Pick and choose and Pikachu: 20 years after Pokémon launched, its impact on Wikipedia remains

Translate this post
Pokemon’s 20th anniversary is upon us, so we’re looking back on their influence on Wikipedia. Photo by Jarekt, CC BY-SA 4.0.

Twenty years ago today, the first Pokémon video games launched in Japan, and that phenomenon made a lasting impact on Wikipedia: the “Pokémon test” became an argument used on Wikipedia to save articles from being deleted.

It was so named after editors used similar arguments to try to “keep” other articles—if [named Pokemon character] has an article, why shouldn’t this topic? For example, in arguing against the deletion of an article in 2005, one editor wrote “Wikipedia is not paper; if we can have articles for every minor character in Star Wars, Star Trek, and [for] each of those pesky Pokémon, we can have an article about Professor Hopper.”

The Pokémon test has left quite an impression. Years after it was last employed by Wikipedia editors, The Telegraph wrote on Wikipedia’s 15th birthday last January that “The world probably doesn’t need zillions of explanatory articles about the Japanese video game franchise Pokémon.”


Back in the earlier days of Wikipedia, each of the-then 400 Pokémon had their own article. You might not be surprised to find that Pikachu still has an article today; it’s probably the most enduring and popular creature from the series. On the flip side, you’d probably not be surprised that there is no longer an article devoted to Bellsprout.

At one point, the minor character Karen even had her own article, leading to the related “Karen Importance Test”—a defense used enough to be known by the acronym KIT.

“References to Pokemon articles have always been a running gag on Wikipedia,” long-time editor Robert Fernandez (Gamaliel) told me, but the cutely named test belies a controversial foundation. These Pokémon Wars were vitriolic enough that Fernandez stayed as far away as possible.

The conflict was a microcosm of a long-held and still living debate between inclusionist and exclusionist editors. A reader of the January Telegraph article put the former argument in a nutshell: “The number of Pokémon articles being produced in no way restricts the number of other articles being produced, so what is the complaint here exactly?” Exclusionists, closely related to “deletionists,” counter that “Often what is not said is more important than what is said.”

Outside the philosophical arguments, Fernandez notes that Pokémon were “a handy way to discuss systemic bias or content gaps by comparing particular topics to our copious coverage of Pokémon. People will write articles about whatever they are enthusiastic about and Wikipedia harnesses that enthusiasm to expand the encyclopedia.”

Today, only the most ‘notable’ of these characters and creatures have their own articles after the introduction of specific rules for fictional characters, including Ash Ketchum, Pikachu, Team Rocket, and Meowth. The majority of the creatures are named in a large series of lists.

Ed Erhart, Editorial Associate
Wikimedia Foundation

Archive notice: This is an archived post from blog.wikimedia.org, which operated under different editorial and content guidelines than Diff.

Can you help us translate this article?

In order for this article to reach as many people as possible we would like your help. Can you translate this article to get the message out?

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

It would be useful if such articles on wiki-specific trivia and assorted wiki-content reposting (like https://diff.wikimedia.org/c/communications/news-on-wikipedia/ ) were put in a specific category, so that they don’t pollute the main categories where people might be looking for original and/or important content. If that’s not possible with the current division “Community Wikipedia Technology Foundation”, please consider creating another top level category. But at any rate don’t just dump such articles in the top categories.

Nice one. My son looked deeply into photo and says he has several such cards 🙂

While the particular philosophy of “exclusionism” is probably relevant in the particular context of the Pokémon debates (where the question has always been to what *degree* to document the various fictional creatures), it should probably be noted that the divide is broadly characterized as between inclusionists and “deletionists”, who favour stricter standards for article inclusion and support the outright excision of poor-quality content.

[…] an impact on everything from gaming to television to even (surprisingly) Wikipedia, as we reported earlier this year. Neilsen L Roban certainly remembers those days: “I used to be a huge fan of Pokémon years […]

[…] Jackson problem,” kicked in after an extreme combination of edits and pageviews. The twentieth anniversary of Pokémon gave us the opportunity to tell a bit of history, given the game’s influence on the English […]