Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search


Latin-American? How can the word's etymology be Latin-American? Jon Harald Søby 10:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps they meant an American Romanization of the Japanese term? --Connel MacKenzie 22:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

RFD discussion[edit]

Green check.svg

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.

Wiktionary is not a database of fictional species. --Yair rand 18:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel all that strongly. I supposed we should move to WT:RFV to look for attributive use. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Would you delete unicorn or mermaid? The only question is: are they words? I think so. Lmaltier 21:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it is the only question; while that is your personal policy, it is not our overall policy (not even on fr.wikt I might add). Mglovesfun (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
1st sentence of CFI: As an international dictionary, Wiktionary is intended to include “all words in all languages”.. This principle is also applied on fr.wikt. Lmaltier 21:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Including all trademarks, like these? Someone want to find attributive/generic use? Equinox 16:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If no attributive or generic use is found, the entry Pokémon may simply be moved into Appendix:Pokémon/P. --Daniel. 04:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I can vouch for both of these words being fairly common use amongst younger English kids. They usually say things like my Digimon can beat your Digimon and did you just see that Digimon digivolve? While it might not be able to be used attributively, I still think that we should have an Appendix for both of these terms that list all of the species; that way, we can cover both of these terms without having to suffer the loss of them. Razorflame 13:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think this goes for all toy brands. "My Transformer is cooler than yours. I'm getting an Action Man. She has three Barbies." Equinox 14:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
It does. Razorflame 14:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be a huge mistake to try to include every trademark in a dictionary. Equinox 03:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Does Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Brand names apply here? --Yair rand 18:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete Unicorn and mermaid are not protected names invented in 1996 to sell toys. Unless someone cites these properly according to the relevant bits of WT:NAMES, our guidelines do not allow them to remain. Michael Z. 2010-03-22 16:38 z

They are words, but if kept should be moved to translingual. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Kept for no consensus, though Yair rand is right about WT:BRAND; that's been applied several times since this entry was nominated. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

RFV discussion[edit]

Keep tidy.svg

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. 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.

Per the deletion debate, this needs to pass WT:BRAND. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The last two senses might only fall under WT:FICTION, actually. Or maybe both WT:BRAND and WT:FICTION? --Yair rand (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: [[Pokémon]] now tagged with {{rfv}}.​—msh210 (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

RFV failed, entries deleted. —RuakhTALK 19:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Loads of links need fixing: [1] Equinox 10:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
No, not that many: Special:WhatLinksHere/Pokémon. —RuakhTALK 13:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
. . . and, now we're O.K. (I never bother fixing indices, since those get generated automatically; non-content pages are obviously a non-issue; and [[MissingNo.]] is itself listed at RFV, so can get fixed up if/when it passes.) Thanks for the nudge; usually I clean up links immediately, but a few entries, such as this one and [[Spider-Man]], have so many inlinks that I procrastinate them for a while . . . —RuakhTALK 13:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


I think it is odd that Wiktionary provides definitions for a few terms related to Pokémon, but does not include that of Pokémon itself. ZFT (talk) 05:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent Pokémania[edit]

The word is now listed in and I'm definitely against listing all various Pokémon characters / related sub-words but an entry for the thing itself would not hurt. – Jberkel (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. There should at least be an entry for it, as it has definitely entered popular language by now and the majority of people are aware of it, and even use it colloquially when talking about the Pokémon Go game that has blown up recently. I feel like the decision to delete was made because some were afraid of a slippery slope where that would mean all the sub-words and species would have to be added or that other trademarked toy and game brands would also be fair game. But this may now be a special case. Also, if you look many of the other language Wiktionaries do indeed have entries for Pokémon. There are also related words to it in this one (for example Pikachu), despite the main entry not being there, which, as someone else noted, is is a bit strange. Word dewd544 (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Years ago, I attempted to create a lot of words for Pokémon species. Eventually, I understood that most are unwanted, and unattested. I created Citations:Pokémon in 2015 (after those RFD/RFV discussions above), with citations that hopefully should be able to pass WT:BRAND but I didn't create the entry because I was trying to focus on other projects instead of fictional terms, and I was curious to see how long it would take for someone else to create the entry. Presumably, anyone can create the entry with these citations. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)