Talk:Pikachu

Plural

Is the plural simply 'Pikachu', or 'Pikachus'? --Apostrophe 05:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't actually know but I say 3 Pikachu or lots of Pikachus. Definate number of Pika~ = Pikachu, indefinate number = Pikachus. --Celestianpower ^hab 09:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

American words derived from Japanese words have no plurals, so it’s like this: One Pikachu, Five Pikachu, many Pikachu. This is also true for all Pokémon. --Zap 19:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Exactly - I've heard it, when Team Rocket come across a group of them, and say something to the effect of, "Look at all the Pikachu!" And this carries over to every other Pokémon, too. I should really stop saying "Charmanders." --MasterXiam 22:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I've just changed a couple of stray references to "Pikachus" to "Pikachu", to maintain the general consensus the plural of "Pokémon" is "Pokémon" (etc). Also I've moved the section on the angle of drawing of tails of Pikachu into the "Other Pikachu" section, as it isn't just applicable to Ash's Pikachu. --Kain 16:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"Look at all the Pikachu!" I also remember that quote JayKeaton 19:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The official plural of all Pokémon is the same as all their singular names. As Wikidsmaht said, One Snorlax, Two Snorlax, Red Snorlax, Blue Snorlax. Pikachu not Pikachus. Cheers, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 20:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Categorizing

Uhm, what's the difference between the Category "Pokémon" and "Pokémon characters"? I was browsing here and there and thought I'd find "pikachuu" under "Pokémon characters", but he wasn't there... shouldn't her belong in there also?

Category Pokémon seems to be for articles describing the games, objects and general things such as Pokénav, Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen, and Pokémon Center. The Pokémon Characters category, on the other hand, is grouping all the 387 Pokémon and the Pokémon Characters
--Fern 13:21, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Confusions

One thing many people are confused about is Pikachu's gender. Even though the concept of genders was introduced in Pokémon Gold and Silver, Pikachu is still called an it and the people of the Pokémon company wish it to remain an ambiguity, allong with Ash's parentage. --Fern 13:21, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Still, during the game's final duel against Pokémon Trainer Red (who is meant to represent Ash) in Mount Silver, his Pikachu is identified as male from the battle screen. While this is not a conclusive piece of evidence, it may give us a hint in that direction. Sinistro 11:09, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is generally agreed in the fan community that due to the many differences, facts about Red in the game cannot be used as evidence for any theory regarding Ash in the anime. Murgatroyd 07:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Whipping out my DVDs, I've noticed there's something in one of the episodes of the animé that suggests Pikachu is a male. It's in the "Princess versus Princess" episode- the narrator claims that on the Princess Festival day, the women get shopping at a discount and the men...get to carry the packages! Pikachu is seen with Ash and Brock holding various things Misty has apparently bought. Pikachu also seems as bored of the festival as Ash and Brock. Only a throwaway moment, you may think, but in the following episode, Brock and Ash claim Kids Day should be a boys-only holiday and Pikachu poses with the two of them, before recieving a smack from Misty for doing so. I suppose you could easily claim that Pikachu is just attached to Ash and sides with him naturally, but following those two examples, I always think Pikachu is a male, in spite of him always being called an "it". --L T Dangerous 14:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Locking this Page

Some people from GameFAQs LUE have decided to vandalise this Pikachu page. It should be locked from editing for a while.

I have protected the page due to current vandalism. The protection may be removed in a day/couple of hours or so. -- Chris 73 Talk 01:19, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

I'll give it a try and unprotect it again -- Chris 73 Talk 03:36, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

"technical"

The introduction of this article is gibberish if you don't know anything about the subject. It does not explain what Pikachu is. Pikachu (ピカチュウ Pikachū) is an electric mouse Pokémon.. Electric? Mouse? Pokémon? Pokémon tells me that it is a video game franchise - how can something be an "electric mouse video game franchise"? What does this mean? Reading the introduction makes me little wiser. I assume it is some sort of fictional character, but from what? A video game? A manga story? An animé story? I was doubting between {{notenglish}}, {{technical}} and {{fiction}}, and chose the latter two. I, myself, do not understand the introductione one bit. It's too technical. Gerrit ^MUTE 14:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see your point -- it's a good one, and the notice you added is very appropriate. I have to remember that not everyone has two kids who went through a phase where Pokemon was just about the center of the universe. :-}

Has anybody fixed this to make it clearer? I'd be certain that somewhere on the Pokémon page, it would explain how it is in reference to the creatures, as Pokémon is short for "Pocket Monsters." MasterXiam 22:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You realize this comment is seven months old, correct? The intro has been changed to answer this comment, although if you have a better idea for how it should be phrased, feel free to be bold and change it. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Why would anyone who knows nothing of Pok'emon type in Pikachu to Wikipedia? I think if anyone is doing this then they would have a grasp on the basics Ronan.evans 00:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Guess you've never used the random article feature. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 14:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyright

Somebody must change the "Pokedex descriptions" section to "Biology." Each Pokedex entry is copyrighted. It should be reworded into paragraphed information.

LALO LOLO

Someone has written lala lolo at the bottom of the page, I can't see it in edit, though. Could someone get rid of it.--60.226.29.20 23:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Pikachu Not Evolving on the Series

I know that a brief mention is made on the Pikachu page about Pikachu, on his own, not wishing to evolve into a Riachu but I was wondering if an additional entry should be made about the series Producers probably having more to do with that decision than the actual character. Artemisboy 17:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbok to Pikachu?

I don't seem to remember Arbok evolving into Pickacu, is that correct? It also says it on the Arbok page JayKeaton 05:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

No, Pikachu doesn't evolve from Arbok. However, that particular list is for is ordering Pokémon by the National Pokédex, where Arbok is number 24 and Pikachu is number 25. :) --Sparky Lurkdragon 05:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

40 year old

Okay, it was me who added the sentence "even though in Pokémon COlosseum there appears a Pikachu who is at least 40 years old". Someone reverted it because it was unsourced. How dou you expect me to source that?

In the town where Rui's grandfather lives, Agate Village, there are some people who say that Eagun (the grandfather) was a very popular trainer 40 years ago. Later, just before the fight with a Team Snagem member, Eagun says that Pikachu was his very first Pokémon. You don't have to be Einstein to figure out that Pikachu must be at least 40 years old.

So my statement was not a simply pure speculative fan statement. -- Danilot 20:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You were making an assumption based on fan-info, no primary source has stated the official age of Eagun's Pikachu. If you did use the method described to reach this, it is called "original research", which is useless because you can't cite it and we can't use. All information should be cited as coming from a source, something we can find the related info in. The best way to source all info is to remove fan related comments that can't possibly be sourced so we can cut down on unsourced material. Cheers, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 21:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a logical conjecture from an official game, and the statement makes no assumptions on the exact age, just that the Pikachu is at least 40 since A) NPCs state that Eagun was popular 40 years before the game and B) Eagun says the Pikachu was his first Pokémon. Unless the Pikachu hitched a ride with Celebi or something, it has to be at least forty years old.

Cite the game, I say. That's where the information comes from, not any fan-source. --Sparky Lurkdragon 22:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"Logical conjecture" is a fancy way of saying "original research". ; P Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 22:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

So... apparently there is a strong possibility that we have a time-travelling Pikachu on our hands. Good to know. --Sparky Lurkdragon 22:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

...More constructively, how about something like this: "It is unknown whether such longevity is unusual for a Pikachu; Pokémon Colosseum does include a Pikachu that seems to be at least 40, based on comments from NPCs, but it is not known if this is an ususal age, either." --Sparky Lurkdragon 23:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Which is original research. You can't put something like that in unless you can find a website that says "Eagun's Pikachu is around 40". Even if you're just assuming, and they're no source, it's still original research, which we can't add. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 06:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

In Bulbapedia's article on Eagun, the same information is given: "Eagun still keeps the first Pokémon he ever received with him, a Level 40 Pikachu.". It's not original research, it's pure logic, undeniable and self-evident; there exists no possibility other than that Pikachu being at least 40 years old. Or is someone going to argue that Eagun got his Pikachu 40 years ago but it's only 15 years old? If you already existed 40 years ago, you MUST be at least 40 years old. ... -- Danilot 11:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You can't cite Bulbapedia, it's not a reliable source since any of us could edit it. It doesn't even matter about the age of the blinking Pikachu, since you could list of all the cameo Pokémon, and it is original research - something you have found out, working something, or theorizing on your own is original research! And Bulbapedia is conflicting with what you had said, proving that their isn't a reliable source on it. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 16:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe it's original research if anybody in the world could draw that conclusion from the evidence there is.

If the videogames say A) Eagun has been a trainer for 40 years or more - and B) Pikachu was Eagun's first Pokémon -, then anybody, anywhere, could see the logic in the reasoning. If everyone can see it that way, is it still original research?

Imagine this other case: a comet in the Oort cloud orbits the Sun, and it comes near the Earth once every 16 million years. 1962 was the last time it came near our planet. Would it be original research to add a line saying this comet has only been observed once by scientists? No, it's simple and pure logic, even if this fact is not made explicit in the NASA or ESA website. Logic, unless we're dealing with a fallacy, is true. And this is not a fallacy.

If A is B and B is C, then A is C. Change A for "Pikachu", B for "Eagun's first Pokémon", and C for "40 years old". You simply can't deny it's true.

Just like the Pikachu affair -- Danilot 21:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this clearly qualifies as original research. From that page: "Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position." This is new synthesis of published data and hence HighwayCello is right: it is not allowed. Regards, --Celestianpower ^háblame 22:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Trust me, the sooner you learn this lesson the better - I put an article for FAC with original research in it ; P Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 22:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know "new synthesis of published data" qualified as original research. Guess I'll have to put up with this rule, even if I don't agree with it. lol -- Danilot 14:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The argument that this statement qualifies as "original research" is rather pedantic, in my opinion. I think "original research", at least as explained by Jimmy Wales, is an entire article consisting of the various things classified as such, not simply a single statement that could be worked out by basic logic. Of course, for many people basic logic is a major issue, but those people probably aren't around reading Wikipedia, much less writing articles or commenting on them. I, for one, think the particular statement should be in. If the article HighwayCello mentioned was denied Featured Article Candidacy because of a single statement, then the people judging for the candidacy were also being pedantic. Maybe they're supposed to be, or maybe they're just a**es...not for me to say which.SWalkerTTU 05:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It's like discussing fan fiction in the Harry Potter article, not in canon. We can't be sure, so it's pointless to discuss. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 09:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Piakchu

I don't get it. Why do you guys keep removing the mention about Piakchu in Arfenhouse just because the series is "non-notable"? I mean, it's a freaking cult parody series which "has developed a fanbase within the Newgrounds and deviantART communities.". How is that "non-notable"? Pikawil 00:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

DeviantART? :O Let's add it straight away. ¬_¬ Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 07:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

"Like most other Pokémon, Pikachu communicates only by saying syllables that are in its own name. Its most common sentence is "Pika-pika". When it wants to talk to Ash it says "Pika-pi," which sounds similar to "Satoshi", and calls Misty "Pikachupi" similar to her Japanese name of "Kasumi". It refers to Togepi as "Pipipi", probably because in Japanese, "pii" means "little". Pikachu is voiced by Ikue Otani in all versions of the anime, except in the first episode, entitled "Pokémon, I Choose You!", in which Rachael Lillis, the regular voice of Misty and Jessie of Team Rocket, provided the voice in cases where another character's voice overlaps Pikachu's."

That sounds like original research to me. Anyone care to comment? Vancar 16:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I did it!

Biology! It took me 2 hours. If anyone has a problem with it, talk here before deleting it, please. Supermariorobot 23:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)