Motion to reclassify evolutionary levels on Bulbapedia

see first post

  • In favor.

    Votes: 26 86.7%

  • Opposed.

    Votes: 4 13.3%
  • Total voters
    30
  • Poll closed .
paperfairy

paperfairy

Pokémon Capture Expert
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
1,859
Reaction score
0
I motion that the existing use and definitions of Baby, Basic, Stage 1 and Stage 2 in reference to evolutionary stages be abolished throughout the 'Pedia (with the exception of the Trading Card Game, the place in which these originated from) in favor of the following:

Baby: A Pokémon that does not possess an earlier form, is unable to breed, and is able to evolve.
Basic: The earliest evolution in a line that possesses the ability to breed or a Pokémon that is the only Pokémon within its evolutionary line.
Stage 1: A Pokémon that has evolved from a Basic Pokémon.
Stage 2: A Pokémon that has evolved from a Stage 1 Pokémon.
Click to expand...

Discussion Thread: http://bmgf.bulbagarden.net/showthread.php?t=29928
 
Last edited:
Might want to vote then... unless that was undetected sarcasm.
 
The only people I see that would oppose it are people who assume that Togepi and Riolu don't count as baby Pokémon because of their introduction to the public (which should really have no bearing at all on evolutionary levels)

I'm in favour of this.
 
I really don't like callling them Stage 1 Stage 2 and stuff but we don't have anything better.

Also on the basis of what is actually a baby pokemon, I agree with this completely.

MAGNEDETH said:
sounds good to me.
but we should probably think of a good excuse for Togepi and Riolu.
Click to expand...

TCG only calls Cleffa and friends babies for continuity reasons and saw no reason to call Togepi or Riolu as such despite their Baby-like characteristics?
 
Actually, The TCG called Igglybuff Basic Before. Plus, we already mostly know who the Pokémon that are Baby are. Just because one little section of something is confusing and iffy doesn't mean we should delete the whole thing. Deleting this information because we are unsure of what to use would be like deleting all anime episodes because we don't know which of EP255 titles are correct. Furthermore, only removing the information from the sections of Bulbapedia except for the TCG would bring up major consistency issues and it would end up in Bulbapedia no longer being correct and complete. The information will stay!
 
Last edited:
Under this system, Riolu and Togepi are Baby Pokémon.

I also dislike the names Stage 1 and Stage 2 - if anybody possesses better ones, please contribute.
 
Stage 1 and Stage 2 are official names. The Trading Card Game is one of the major pieces of canon out there, whatever the cards say is what they are in ALL official Pokémon information. Changing them would make everything wrong! That is also the reason Baby and Basic must stay!
 
Opposed, for reasons that have already been brought up: the fact that this would bring up inconsistencies, and that these guidelines have been made up by fans aren't the least bit official, whereas the TCG's classifications are.
 
The TCG is inconsistent. Igglybuff has been both Baby and Basic. These classifications bring up no inconsistences, unless you can find one, Lil Brother.

Moldy Orange, read the post more closely. In relation to the TCG, nothing will change - I do not want those definitions, however, which are defined by the text on that particular version of the card, outside of the TCG section.
 
Moldy Orange said:
Stage 1 and Stage 2 are official names. The Trading Card Game is one of the major pieces of canon out there, whatever the cards say is what they are in ALL official Pokémon information. Changing them would make everything wrong! That is also the reason Baby and Basic must stay!
Click to expand...
I disagree. The card game is the least canon medium of the franchise, because when a Celebi has attacks called 'Time Trap' and 'Spiral Leaf', which aren't true canon attacks, it must recognized that the TCG is a separate entity of motion, and has no founding of how we wish to 'categorize' pokémon for the sake of explaining place. Show me proof that the terminology for the TCG labeling is 'official' and recognized by GF or even the guide makers for the video games themselves.



Stage 1 and Stage 2 are, I suppose, misleading, as it indicates Stage 1 = Basic. Tossing Basic for Stage 1 makes sense in that light, but...

I'm also against calling it Baby/Basic/Final or Basic/Final, or Basic/Intermediate/Final, because evo-lines aren't permanent enough to believe they will always remain so. All it takes is a two-specimen line to be given a step higher to throw a wrench in the works.

So, why not replace the word Stage with Phase? It eliminates the TCG recognized terminology and gives no room for complaints from the card gamers that we might 'be doing it wrong'.

The problem ultimately is in the numbers. Calling Raichu '1' of anything is just...weird (one thing I never really liked about the card game labeling), because it certainly isn't first in anything. Stage indicates Basic, Phase can indicate Basic or change, but what's important is indicating evolution itself beyond the basic...I'm talking too much, I know. SO!

Call all stages beyond 'Basics' Phased 1/2, call them Growth 1/2, call them Aged Accrue 1/2, call them Evolution 1/2 and shorten it to Evo'd 1/2. Just...if the TCG players are going to nitpick, might as well make it so they can't...past the fact that we aren't using it altogether.
 
Last edited:
Like I said before, singling out one completely-canon section just because a couple of people "dislike" the classification that is has set for us is the completely wrong thing to do! Calling the Pokémon one thing in the TCG and another in every other section would create major classification errors and conformity issues. They need to remain Baby, Basic, Stage 1, and Stage 2 because that is what they are in all the Pokémon world. And, Baby Pokémon were only Basic during the sets of the ex-era directly after the switch from Wizards of the Coast. Nintendo has now corrected their mistake and has made the appropriate Pokémon have the correct classification again. The TCG is not inconsistant, just the companies that run out the English cards.

Ianto Jones said:
Stage 1 and Stage 2 are, I suppose, misleading, as it indicates Stage 1 = Basic. Tossing Basic for Stage 1 makes sense in that light
Click to expand...
They aren't misleading when you consider that the number 0 comes before 1. 0 is the Base of all numbers and Basic=Base so it makes sense that the classification right after Basic is Stage 1.
Ianto Jones said:
Show me proof that the terminology for the TCG labeling is 'official' and recognized by GF or even the guide makers for the video games themselves.
Click to expand...
Have you forgotten the game boy games about the TCG? http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Pokémon_Card_GB:pokémon GB and http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Pokémon_Card_GB_2:pokémon GB2

To remind you, games are a completely different canon tha the Card gams. These games use the same classification system and attack style as the TCG, which means that the system and even the alternatly named attacks are as canon as the name "Bulbasaur" and the move "Quick Attack". Even the anime uses alrternate attack names, Ash's Pikachu has used Thunder Armor, and I don't see that in a game. Now, the TCG information has been presented in at least two (games and TCG, and it might be in a third, because James always looks and reads information off of his card collection) of the four main canons, are you still willing to try and change information that is as official as it can be, just because you don't like it?
 
Last edited:
Keeping the terms Baby, Basic, Stage 1, and Stage 2 in only TCG-related (and TCG video games) sounds good.

What I'm only really opposed to here is considering Riolu and Togepi as Baby Pokémon when they've never been called anything of the sort (well, that and coming up with fan terms to name evolutionary levels). I like these qualifications of Baby Pokémon:

Fully devolved.
Can evolve into a Pokémon introduced in a previous generation.
Cannot breed.
Click to expand...
In other words, pre-evos.

Soooooo actually I'm in favor, just with the Togepi and Riolu lines not having any Baby-level members.
 
Does it really matter when the Pokémon was introduced?

It doesn't need to be related to a Pokémon from a previous generation to be called a "baby". It's the fact that it can't breed but it gains that ability once it evolves (a.k.a hits puberty).

Besides, Togepi and Riolu get marketed in much the same way as other baby Pokémon (get their face plastered on merchandise and get special events revolving around them, like the special Riolu from Ranger).
 
PDL said:
Does it really matter when the Pokémon was introduced?

It doesn't need to be related to a Pokémon from a previous generation to be called a "baby". It's the fact that it can't breed but it can once it evolves.
Click to expand...

It is this simple, this is the golden rule. Why can't we follow it in every canon instead of trying to remove information that is known to be correct by this rule?
 
Please note: The thread is from 17 years ago.
Please take the age of this thread into consideration in writing your reply. Depending on what exactly you wanted to say, you may want to consider if it would be better to post a new thread instead.
Back
Top Bottom