This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pokémon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
Pokémon universe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PokémonWikipedia:WikiProject PokémonTemplate:WikiProject PokémonPokémon articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about
television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can
join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the
style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
anime,
manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles
Page was vandalized
The link for the American Idol audition is now invalid due to that host removing the video for violations of its Terms of Service. Please find another source. --
Geopgeop08:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Rest isn't quite the most powerful non-charged move. Ganondorf's Warlock punch is too close to call, and Yoshi's midair down+a can easy inflict more damage against enlarged characters. Luigi's 1-in-8 forward b, Game and Watch's Number 9 on judgement are also good contenders, and one of Peach's rare turnips does at least 35%. Roy's counter inflicts roughly 1.5% of the damage recieved, giving it the greater potential then the strongest of charged attacks.
-SA-
I would guess Game & Watch's down+b is the strongest, but it depends on your defenition of "charged." 3 of Ness' PK flashes into the bucket will make it do over 100% damage.
Sorry but Rest is the same all the time meaning that when you use it you know it will strike for massive damage (as long as it hits. Oil panic is completly dependent on the opponent making it easy to prevent. Warlock punch is incredibly slow and easy to see. Rest is much faster, so fast it's all most impossibe to Counter (Roy, Marth)and can be recovered from quikly. So really it can be defined as the strongest move to use with out charging. (Actualy Warlock punch takes time to wind up which could be called targeting). —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
202.142.133.51 (
talk)
07:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The game has been released now, and yes, Jigglypuff is still an unlockable character. I've already got it. Someone should reword the page (saying that not only Jigglypuff and Kirby can jump several times, but also Meta Knight, King Dedede, and Pit... although Meta Knight and Pit's aren't really puffing up, so much as using li'l wings.) since it's very inaccurate now. I'd do it myself, but I've got to get to bed. Maybe I'll get on it tomorrow.
24.207.83.233 (
talk)
05:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Uh, "purin" is a Japanese word, based on the English word, "pudding". In Japan, Jigglypuff was called, "Purin", which means "pudding" in English. --
PJ Pete
As far as I'm concerned, female isn't an automatic gender for pink Pokémon. The female evoulution of Nidoran, Miltank, Chansey, Blissey, Illumise, and a few others are all female Pokémon, but I haven't seen any data that states that Jigglypuff is a female. So any words that indicate that Jigglypuff is a she should be changed to it.
Einsteinboricua13:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)reply
i believe Jigglypuff is female, it seems to be hinted that pokemon are male or female at the beginning of their appearance - Mcbowser 11:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
In the anime, manga, and SSB series, Jigglypuff is female. Therefore, "she" should be used when referring to any of those Jigglypuff. However, Jigglypuff has a 25% chance of being male in the main series, so "it" should be used in those cases. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
70.250.214.9 (
talk)
01:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Using this as a depository for references to keep track of them until I put them in the article:
Adam Sessler jokingly mentioning Jigglypuff as "scarier than Pyramid Head" or something like that on X-Play's top 10 video game monsters. He does this twice. Must find episode information in question to cite.
Soundtrack bits regarding "Song of Jigglypuff" to splice with American Idol mention.
I'll strike them as I add them, will add others later. If notability headhunters come forward in the meanwhile, may be best to direct them to here.--
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
05:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)reply
You do realize that none of those add anything relevant, right? They're just trivial mentions combined with worthless trivia. You're not going to build anything relevant out of them. If you want to figure out what you need, look at some of our featured character articles.
TTN (
talk)
11:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)reply
You wanted notability and reception, to be proven wrong that it could in fact be notable. People citing the character specifically in context is notability. That's my primary concern. By themselves they're worthless. En masse they cement the article. Something unnotable would not be mention specifically as often, would it not?--
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
12:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)reply
There is a difference between actual reception and using it as an example to provide context to readers.
This,
this, and
this are good examples of how to establish notability, not those.
TTN (
talk)
13:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)reply
You know, this might sound completely crazy for you, but I think you're overshooting the scope of what you're going to get. Comparing the amount of possible information you could get on Jigglypuff vs. any Star Wars character, given that Star Wars has an "all ages" fan base and a massive expanded universe to fall back on while Pokemon has...Pokemon...yeah that's just not a good matchup. Any Star Wars character will have a ton more information available than randomvideogame character most the time. Really right now I'm aiming for Everyday Good with this. Featured would require Nintendo to suddenly dump a ton of information on people. I'll read the sections regardless, might give ideas on a few ways to work some information in I'm struggling to.--
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
13:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)reply
I said that they were examples, not standards. They just show the kind of information you need, not the amount. None of those actually contain good information, unlike the ones featured in those articles. That's what I'm pointing out here.
TTN (
talk)
13:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Well your scope isn't what it should be then. The American Idol bit looks ridiculous by itself for example, but gives a place to first anchor the track Nintendo made for the character based around it's little song. And then it gives an anchor to this [
little part] by
B.D. Kuchera on the matter that brings a bit more relevance and ties a little into reception for its Smash Bros. counterpart. Jason, Jabba and the Emperor will always have a ton more information readily citable for themselves TTN. They've had comic series, side stories, films and so on dedicated to them. Jigglypuff's main strength as an article is going to land up coming from recognizability and popularity with fans and non-fans alike.--
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
13:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)reply
That's just some random blog by someone that doesn't seem to have any credentials (the article that you linked states that that the film guy is different than the blogger). The overall popularity isn't the factor here. The factor is the quality of the sources and information. None of these are of the quality we expect on this site.
TTN (
talk)
13:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)reply
My mistake then. Apparently though that fellow's blog has been cited here on wikipedia before, so it might do someone good to go through and contend with that.
On topic though, TTN this isn't a central character to the series, and outside of Japan and little kids one that isn't going to have a massive impact, especially since Nintendo has made use of it less and less as a mascot as they increase the number of Pokemon per game. But it still gets mentioned readily when the subject of the game comes up, its still one of the most recognizable and plasted on items by Nintendo, thus it's notable. As it stands at least the information I'm trying to gather here is superior to
Pikachu's article. I mean if *that* thing can't get more pop culture...
Really I'd rather if you want to object to the sources, at least try and help find some that could be used to better effect. I'd rather work with you to make a good article out of this than against you so we end up wasting both our times.--
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
14:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Unless it's cited in a FA or a quality GA, I doubt it'd be accepted anywhere else. You just described why this doesn't require a full article. It definitely deserves more notice than the rest, which can easily be done with the list entry. The main difference between this and Pikachu is that if it would actually be worked on, it would likely produce good quality sections. It certainly isn't completely set in stone, but it is a lot more likely than this one. If I recall correctly, there was already fairly thorough search for sources while the entire merging process was being figured out. Nothing of any real impact was found.
TTN (
talk)
14:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Lots of little references establish notability. Insisting this article must be made as good as one of our fiction FAs else it will be redirected is a non-starter and is going to lead to arbitration. - 14:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Did I state that it needs to be FA quality? No, I stated that this needs quality reference, as any other article on this site needs. Take those and what's in the article and just try to build a good reception section. You won't get very far without having to stretch them quite a bit.
TTN (
talk)
15:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Rreply
The article states:
An exact limit to the size it can grow to in this manner is unknown
While this is true, shouldn't it be mentioned the colossal size she inflates to when she uses her final smash in
Super Smash Bros. Brawl?
24.226.77.23 (
talk)
03:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)reply
That quote you provided implies that Jigglypuff can most likely inflate to enormous sizes. I see no reason to mention anything about an attack Jigglypuff has in a game. Artichoker[talk]14:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The making of Jigglypuff
This article really needs a section on Jigglypuff's original conception and development. Does anyone know of a source such as an interview with the creator of Jigglypuff? Who is credited with creating Jigglypuff? What inspired Jigglypuff's design? Is there a story behind the character's progress from idea to video game character?
If anyone has access to a printed source that explains the making of Jigglypuff, please help to create this section.
To be completely honest...I don't think anything about how each character was thought up was really published or stated publicly.--
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
12:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)reply
But there's got to be something we can put in the article. How about a brief paragraph on the conception of Pokémon in general, with a "main article" reference to the article that describes it in detail? Hmm...I can't imagine Nintendo has never made a statement on Jigglypuff.
Someone recently tried to add information on the Bridge of Eldin glitch on Super Smash Bros. Brawl. The glitch is real--Jigglypuff can become trapped in a large form if he uses his final smash while the bridge is materializing on top of him. If this should be included, should it be in the SSBB article or in this article? Is this even notable enough for the encyclopedia?
SunDragon34 (
talk)
17:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Glitches tend to not be included unless they're really significant (i.e. MissingNo., wavedashing) and are recognized by major sources. Jigglypuff's glitch there really shouldn't be included, unless to add "this can result in glitches." regarding the move and a citation to said glitches on a reliable site.--
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
17:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Actually I added it anyway. Jigglypuff does "extend" itself in the anime when air is forced into it, such as its first appearance when Misty tries to use a balloon to help it get its voice back. It's hard to tell though given the name of the category, but since it's described like a balloon and the category isn't specific on just *what* stretches...it makes sense to me.--
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
19:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)reply
I removed it. One of the problems is also that the article does not cite this particular ability/skill. Reason why the category wasn't included to
Piccolo was that it was something tangent of the character. He's probably a better example than Jigglypuff anyway.
Lord Sesshomaru (
talk •
edits)
20:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)reply
What exactly do you mean? Heh... she (it's discussed up there in this very same discussion thread) never has a very leading role. She's just a fan character, got in because it's one of the most loved and known pokemon. Even in the Subspace Emissary she is a secret door character (i.e. you have to enter a door to unlock it). I still respect her a lot as a character though. --
89.180.236.180 (
talk)
03:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Jigglypuff and Lucario slip for Brawl
Jigglypuff was confirmed to be a playable character in Super Smash Bros. Brawl due to an unintentional leak. The leak, which took place on Nintendo's official smashbros.com, detailed that certain stickers could only be applied to certain characters. The characters they made reference to were Jigglypuff and Lucario. Their icons could be seen in the bottom-right corner. After realizing their mistake (which only took place in the Japanese section of the site) they quickly remedied the situation. Lucario and Jigglypuff can no longer be seen but there are various YouTube videos which show footage of the leak, as well as screen shots. [1]
Want to put that on the page somewhere? I found a joystiq article on it and then saw that it is a reliable source. --
Blake (
talk)
13:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)reply
I mention it because it because it is mentioned in the articles concerning other unlockable characters in SSB. Honestly, compared to the other 11 characters who have appeared in all three SSB series, Jiggly has the least written about his appearances in the series.
Purplebackpack89 (
talk)
22:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)reply
KFM removed the reference that stated "Purin" is the Japanese word for pudding; I suggest we put it back in, since プリン is indeed the way pudding is spelled in katakana, and since we have a
reliable source from IGN stating that as the origin for the name. かんぱい!
Scapler (
talk)
16:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)reply
If no one responds here, I will add it back then, as no one has presented compelling evidence to doubt this reliable source. かんぱい!
Scapler (
talk)
01:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)reply
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
I have just modified one external link on
Jigglypuff. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
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.
Last updated: 19:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC) by Cukie Gherkin
2a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline
2b)
reliable sources are
cited inline. All content that
could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)
@
Pokelego999: The article reads quite well! I do have a couple things I'd need to see fixed. I know it's a lot: if you need some time to revise those, I can put the GA review on hold for now. Let me know!
Cocobb8 (💬
talk • ✏️
contribs)
12:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Cocobb8 I've made the changes you've requested. If anything is still amiss, let me know, though a couple of notes.
Balloon is indeed meant to be capitalized, as in the series itself, Pokémon have "categories" that are used as descriptors, which use capitalization. Jigglypuff's is "Balloon Pokémon."
The line at the start of the Appearances section is per a template used at the start of all Pokémon species articles. The sentence is there as a result and has been used- with naming alterations- on other GAs, such as
Tinkaton and
Chandelure.
Jigglypuff is also very well known for singing a lullaby in the Pokémon anime series. Two things here. First, could you wikilink to the anime series here instead of in the second paragraph? Second, consider changing part of the sentence to is also known, as very well known seems like an audacious claim.
Design and characteristics:
Jigglypuff is a fictional species of Pokémon created for the Pokémon franchise. We already know this? Either remove it or merge it into the first sentence of the article. I know it's needed as the next few sentences are about the franchise, but that sentence can be re-worked.
Deciding to use a name better suited for its jelly-like appearance, the species was renamed "Jigglypuff", a combination of the words "jiggly" and "puff". We already know that it's a combination of jiggly and puff as said in the lead; you may remove it. The only reason you should leave it here is if you wanted to explain more about that part of the sentence, which I don't think you would here.
Known as the Balloon Pokémon (...) Is capitalizing Balloon necessary?
In video games:
Jigglypuff first appears as one of the one hundred and fifty one species of Pokémon in the Pokémon Red and Blue versions. Again, repetition. Consider removing it, unless you want to expand that sentence to include new information.
Since Pokémon X and Y, it is a dual Normal/Fairy type. As someone who has no idea what Pokemon is about, I'm not totally sure what Normal/Fairy type is. How about a little explanation in just a couple words?
(...) game director Masahiro Sakurai selected it to appear due to its similarities to Kirby (...). To appear in what? I know it's in the Smash Bros video games, but you might want to clarify it.
(...)instead of recovering Jigglypuff's health like in its home series(...). What is home series referring to?
In anime:
Jigglypuff's singing can often prove problematic to the series' protagonists, as it causes all around to fall asleep. Is all around referring to everyone (people) around? Might want to be more accurate here.
Jigglypuff's appearances began to decline, eventually making one last appearance in Pokémon: Advanced. It remained absent from the series until Pokémon the Series: Sun and Moon, where it once again became a recurring character. Move in its own paragraph (and potentially expand it if needed), to show that it's not related to Jigglypuff's behaviour in the Pokemon anime series.
Promotion and reception:
A Jigglypuff Bluetooth speaker was made by GameStop’s ThinkGeek brand, and has been published by the Federal Communications Commission. Should it say and has been approved by the Federal Communications Commission instead?
@
Pokelego999: The article complies with all Manual of Style guidelines, though I've removed some
duplicate links. No issues there. Conducting a spot-check of sources for verifiability, no issues found. I ran Refill, Copyvio detector and IABot, no issues found there either, besides me removing citation 21 (Wikipedia source). This checks out all criteria under 2).
The article is quite stable, no issues found checking the article's history and talk page.
The article is appropriately supported by images, all of which tagged with relevant copyright templates.
This concludes my review of this article.
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.