Talk:Pikachu

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Would the plural form be "Pikachu" or "Pikachus"? CyberSkull 04:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-s makes a valid plural. No evidence found for other plural. DCDuring TALK 23:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this is true. Googling "two pikachu" gets over 7,000 matches on google. And indeed many Western writers seem to insist on not using the -s plural form for Japanese loan words (I particularly noticed this when reading Memoirs of a Geisha, the author would always say things like "two dojo", "three kimono", etc.) At any rate, it seems both forms are popular in one way or another, and the entry should reflect this. Tooironic 11:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the official games, anime and manga in the English language, there is no change from singular to plural: That is, one Pikachu, two Pikachu, three Pikachu. The word "Pikachus" could also be shown as a popular plural, despite being non-official. --Daniel. 00:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archived from WT:RFD[edit]

Does not belong in Wiktionary. Does not denote anything else than a specific character from a specific series. Unable to find any usage which doesn't refer to Pokemon. Korodzik 16:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gesundheit! I mean, delete! bd2412 T 05:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP!beginerz/ignoramuses[likeme,idontno althat cultural stuf,2manycuntrys'n'difrent ppls;) dontnothat,so itsPERVERS2asume theydo [n'hens 'dbe so"inteligent"2go2wp>EXPANDcfi so we canhelp here as aPASTHRU.

It doesn't make any sense to claim that our users wouldn't be able to find this on Wikipedia. If you've found Wiktionary, you must surely know how to use a search engine, and if you type in "Pikachu" on Google, the Wikipedia page is the first hit. To get to the Wiktionary page you would probably have to drill down to about page number 19 kajillion. -- Visviva 07:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just for reference, Pikachu was previously deleted twice before. Bendono 06:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about this. This is not associated with any Poketext, though I'm not quite sure what it means; this seems to show out-of-context use in children's speech. This is also out of universe, but I'm not clear on whether it meets other criteria. Oh, and this use of "Pikachu" to refer to MDMA mixed with heroin would be fantastic if we could cite it in use. I think it would not be out the question to cite and define this usefully. RFV? -- Visviva 07:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see your first link, but the second does seem to suggest "Pikachu" is moving toward being an all-purpose mythical creature like a unicorn. I'm not so sure about the third link; would the same sentence also count as an attributive use of Mickey Mantle, permitting an entry for him at Wiktionary? In the fourth link, it says MDMA mixed with PCP, not heroin. Angr 15:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ack, you're right, of course. I rather doubt if that has even one durably-archived use, anyway. The first link is rather odd; in the middle of a discussion of cat physiology occurs the sentence: "Master of the quick sprint, Pikachu would never make a marathon runner because all that fabulous energy is quickly consumed." My initial thought was that "Pikachu" was being used as a synonym (or nickname?) for a cat, but it may be that the author is just drawing an implicit analogy between cats and the fictional character; in which case this is again out of context, but not out of universe. Man, citing fictional proper names is a pain. (I do think we should have an entry for Mickey Mantle, as there are interesting ways in which his name is used, including in that quote; but I realize this would face an uphill climb.) -- Visviva 05:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it refers only to the specific Pokémon beast; otherwise, we might as well include every Pokémon, which encompasses some hundreds of made-up names representing made-up animals. Equinox ◑ 04:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we're not a Pokédex. –blurpeace (talk) 08:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We could, however, list them in an appendix of in-universe terms. bd2412 T 04:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It still doesn't seem a good idea to me. How do we decide which Pokemon species go into such an appendix and which don't? Sooner or later the situation from Wikipedia would repeat.Korodzik 18:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted, almost 100% agreement on this. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored[edit]

Since incarnation of WT:FICTION there have been two deletions, the most recent based on a claim that this does not meet WT:CFI. However, the criteria allow terms originating in fictional universes provided there are "three citations which are independent of reference to that universe". The prior deletion was based on one contributor's claim that s/he could not find citations independent of the fictional universe. However this did not follow procedure as it was never requested for verification. There are now half a dozen citations that do not mention Pokemon or anything else within Pokemon whatsoever. Apart from the recentness this could almost be clearly widespread use. The entry is now restored. DAVilla 12:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFV discussion[edit]

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

Not the toy sense in this case but "A cocktail made with sake, pineapple juice, and grenadine." I searched for Pikachu along with words like drink and cocktail on Google Books and Usenet and couldn't find this. Equinox ◑ 18:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not even one Usenet hit for pikachu with grenadine.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it'd be used in any texts. There is some evidence of the existence of the drink however, such as w:Pikachu_(cocktail) (Canadian French in origin). The cocktail is a relatively new invention, so might not satisfy CFI. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 23:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly it doesn't look real. Just one reference on that Wikipedia page. Hard to find even mentions of it online. DAVilla 07:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The WP article is brand new, too.​—msh210℠ (talk) 07:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated the Wikipedia article for deletion, giving the reason "neologism". Mglovesfun (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The WP article has been deleted. --Yair rand (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Failed, deleted.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfD discussion 2014[edit]

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

Pokémon & related[edit]

As Pokémon and Baby Pokémon got removed, so should the Pokémon terms Basic Pokémon, Pikachu, Eevolution, Pokédollar, Pokémaniac, Pokéfan. It's simply ridiculous to delete the more common word "Pokémon" but not to delete those more uncommon words like "Basic Pokémon" and "Eevolution" and those compounds with the word "Pokémon" like "Basic Pokémon". -93.196.241.55 12:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's quite a big mixture of terms. At the very least, Pokémaniac and Pokéfan should be kept, because they're not in-universe terms. Basic Pokémon is a clear delete. Pikachu... well, maybe it's used generically, like Godzilla? Should probably be RFV'd. Eevolution and Pokédollar are weird, because they're not actually terms from Pokémon, they're words invented by fans to describe parts of the game. Going by the letter of WT:FICTION, these pass - I don't know whether they're really in the spirit of the rule though. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I was in the vanguard of deleting Pokémon universe stuff, I don't agree with you on all of these. The word "Pokéfan" does not describe something that only exists within the P~ universe (like the creature "Pikachu"); rather it describes a real-world fan, a thing in the world, and outside the game and series. Compare X-Phile (fan of The X-Files). I think we should keep such terms. Equinox ◑ 12:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be specific: I think (unless they are not CFI-attestable) we should keep Pokémaniac and Pokéfan, which are real-world entities; probably delete Pokédollar and Eevolution, which appear to be fan-created terms but are restricted to the single fictional universe; and delete Basic Pokémon and Pikachu, which are "official" in-universe terms. Equinox ◑ 13:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Smurrayinchester: "Pokédollar" is an official in-universe Pokémon term - at least in some non-English regions (and at least accourding to Pokémon wikis like bulbapedia and pokewiki).
  • In case of "Pokémaniac": Is it used outside the Pokémon universe and is it not just another spelling of the in-universe terms "PokéManiac" resp. "Poké Maniac"?
  • In case of "Poké-": When counting in-universe terms, then it should be. When not counting them, then maybe not. Also: Doesn't "Mc-" come from Scottish names and not from McDonalds (like that Highlander guy "Connor MacLeod" though it's "Mac-" there)?

-93.196.241.55 14:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pokéfan and Pokémaniac. There's as much cause to delete these as there is to delete Trekkie. Also keep Eevolution and Pokédollar. WT:FICTION doesn't apply here, since both of these terms originate from the Pokémon fandom, not the official Pokémon franchise, and there's nothing in WT:FICTION that precludes the inclusion of fandom slang used within a specific fandom (so long as it's citable). -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No valid deletion rationale given (nothing in WT:CFI about deleting 'simply ridiculous' entries). Feel free to RFV anything that might not pass. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, undecided about Basic Pokémon. Restore Pokémon. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Restore Pokémon and Baby Pokémon. Tharthan (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • RFD kept as either per consensus or per no consensus for deletion. For Pokéfan and Pokémaniac, I see consensus for keeping. For Basic Pokémon, Pikachu, Eevolution, and Pokédollar, I see no consensus for deletion (at least 4 keep alls: Renard, Dan, Anatoli, Tharthan; I discard Khemehekis as non-contributor at this point). --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pikachu&oldid=62796869"