• Hey everyone! The Writer's Workshop is hosting an exciting event, Trainers of Fanfiction! It's a community event focused around your characters!
  • Hello all! The staff is planning a restructuring to the forums on April 11th. Please see this announcement thread for details.

Friend Safari on Pokémon pages

Elite Bulbapedian
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
2,585
Reaction score
27
  • Thread starter
  • Staff
  • #1
So currently we do not list the Friend Safari as a possible location to encounter the Pokémon under "Game locations" on Pokémon pages.

I really don't like this, and think we need to include it somehow there. As I understand it, the reason they are not listed there is that not every single game can find them there, since not everyone necessarily has someone with that Pokémon in their Friend Safari on their Friends List.

The problem is that this hides an entire way of encountering these Pokémon. White Forest's Pokémon are dependent on the people you have in your White Forest, but we still list this on Pokémon pages because it is important to note an entire method. In fact, the Friend Safari is the only method of obtaining Pokémon specifically excluded from Pokémon pages, because even event Pokémon get noted (in a separate table).

Discussion on Talk:Friend Safari
 
Armageddon Personified
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Seeing as that talk page section is a mess, voicing my opinion here might be a little more effective.

My opinion stands as is. I'm going to use a few examples for different cases for what I believe to be the easiest way to cite the Friend Safari:
*For Pokémon that cannot be found anywhere in game except the Friend Safari, simply note on their in-game locations section that they can be found there.
*For Pokémon found elsewhere as well as the Friend Safari, make note of all locations as well as the Friend Safari.
*For Pokémon that would normally be exclusive to one of either X or Y, but can also be found in the FS, their in-game location section could read "Friend Safari" as well as "<normal location> (<X/Y> only)"

For Evolutions, I would say to only mention it as a method of obtaining if the Pokémon can only be obtained in the FS, but it's pre-evo can be found elsewhere (such as Charmeleon or Frogadier), but once again, still noting that the FS is an option alongside it.

The only remaining issue I see is what to shade in on the Availability template. To go in line with the rest of my suggestions, I would say to only shade in a certain game's box if the Pokémon can be obtained in that version outside the Friend Safari. For example, Pupitar would only have Y shaded in, and, as mentioned above, it would be noted as being found in Route 18 and Terminus Cave in Y only, as well as the FS.
 
Let's dance
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
2,021
Reaction score
54
I was honestly neutral about it at first. Yesterday, I started leaning towards favoring this, after those who want it implemented in Game Locations made their points. Also, I feel bad having to remove it all the time.

That said, I think it should be placed in the table somehow. If we are listing White Forest, which has encounters based on the NPCs in the area, why not Friend Safari?
 
Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2009
Messages
92
Reaction score
8
The way I see it is the fact that it is possible to find the Pokémon in the game via the Friend Safari is reason enough. We should list this location on the Pokémon's page. To not have it is a bad idea. Say I wanted to find out if you could get a Larvesta in X and Y. I would go to Larvesta's page and find out that I couldn't. I would most likely give up at that point. However, I know that it is possible to get Larvesta in the Friend Safari. To not list it's location is pretty much the same as lying to the reader. The reader may not know all about the Friend Safari's mechanics for example. The link would take them to the page.

Basically, it is a definite must for the Friend Safari Pokémon to have this added to their article.

Now, for those that appear in other places in the game, that's where the grey area starts to come along. I once again feel that the location should be added to the pages.

How we do this though... I think having [[Friend Safari]]{{tt|*|Not guaranteed; see page for mechanics}} or some similar note explaining it next to it would be best.
 
New Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Might as well repeat myself here for the benefit of anyone who's not read the discussion on Bulbapedia.

The lone point I've ever seen against these locations being listed is that "It's not guaranteed to find them". However, not one person arguing that point has said why that means the location should not be listed. Bulbapedia continues to list locations of Pokémon that are, as of now, permanently unobtainable along with several Pokémon that are only obtainable with the use of a forever gone event. I'd like to know why we should list the location of Pokémon such as these and not the locations of the Friend Safari Pokémon, which are forever obtainable (3DS consoles without Friend Codes currently can still have Friend Safaris [they seem to use the Friend Safari of the last Friend Code the console had], though they can't be registered in game, only on the 3DS menu locally, meaning that it's still possible to find these Pokémon even if the 3DS's internet support ends).

Given that there's barely been a day without somebody trying to add these locations to articles, only to have them reverted, it seems that most people expect them to be there.

As I've said repeatedly, Bulbapedia claims to be comprehensive about this and the way it's currently being handled is far from comprehensive. To be frank, I can't see why this discussion is necessary, it seems absurd to me to choose to omit information this important. I'm all for listing this information on the articles of every Pokémon that can be found there, regardless of if it's obtainable otherwise, simply because it's an easy way for people to check to see if that Pokémon's Hidden Ability is obtainable legitimately in game.
 
Bulbapædist
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
158
Reaction score
13
How we do this though... I think having [[Friend Safari]]{{tt|*|Not guaranteed; see page for mechanics}} or some similar note explaining it next to it would be best.
I rather think that's unnecessary. White Forest Pokemon are really in basically the exact same situation as Friend Safari Pokemon, so they should both be treated the same; and that sort of note apparently wasn't considered necessary for White Forest...

Looking back at the talk page discussion, it seems like there was only one person who actually gave an opinion against Friend Safari locations. Is that one person the sole reason we're not putting Friend Safari locations on pages? (I'm not that familiar with Bulbapedia's methods, so for all I know it could be and that's the "right way" to do it, for the time being at least.) Or was there any action by some member(s) of staff somewhere that I never saw? Because right now, I'm pretty confused about who actually needs convincing, or what the goal of this discussion is when basically everyone doing the discussing appears to agree...
 
rewrites your life
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
6,811
Reaction score
1
Not listing it all is in my opinion a really stupid decision because it doesn't make any sense to selectively ignore a perfectly viable method. Just listing it normally should be fine, but if that doesn't work too well, the next best option would probably be to come up with something similar to what is used for DPPt dongle method Pokémon (which aren't either always available depending on circumstances, exactly like Safaris).
 
Unregistered User
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
2,017
Reaction score
575
I'm surprised the info isn't on there in the first place, I assumed it would get added.
 
rewrites your life
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
6,811
Reaction score
1
I'm surprised the info isn't on there in the first place, I assumed it would get added.
As stated above, dozens of people have tried to add it on various pages, only to be reverted by someone else with a referral to the (unfounded) consensus.
 
Bulbapædist
Joined
Dec 17, 2011
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
I don't think it should be presented as a guarantee, which is what the template currently implies. And, for the record, I despise "but it's done this way here" or "but we do it for this or that" as an argument. That does not make it right, nor does it mean that the other instances are handled correctly either.

If we list it, it should be listed with a note that it is not by any means a guarantee. The same should be done for any other locations where a Pokemon is not certain to be there.
 
Bulbapædist
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
238
Reaction score
7
It should be listed, and as for it being no guarantee it is there, that's something that should be on the Friend Safari page. If it has to be on the template though, put it in a little box like on the learnlist or type effectiveness templates.
 
rewrites your life
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
6,811
Reaction score
1
And, for the record, I despise "but it's done this way here" or "but we do it for this or that" as an argument. That does not make it right, nor does it mean that the other instances are handled correctly either.
The thing is, listing it without a specification of the conditions is a lesser evil than not listing it at all, which is the first step to fix here. As it stands, it looks to most people that Bulbapedia is trying to deny the existence of the method altogether — the Friend Safari page isn't the most discoverable page if you're only looking for the Pokémon's entry itself, not shuffling through the location pages. IMO there is no room for confusion with Safari anyway since if the information was on the page, you 1) read the Friend Safari page itself and 2) wouldn't understand that you can't find Xatu on your game if you have one friend here and the game outright lays out for you that their safari contains Floette and Jigglypuff (for example), then the fault wouldn't be in the 'pedia but in the user.
 
Hang up and try again
Joined
Sep 17, 2010
Messages
1,676
Reaction score
206
If we were to start listing the Friend Safari, would we be putting "none" under the availability box? If we are, I'm fine with listing the Friend Safari, because in my eyes, the fact that it says "none" implies that the Friend Safari is not a normal capture method and research should be read into in order to fully understand the process. But then there will always be those people who don't bother to check the friend safari page and will be confused when they cannot find the Pokemon that the page states is there. We need to make the information as clear and misleading as possible, but at the same time make it practical, which is the balance we should be looking for.
 
Administrator
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
2
I'm for writing it on the page without any sort of note or stipulation. The game fully explains how the Friend Safari works when it is used. Once you use it once, you should know how it works. Additionally, if a user didn't know what the Friend Safari was, they would click the link to the page that fully explains how it works. I think any sort of note trying to explain the friend safari on every single Pokémon availability template is unwarranted and would make the entire listing unnecessarily convoluted.

I don't think it should be presented as a guarantee, which is what the template currently implies. And, for the record, I despise "but it's done this way here" or "but we do it for this or that" as an argument. That does not make it right, nor does it mean that the other instances are handled correctly either.
Key point here is consistency. We look much more foolish if similar ideas are correct some places and incorrect others. If we make things consistent as we add them, whether or not the original instances are the best way to list it, then it is not only easier to both notice at a later time that things aren't at their best AND be easier to repair because you can instantly know exactly where the problems exist, but it also makes it easier to search for and find things for the general reader. If you change styles and conventions in the middle just because someone doesn't like "how it is done this way" or "how it's done for this or that", then what you get is a bunch of confused users who can't tell which is the right way to do things, and which is the wrong way to do things (further multiplying the problem, because people would base future edits on the previous convention, while others base it on the newer convention), in addition to readers not knowing where to look for information, since based on previous instances, the newer information should be listed a certain way but isn't.

The "we do it this way already" idea is a valid precedent. The only thing wrong with it is having to repair the entire system later once everything is added (and that's only bad because we at bulbapedia tend to not be good at getting things done).
 
Undeniably the #1 Magnemite fan
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
5,724
Reaction score
23
Jo is having issues with her computer, but wanted me to say this for her:
"My 2 cents is to put the rarity as "special" then say they're in the friend safari"
 
Active Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
646
Reaction score
218
While our list may or may not be complete, it looks like not every Pokémon can be found in the Friend Safari. Unless someone found a Rattata, looks like it is not in the Friend Safari, so we should include the Friend Safari in the game data. And as stated before, it is similar to White Forest. And maybe there can be an asterisk noting what friend codes can make the Pokémon appear.
 
Under the Rainbow
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
3,119
Reaction score
2
Would it be possible to make a separate parameter for the Friend Safari like the Pal Park, Pokéwalker, and Dream World?
 
Active Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
646
Reaction score
218
Would it be possible to make a separate parameter for the Friend Safari like the Pal Park, Pokéwalker, and Dream World?
Would it be necessary considering the small amount of confirmed Friend Safari Pokémon? And what would we have in the Friend Safari parameter? The type? That could be obvious. The friend code required? I think that would take a lot of digging into the game. Might as well list Friend Safari as a XY area in availability. All the details can just be found on the Friend Safari page.
 
Bulbapædist
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
158
Reaction score
13
Whatever's decided, I do think the same thing should be done for both White Forest and Friend Safari. Personally, I'm in favor of simply treating them like other run-of-the-mill Pokemon locations (like Route ##) and listing them directly under whatever games; but if people want to create a new section for Friend Safari just because the findable Pokemon are variable, then the same should be done for White Forest. (White Forest is probably "worse" than Friend Safari, really, given its restrictions (mostly: you can only have 10 inhabitants at any time; but also: (short of resetting/trading) you have to use local Wi-Fi (Entralink)).)
 
Last edited:
Active Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
646
Reaction score
218
By the way, there has been a confirmed list. Bluesun found it in a Japanese guide. Apparently there are three slots per type (two before your friend defeats the Elite Four). And in each slot, there are four Pokémon randomly chosen, some have only three with one having a 50% chance of appearing. So that really limits the amount of possible Pokémon found in the Safari. So if you haven't found Rattata, that is because the Normal type Safari is already full with all 12 possible Pokémon. So, it not any Pokémon that can be found. It is only 12 possible Pokémon of each type, making it a total of 12 * 18 (2 * 8 = 16, 10 * 8 = 80, 2 * 10 = 20, 10 * 10 = 100, 16 + 80 = 96 + 20 = 116 + 100) = 216. And accounting the Pokémon that has 50% chance instead of 25%: Braixen, Pancham, Frogadier, Diggersby, Espurr, Dwebble, Barbaracle, Bergmite, Gabite, Fraxure, Noibat, Druddigan, Sliggoo, Shuppet, Lampant, Phantump, Pumpkaboo, Ferroseed, and Klefki subtracts 19 from the total (216 - 19 = 197). Fletchinder, Venomoth, Dedenne, Sneasel and Mawile are found in two Safaris. 197 - 5 = 192. Floette comes in three flower colors. 192 - 2 = 190. So there are a total of 190 obtainable Pokémon in the Friend Safari. (718 / 190 (190 * 4 = 760 - 718 = 42) = 3R42) So the Friend Safari has less than a third of the Pokémon in the National Dex. Almost a fourth. So what is the big deal? There won't be much of a problem if we started putting Friend Safari on Pokémon pages since we don't have to do it to the other 528 Pokémon. That is why I strongly vote to add Friend Safari to the Pokémon found in the Friend Safari because they are still a minority and it is not like the GTS where you can get any Pokémon. It is just another place to find some Pokémon. And since only 24 Kalos Pokémon appear, I would want Friend Safari on even Pokémon that can be found somewhere else in Kalos, like Helioptile can be found on Route 9 and Friend Safari. In cases where Pokémon would have to be traded, bred or evolved, Friend Safari overrides them. And Pokémon like Pupitar which would have been version exclusive if it weren't for Friend Safari. Don't know what's going to happen to them in the Version Exclusive page, but for Pupitar's area template, we would list Friend Location with a small X and list Route 18, Terminus Cave and Friend Safari with a small Y, similar to what we do with Pokémon that appear less often in one version than another, such as Weedle. So, I strongly vote to have the Friend Safari listed on these pages, since it is a lie of omission to not include them. And I don't think we need to list what type themed Safari or slot unless we include what floor of buildings Pokémon can be found in or who needs to be present in the White Forest.
 
Top