Talk:Cubone

Cubone -> Q-Bone?

Are there any official sources relating the origins of the Cubone's English name? I get the idea from the text that the suggested origins are merely speculations. Personally, I wonder if the name Cubone might not derive from the word T-Bone. --TheFinalFraek 19:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC), a proud Cubone-lover

Pretty much all of these speculations on name origins and meaning of japanese names are original research, and should be removed accordingly TheBilly (talk) 23:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

https://pokemondb.net/ is a database which u can use. search up the pokemon you want, then scroll to the very bottom, and it haves the name origin. for cubone, it is cub - bone The Dino-Pi (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Fur?

I could've sworn that not too long ago, the page said that it was unsure whether cubone was a reptile like charmander or had fur? Unless there's been new information about cubone, which is entirely possible. I'm just curious.

Ref dropping

IGN Rank 98 DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Article notability

In order to avoid disruption and because I know some things may not necessarily be discussed on Wiki, I am testing the method of asking before nominating anything for AfD. So @Cukie Gherkin: I am curious what the WP:THREE best sources for this article is. I know it got a profile from IGN but cannot find anything else significant. While it got kept at AfD as well, that was before stuff like ScreenRant, GameRant and Comicbook.com got declared churnalism and unsuitable for notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]
5. [5]
6. [6]
7. [7]

These sources discuss Cubone and provide it significant coverage. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Gamepro is mentioning a single visual aspect, so it's tough to call it significant per se, at least by the definition in WP:SIGCOV. Per WP:PERENNIAL, LifeWire (Source 2) is listed as a situational source, so I wouldn't say it counts towards notability, neither does source 5 due to it being WP:PRIMARY. Unless I'm going crazy, 6 seems totally unrelated and is just a Lets Go review.

The book (7) talks about Cubone's Mother (Marowak) rather than Cubone. So needless to say it's not related to this article's notability from what I can tell. 3 I'm not sure about, but most of its mention of Cubone is pure plot summary so I'd err on the side of trivial for anything besides Lavender Town itself.

So in my analysis IGN is still the sole significant reliable source. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter and whether it's just intractable as a disagreement. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The standard applied to GamePro is not something borne out of WP:SIGCOV, as being about "a single visual aspect" in no way can possibly affect whether the coverage is significant. What matters is whether the discussion about that single visual aspect is significant or not, and it is.

As far as situational sources go, being situational does not affect a source's usability to demonstrate notability, and I've never seen people argue that being situational by itself affects whether it can impact notability, so I find this highly disagreeable. The only thing that matters with respect to usability is why it is situational. Perennial sources does not contend that situational sources are not notable, and makes a point to say when a source should or should not be used. In this case, authors should be established experts, and Nadia Oxford is someone who has been doing games journalism for USgamer, IGN, 1UP.com, and more since 2004, which would certainly qualify.

This is not a primary source, it is not an interview with anyone involved in Pokémon in any way. This is not an article about the Skull Crawlers, after all.

Cubone does not have the same name in Chinese or Japanese (one must search either "Cara," "Gara," or "Kara" if Google translating).

The book may be primarily about Marowak, but the coverage is also directly relevant to Cubone. The story of Cubone and Marowak is itself inherently about both, you can't really divorce one from the other.

I would also contend that the sheer number of sources covering the urban legends surrounding Cubone is itself significant coverage, a death by 1000 cuts thing on top of the pieces of sigcov either entirely about Cubone or significantly about it.

Splitting for convenience on the Bloody Disgusting source. The Bloody Disgusting source is not pure plot summary. This paragraph: "Aside from the spooky music and immaterial wraithlike ghosts, Cubone’s tale is given some real love, making it incredibly touching and bittersweet in the most heartfelt way. Often known as the “scary” part of Pokemon, Let’s Go’s Lavender Town gives Cubone a real presence for the first time ever, as it climbs the steps of the Pokemon Tower searching for its dead mother. It is implied that Cubone knows that she was murdered, but is tragically unsure of what this means for it." And in the next paragraph, "These tragic elements are important because they are made central to the horror her[e]." And in another paragraph, "The previously unwritten parts of Lavender Town’s horror story are given a narrative for the first time in the history of Pokemon. Lavender Town is still scary, but there’s meaning in the horror. Cubone’s own horror story doesn’t end in tragedy but in new hope. Let’s Go tames the horror of Lavender Town without being overtly cheesy or cringy. It’s a sincere way of giving Cubone closure and highlighting the transition between Lavender Town’s iterations in Gen 1 and Gen 2." The next paragraph, "Ultimately, the horror of Lavender Town is stripped of its power for the most part, as the touching story upon which this part of the game is based on comes front and centre. The horror is still very much there; however, it’s tamed by a cathartic tale telling the story of the bond shared between parent and child, and the recognition of the fact that, as Japanese author Haruki Murakami would say, “Death is not the opposite of life but an innate part of it.” From Marowak’s untimely and unjust death at the hands of Team Rocket, Cubone draws strength, which culminates in Marowak’s restless soul being soothed." The following paragraph: "The uncanny music is tamed by Cubone’s evocative tale, and the resolution of this tale offers more in the way of a sense of remedy than any previous iteration of Gen 1 offered." And the final paragraph: "Cubone, despite having gone through tragedy, says farewell to its mother and develops a bond with a loving trainer, allowing it to evolve into a Marowak itself by the end of the game. It’s subtle, but it’s truly sweet." The author goes into extreme detail on their own perspective and feelings on Cubone's story. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd maintain that even if an AfD might not necessarily be warranted, merging this content into Lavender Town would make a great deal of sense. It appears that Cubone (and Marowak for that matter) is almost entirely notable in the context of that Lavender Town event involving Team Rocket and Pokemon Tower, rather than being a character one encounters across the entire game. This very narrow amount of notability WP:OVERLAPs with Lavender Town heavily and is tied into Lavender Town's appeal as an area.

So my verdict is that, besides the Skull Crawler thing (which is ultimately just WP:TRIVIA - things are inspired by other unrelated pieces of fiction all the time) Cubone is so inextricably tied to Lavender Town that it's unnecessary to separate the two. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree. While there is obviously crossover between the two, the level of discussion about Cubone would constitute undue weight in Lavender Town. It's also possible for both Cubone and Lavender Town to be notable from the same event. The content that is directly discussing Cubone in Lavender Town on top of the content discussing its design, the urban legends surrounding Cubone, and more are more than enough to justify why Cubone is fine to be a separate article. As it is, I don't think a merge or AfD discussion would be fruitful, as I feel that the result would likely be the same as the previous one, even with the current feelings on Valnet. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

As for the Kangaskhan relation, that theory has been put to rest because Kangaskhan (with Baby already in pouch) was designed way before Cubone existed. Their index numbers prove this; https://m.bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_by_index_number_in_Generation_I. It’s been well documented that Rhydon was the very first Pokémon to be created; https://shmuplations.com/pokemon/, https://web.archive.org/web/20220211232338/https://www.glitterberri.com/pokemon-red-blue/game-freak-staff-interview/creating-the-pokemon/, https://lavacutcontent.com/sugimori-masuda-developer-interview/, https://adobe-outdesign.tumblr.com/post/687235492439375872/thoughts-on-kangaskhan/amp and its index number is one, the index numbers most likely indicate which Pokémon was made first. Vaati the Wind Demon (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The truth of the Kangaskhan urban legend is immaterial to whether it received significant coverage, which it did. The sources are not being used to establish the truth of the urban legend, but the existence and discussion of it. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)