickup is honestly, exactly what "novelty" is. -- MAGNEDETH 22:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

3 things, first off Scyther learns False Swipe naturally and is Flying-Type (Yes, i know what you meant XD). Second, why is Ditto on the list? I use him, and none of my friends can beat the whole 'can perfectly turn into your opponent's pokemon' thing, especially if you give it all around items like Wise Glasses or Muscle Band. Third, why is Shuckle here?! Seriously have you ever heard of Power Swap (Might be Power Trick, not sure right now), it gives it an IMMENSE offense... But yes i do agree some pokemon are just gimmicks and are of no real use, but some are just unusual and have a practical yet uncommon use. Please let's not make this a 'big' thing, I simply think that some pokemon are wrongly confined here, but some not so much... Why does Luvdisc even exist still, I thought they died out after the underground came into existence... - Geomexis 00:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ditto is one of the only Pokémon to learn Transform. Shuckle can get Berry Juice. Luvdisc I don't know. Turtwig A (talk | contribs) 00:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ditto can do a lot of things on the battle, but it cant to any of them well. its so slow it probably wont even survive long enough for it to Transform. if you are beating someone using a Ditto, they better re-evaluate their team, because it really sucks. Shuckle i admit is arguable, not because of Power Trick (which btw makes its defense 10 and leaves it completely open to death) but because it is a tank, which can be useable to some people. Luvdisc is pretty much the definition of novelty. it is outclassed on the battlefield by even some unevolved Pokemon. -- MAGNEDETH 01:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sableye and Farfetch'd not being her. In Sapphire, Sable was one of my team members, it kicked ass, in pkmn yellow my strongest poké was a traded in Farfetch'd. Probably can be said the same for Luvdisc and Pachirisu as well (I think Pachirisu is here mainly because the previous gens' "Pikachu-clones" Minun and Plusle are here.) There needs to be a set definite for what "gimmick" means, I mean hell, I used to think Lickitung was pretty gimmicky, with it's tongue and stuff (to much sushi caper in pokémon stadium lol)ZaphodBeeblebrox 15:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The Point?

I don't see the point of this article. It is not giving information, and has basically become a battleground. Does anyone have a reason for keeping it up? I mean a good reason?Starlight is Beauty... 17:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

???

Farfetched via trade in Generation I? Can someone explain how this happens, and why it is novelty. In Sapphire i trained a Farfetch'd and it was amazing in power! SpecialK Leiks Lucario and The Celebi Glitch 19:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Farfetch'd? Amazing in power? Tell me you're not serious. We ARE talking about the same Farfetch'd here, aren't we? Farfetch'd's stats are in the toilet, you know. Farfetch'd is novelty because of its horrible stats, its common type combination, and the fact that in Generation I, you have to trade for it. And yes, I have nothing better to do than linking all this text like this. - unsigned comment from Missingno. Master (talk • contribs) 17:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

worthless

honestly this topic should be taken down the only pokemon that actually belong here are ditto and unown the rest of which have just as much use as any other especially smeargle and kecleon which is see used it high tier battles all the time to say smeargle is useless cause it can only learn sketch is pathetic since sketch can be any move you want it to be including a moveset such as spore,substitute,any stat enhancing move, baton pass and yes it is mentioned that it can baton pass moves that cant usually be done but that is a major thing allowing belly drum to be baton passed into already strong pokemon to make some of the most insane tanks

and with pachirisu not having an ability is better than it having slack off or some other hindering ability

plusle and minun dont have to be used in a duo at all alone that can be very useful and together they can be even better

luvdisc and burmy dont belong here yes they are weak but they are still useable

castform is really good especially if u have abomasnow kyogre or groudon in ur team or another weather inducing pokemon

sableye doesnt belong here ive seen it used multiple times especially with high priority moves

and i can keep going so honestly just take this page down

edit:7/22/10 yea and now lovedisc is evolving this category is crap remove this page - unsigned comment from Ares5566 (talk • contribs)

Novelty does not mean useless. Please take the time to read the header section of the article, which clearly specifies that "novelty Pokémon" have unique or "gimmicky" characteristics. For reference, Luvdisc has not been confirmed to evolve yet. For all we know, it could simply be an Isshu counterpart BUT we won't be discussing that here (see talk page guidelines). —darklordtrom 04:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Shedinja

I think Shedinja would be a good addition to this article. Its unique evolution, signature ability, and lame stats make it a definite Pokémon to include here. I also agree with the removal of Pachirisu from this article.

--Earfone445 22:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible Additions

Some of these could be in the article, not sure if they all need to be there however;

• Abra (Something of a novelty due to its unique and only move Teleport, making it difficult to capture, was the only Pokemon aside from its evolutions to learn the move by level up)
• Voltorb/Electrode (Gen I-IV only, created as item mimics)
• Lickitung/Mr. Mime/Jynx (Gen I only, Much like Farfetch'd, they were only available through in game trades, unlike Farfetch'd and Lickitung who can be caught in the wild in Yellow, Jynx and Mr. Mime could not be obtained any other way except trading from Gen II))
• Eevee (Gen I only, created to showcase evolution by stone, was also the only Pokemon with a branched evolution)
• Togepi (Gen II only, given to the player in G/S to showcase the addition of Pokemon Eggs and Breeding)
• Feebas (Gen III & IV, only evolves by high beauty condition (trading too in Gen V) to showcase the addition of Contests and Contest Conditions, also has a unique capture method)
• Spiritomb (Unique capture method to showcase the Sinnoh Underground)
• Hippopotas/Hippowdon (created to showcase the addition of gender differences)
• Arceus (Unique form-changing ability)
• Hihidaruma (Unique form-changing Ability, albeit a hidden one)

I would prefer some feedback before I add these, but please do not use the "This Pokemon evolves" excuse (which should actually be removed from the page), as Burmy evolves into Wormadam and Mothim, but is still a novelty as it showcases both the location-based evolutions and the gender-based evolutions. XVuvuzela2010X 01:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, the bits in Castform & Kecleon description about being difficult to use in battle sounds to opinionated. XVuvuzela2010X 01:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This whole article is an opinion. I don't know why it exists still. And I still believe Pachirisu has no business being here.

The definition of a novelty Pokémon is a weak Pokémon serves no purpose other than to be a collectible. So none of the Pokémon you listed qualify because they have higher attack power, evolve, or are legendary. --ケンジのガール 01:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Being a Novelty has absolutely nothing to do with how strong a Pokemon is, it is whether or not they are gimmicky, Castform and Shedinja are powerful but are still novelty, and Pachirisu has already been removed. XVuvuzela2010X 02:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

the page exists in the same vein as Pseudo-legendary in that it is both technically opinion, and widely accepted by the fandom. the power of said Pokemon IS supposed to play a role in this, but due to a lot of people insisting that said Pokemon (like Pachi) are "powerful in their own way", it has been hard to govern this page. personally, i think Pachi basically defines "novelty Pokemon" but thats another story. -- MAGNEDETH 02:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

At least pseudo legends have some standards. Base stat total and 3 stage evolution. With novelty, it seems like it's "You're tiny and can't evolve. Novelty!" --ケンジのガール 02:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I partly agree with Kenji-girl that Arceus, being a legendary, probably shouldnt be on the page, the rest, especially Spiritomb, Hippopotas and Feebas, deserve a mention

I cannot however, see anything unique or novelty about Pachirisu, other than it is obviously a PikaClone like Emonga, Plusle & Minun (and to a lesser extent Azuril, Marill and Azumarill) and too many pokemon learn Super Fang for that to be mentioned XVuvuzela2010X 02:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

i think some concrete rules should be considered. and i dont think Super Fang has anything to do with it. it doesnt make them ultimately power, just gives them at least one good attack. i mean, if something is a clear "Pika-clone" then that almost instantly makes it a novelty, seeing as it basically makes it the Pikachu of that region (and technically pointless). -- MAGNEDETH 02:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

When I mentioned Super Fang, I was referring to the description that was previously on the page for Pachisiru; "Pachirisu have very low offensive stats and none of its abilities have any effect in battle; however, is one of the few Pokémon able to learn Super Fang.", but yes, I suppose it could be noted on the page that it is the regional Pikachu, although I had been under the impression that it would have been seen as opinion. And what rules do you have in mind? XVuvuzela2010X 02:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I think abra, magikarp and phione are novelty pokémon. Abra because it only learns teleport, magikarp because it learns splash untill level 15 and Phione because it is an entirely inferior version of Manaphy. --Grrgrrgrr1000 14:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Abra and Magikarp aren't novelty, they evolve into powerful Pokémon. —darklordtrom 03:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I have included Wobbuffet, Phione and Basslao, because they are novelty as well.--Grrgrrgrr1000 10:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I also have added Delcatty and Tornelos.--Grrgrrgrr1000 11:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Simply having a unique ability is not notable enough to be a novelty, Tournelos is a legendary, and it is debatable whether or not Legendaries should be included in the list, since in a sense, all Legendaries are unique and novelty. XVuvuzela2010X 14:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am glad my additions for Wobbuffet and Basslao have been accepted. And I expected the removal of Tornelos. But I still find Delcatty should be there. She is more novelty than Luvdisc or Farfetch'd. Her ability to use Thunder Wave on Ground Pokémon with Normalize is very gimmick.--Grrgrrgrr1000 16:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

We REALLY should get a definition on what constitutes as a "Novelty" before adding any Pokémon to the list.

My definition is this: A Pokémon that needs to rely on a certain straedgy to function in battle. Other attributes such as evolutions, strength, alternate formes or showing of a gameplay mechanic are optional, but if the Pokémon's whole purpose is to rely on that single straegdy and the player is unable to change this, that's what makes it a novelty. PDL 17:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was surpried no-one had added Wobbuffet before (how I could have missed it?), but Ground-types can be paralyzed by non-Electric moves like Body Slam, Secret Power and Lick. As for the legendaries, it is debatable, but I suppose really gimmicky ones like Arceus could be added. XVuvuzela2010X 17:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The definition of Novel according to Wikipedia: that which is striking, original or unusual XVuvuzela2010X 17:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

"Table"

Does anyone else see the "table" as a bit broken? There is no major border, and there are slight gaps in it. --SnorlaxMonster 13:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

That's because each "cell" in the "table" is actually a separate table. Fixing. —darklordtrom 04:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Mew

I'm surprised I don't see Mew here, as it has what seem to be placeholder stats (all 100's) has the unique ability to learn all TMs, is an event/glitch exclusive Pokémon, etc, etc... Silentspring 20:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hippopotas

I think it's a stretch to call Hippopotas and Hippowdon novelty Pokémon, because a) their gender differences being the greatest is extremely subjective (What about Wobbufett? Noticability isn't just about the quantity of variation, but the quality), and b) I don't recall any advertising or marketing calling attention to their differences (Usually they went with more well known Pokémon like Pikachu). --Andy^P_K^M_N (talk) 12:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Some of these Pokémon seem Unfitting

The description of the page points out that the novelty Pokémon are mainly not very good in battle, have low stats, etc.. Some of the Pokémon that seem useful/unfitting to the supposed requirements that are on here include:

• Arceus - All it says is it has a unique ability (And it says it has the HIGHEST base stat total of any Pokémon, which is practically the opposite of a novelty Pokémon)
• Manaphy/Deoxys/Meloetta/Genesect - Legendary Pokémon aren't useless in battle - they have high bast stat totals.
• Darmanitan - The reason that they are novelty Pokémon just doesn't seem right. It is basically saying they are novelty Pokémon because they have interchangeable forms (which is getting common).
• Cherrim/Castform - They seem novelty for the exact same reason (except Castform has more forms) which makes them less unique.
• Rotom/Basculin - 4 abilities and six forms are more unique than novelty.

It just confuses me that these Pokémon are novelty, and yet Pachirisu and Farfetch'd, two practically useless Pokémon, aren't novelty... Swampert Man_{Swampert is Awesome!} 18:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I've reworded the intro slightly, but all those that you mentioned do fit the definition of novelty in one way or another. And form changing is novel. Also, useless does not automatically mean novelty. XVuvuzela2010X 21:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Chatot RNG?

The entry for Chatot mentions it's move Chatter is essential in RNG abuse, however none of the articles on that, on Chatot, nor on the move Chatter mentions anything on this. Is there any evidence to back up this claim? Chatot seems to fit on this list because of it's move Chatter, but the part about RNG abuse doesn't even seem to be accurate. If anyone knows more, consider adding a section to the Chatot page, and linking to there from this article. Jordan042 18:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Marill

Wouldn't Marill still be considered novelty because of Pikablu? The above comment is supported by Wildgoose. 00:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

... How does Pikablu have anything to do with this? It's just a fan nickname/rumor from back when most of the fandom didn't know what Marill really was. Yamiidenryuu 00:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Still. If Pachirisu is there, then so should Marill. Besides, if you saw the hype about Pikablu in some areas, you'd agree with me. The above comment is supported by Wildgoose. 01:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Pachirisu is on the "former novelty" list with Marill, so I'm not sure what you even mean by that. And no matter how much Pikablu got around in the fandom back then it still has no bearing on Marill's status as a novelty Pokemon- it's something invented by the fans, not something Gamefreak deliberately did with it when they created it. Yamiidenryuu 16:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Arceus

Why would Aeceus be here? Generally Pokémon with awesome stats wouldn't be considered a novelty but a sweeper. Chowolun 02:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC) User:Lucario985

Emolga

While I have no problem with being considered a novelty, I think theres more to it: Its in battle animation. It has probably one of the most adorable in battle animations, and does a great job of demonstrating that whole system, in addition to it being a pikachu-like. But this is subjective so didnt want to add anything til I heard commends on it. I still think its a novelty, just for more than one reason.

Forgot to sign. PowerPlantRaichu 03:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Legitimacy of Novelty Pokemon

Since this talk page is almost all debates for or against why or why not a pokemon is considered novelty, why don't we add a section to the table that says "reason against" or something like that? For example, Sableye says it was the only pokemon with no weaknesses and has the ability stall, this is under the "reason" section of the table, then, under the "reason against" section of the table it could include how Stall is only it's ability half of the time and is no longer the only pokemon with no weaknesses. This would help remove the bias of the page. (Hijinga (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC))

Beldum

Is Beldum a novelty Pokémon? It has a low catch rate, and wild Beldum (excluding Dream World Beldum) have Take Down as their only move. Is Delcatty applicable too? ~Enervation 16:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Beldum I can see, but why Delcatty? Yamiidenryuu (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Zorua/Zoroark

They both have a unique, gimmicky ability (Illusion) and were event-exclusive non-legendaries in Black and White, before being able to obtain N's Zorua in Black 2/White 2 (if I don't make any mistake). --JustPassing (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

I don't think this article is notable. All of the criteria it lists are fairly arbitrary and don't satisfactorily separate Pokemon that are clearly gimmicky (Unown, Wobbuffet, Kecleon, etc) from those that I doubt most people would say are gimmicky, but meet the criteria anyway (Abra, Mr. Mime, Arceus, etc), while excluding some Pokemon that are clearly gimmicky but do not meet the criteria (Plusle, Minun, Pachirisu, and Emolga, for a start). There's an inherent gray area between gimmicky and non-gimmicky that I don't think anybody can draw a line through that will be acceptable to a large majority of people, so it's better not to include such a strongly non-neutral stance at all on a fact-based encyclopedia such as this. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see myself using this page much, if at all, nor do I see a point in keeping this article. I'm certain some may have views that differ from this list. That said, I support deleting this. Berrenta (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The premise of this article is inherently unencyclopedic. Let's hear why it should stay in the mainspace. Yvnr (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted. You can see from this page and the article's history that what is a unique feature is very subjective and that the criteria itself varies a lot between people.--電禅Den Zen 17:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion. I admit that I have looked at this before and thought "why are they listed here?" ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 17:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I also have to agree with deleting this page. It's subjective, and the criteria makes it so that what Pokémon are listed seem almost random. I definitely wouldn't call a lot of these novelty Pokémon at all. --It's Funktastic~!_{話してください} 17:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I also think that this page should be deleted. I mean, look through this talk page. It's a battleground! The above comment is supported by Spyspotter. 01:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that this is not notable. It's too speculative and opinion-driven. --ZestyCactus 03:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree. I think this article does have a purpose, but looking at the list makes it painfully clear it needs cleanup. I vote for it to stay, but only if a clear set of guidelines that relies as little on opinion as possible can be created. --The Great Butler (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you suggest such a set? Like I said in my first post, I don't think a set exists that can please most people. Everyone's personal definitions seem too far apart. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

For one, the "unique Ability" criteria needs to be made less important or dropped entirely, because it needlessly bloats the list. For example, Darmanitan isn't the only Pokémon with a Forme Change, nor is it the only Pokémon with a Dream World ability, so in my opinion just being the only Pokémon with Zen Mode doesn't make it a "novelty Pokémon." Same for Meloetta, it's not the only one with a Forme Change or unique move. Pokémon whose novelty trait no longer exists in the current generation (Abra, Farfetch'd, Mr. Mime, Jynx, Eevee, Sableye, Feebas, Deoxys) can be trimmed. My personal list would be Ditto, Mew, Spiky-Eared Pichu, Wobbuffet, Smeargle, Shedinja (whose unique Ability is supplemented by the fact it only has 1HP and a unique evolution method to make it a novelty), Spinda, Castform (a novelty because its entire purpose revolves around weather conditions), Burmy & Wormadam (because of the environment-specific Forme Change that remains permanent in evolution), Shellos & Gastrodon (the novelty of the sides of Mt. Coronet doesn't even exist in future games), Spiritomb (the capture method), Rotom, and Deerling & Sawsbuck (the novelty being that they focus on seasons). Of course, I recognize that there's plenty of difference of opinion, but I think something can be worked out. - unsigned comment from The Great Butler (talk • contribs)

I do not agree with deletion so long as the last post is what happens to this page. I think that novelty Pokémon are a legitimate part of the fandom. However, most of these Pokémon are not, or have never been novelty Pokémon. But with that in mind, I think that Pumpkinking0192 's set idea would appropriately account for most current novelty Pokémon. Trotz59 (talk) 08:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Not my set. That was The Great Butler, who somehow forgot to sign his post. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

(resetting indent) I've edited the page to remove the Ability criterion as well as all the Pokémon that no longer fit the criteria* (and those who did not even before this discussion started*). I still don't like the page, think it's inherently arbitrary, and want to see it deleted, but let's see how other people feel about the page as it now stands. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

There are still a couple I'd disagree with (Abra, Shuckle, Delibird) but the list is vastly improved now. Even if those three stay I vote for keeping it. --The Great Butler (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is the one I pointed out at the beginning — they meet the criteria. (Abra and Delibird are one-move moveset Pokemon; Shuckle's Berry → Berry Juice thing is a unique gameplay feature.) Even though they aren't gimmick Pokemon, they fit the criteria and thus are included. Like I've said before, I don't think sufficient criteria exist to isolate all unarguable gimmick Pokemon without also including some non-gimmick Pokemon. My vote remains an extremely firm delete. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 04:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Can this article just be removed from the mainspace/deleted already? Yvnr (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The biggest problem with this article is that it tries to create a definite list for a subjective term. I've added it to Appendix:Fan terminology, so we should just redirect the page there. The actual objective content of this page fits into a single sentence, so it doesn't need to exist. --SnorlaxMonster 19:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)