Jump to content

Talk:Eevee

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Names of Grass and Ice Evolutions Revealed

[edit]

The Japenese names are Grass is Leafia and Glacia [1]

Um since when Eevee is a rabbit?

[edit]

It's clearly a Fennec fox hence why it has long ears83.21.139.133 (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I can think of Eevee as mostly a fox-like creature. Blacky the Bre (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@83.21.139.133 No its not a fox Fennekin is already a fennel fox 2600:1700:4300:A040:7D53:5920:C4D1:6D9A (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cabbit?

[edit]

"Eevee is a rabbit-eared feline-like Pokémon" In what way are fennec foxes like cats or rabbits? Explain this to me because I'm quite certain that it was confirmed that Eevee is in fact canine, not lapine or feline.

Unsourced and unsubstantiated design origin

[edit]

"Eevee is a rabbit-eared feline-like Pokémon" is unsourced and unsubstantiated. Even in this talk page, there are disagreements over what animal Eevee is based on. Since Pokémon are their own creatures, and since (to my knowledge) Game Freak / The Pokémon Company / Ken Sugimori has not explicitly stated what animal Eevee is based on, it's a matter of opinion whether Eevee is based on a dog, fox, rabbit, cat, or combination thereof. Additionally, the page later reads, "According to the Pokémon video games, Eevee is a mammalian creature with brown fur", which is far more appropriate and nonspeculative. The "rabbit-eared" line should be removed to avoid confusion and to prevent bias, or should be sourced if a valid source is available. Avoyt (talk) 03:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC) EDIT: Removed it myself. If it is to return, I believe it would need a source for sure. Avoyt (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Eevee/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 00:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Kung Fu Man (talk · contribs) 17:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So starting off, this is just a light pass to handle major observations. I have a few to bring up:

Infobox

[edit]

-The voice actors need to be mentioned in the article lead and body itself. The Aoi Yuki ref in particular has some additional information for her, that feels like it'd be good to have in the body.

-Eevee being a Normal-type is only mentioned in the infobox. Also I'm wondering if a better clarification of types, albeit briefly, may be good here as there's such a wide range being discussed.

Evolutions

[edit]

-the stand alone third paragraph feels like it can be combined with the first, especially since the second paragraph mentions Eeveelutions and it helps the reader understand the nature of the term.

Appearances

[edit]

-There are several uncited paragraphs, while sometimes this is okay for the purposes of individual games, for characters where they appear in various media it can help with confirmation.

-Some of the gameplay commentary needs to be approached from an angle of the reader not understanding what they're looking at. Z-Moves, Gigantimax, Z-Crystal Eevium Z on their own isn't going to make a lot of sense. You don't have to go wild, but explain these like you're talking to someone that doesn't play these games.

Promotion and reception

[edit]

-It feels like we can break this paragraph into two at Gita Jackson's statement, what do you think?

I'll do a deeper pass after, but wanted to focus on the bigger issues for now.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man I've made the requested changes. Let me know what else needs to be done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 Did some final copyediting myself, but beyound that no complaints. Spot checked sources 4, 45 and 66, all other refs also seem to be correctly handled. I'm happy to pass this. Well done, this was a hard subject to approach!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.