Talk:Butterfree

Untitled

--Just thought I'd bring this up here: I removed the "information" about Butterfree dying after mating in the anime. That was false info that was not actually present in the Japanese version (or any other version), but someone said it was, and it spread like wildfire... Ketsuban (is 1337) 03:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You might want to add a note in the Anime Appearances section that says something similar to "It is popularly believed that in the original Japanese episode, Butterfree died, but this is in fact false." I'd add it myself but I have no idea if your information is valid or not. :) --Dalkaen 12:33, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Well, we COULD assume that since dying and "going away forever" probably aren't easily mistranslated, that it could be perceived that FUNi removed it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:03, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

This a 4Kids joint. FUNimation doesn't have a hand in Pokemon's script. It's an easy mistake to make though, since they distribute some 4Kids shows (most notably Yu-Gi-Oh!). Onikage725 17:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

"Butterfree is better at Zerging than most Bug Pokémon." What the hell is Zerging? Is this a legitimate Pokémon term, or with this some silly vandal? DanPMK 11:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think "Zerging" refers to the "Zerg rush" tactic... but I don't see how that would be possible in a turn-based RPG. Butterfree's Speed stat isn't that high; if you want to Zerg rush, use Scyther, Ninjask, or Yanma instead. --Luigifan 12:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sleep power/stun spore and compound eyes

I would like to point out that compound eyes only increases accuracy by 30%. Sleep powder and stun spore both have 75% accuracy. 75% * 1.3 = 97.5% The claim that their accuracy is boosted over 100% is not true. --Pasajero 15:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

GA review

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.

---

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

Nominator: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 06:55, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: 11WB (talk · contribs) 10:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Well-written?

Lead

• 'and that Butterfree evolved from Venonat due to Butterfree's similarities to it.' > 'and that Butterfree evolved from Venonat due to their similarities.' - Trim redundant repetition.

  Fixed

• 'In the Pokémon anime, Butterfree is a Pokémon of protagonist Ash Ketchum, evolving from a Caterpie he caught.' - Can we specify the episode title here?

  Fixed

The lead is written with no issues otherwise!

Conception and development

• The entire first two paragraphs of this section simply explains what Pokémon is, with no specific relevance to Butterfree. Personally, I don't think this necessary, and one line would probably be enough. Take a look at what I did at User:11WB/Necrozma#Design and development. This should, in my view, be trimmed.

  This isn't really negotiable, as these two paragraphs are included per multiple discussions that came about due to the belief that Pokémon needed explanation as a concept (such as in Raichu's featured article candidacy).

Per our discussion on Discord, this can be disregarded. 11WB (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

• 'finding that Caterpie resembled an Asian swallowtail' - I would change 'finding' to 'suggesting'.

  Fixed

• 'like those butterflies have.' > 'which members of that species of butterfly have.'

  FIxed

• The last sentence switches to present tense, such as the word 'gains' instead of 'gained'. MOS:TENSE instructs us to write past events in past tense, so this sentence needs to be edited to follow that guideline.

  Fixed

• The design subsection should be merged with the prior paragraph, with one line from the first paragraph of this section explaining what Pokémon is leading as the first sentence of said paragraph.

Disregarded. 11WB (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Appearances

• 'Pokémon Go and the Pokémon Trading Card Game.' - Is it not also available in Pokémon Trading Card Game Pocket?

  I tend to not really mention TCG Pocket unless there's something particularly worth mentioning, as most Pokemon also appear in Pocket.

Fair enough. 11WB (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

• 'In the related anime - I don't think the inclusion of the word 'related' is necessary here, as the article is about a species of Pokémon. Mentions of the anime are almost certainly going to be the Pokémon anime specifically, with other animes being specifically named otherwise.

  Fixed

• 'before Ash traded back for it.' - I feel this could be worded better.

  Reworded

• 'who Ash helps him woo.' - I don't think the word 'woo' is encyclopaedic, specifically WP:INFORMAL. That word should be replaced with a synonym.

  Reworded

• 'Ash allows Butterfree to go with this other Butterfree' - Wording issue with 'this other'. This risks reading like a fandom entry. This should be changed to say 'Ash allows Butterfree to go with a mate' or 'with a male/female member of the same species'. I don't know the gender of Ash's Butterfree, so choose the correct gender here according to the sources.

  Addressed, I believe

• 'despite his sadness over his departure.' Repetition of the word 'his', this can be replaced with 'its'.

  Fixed

Reception

• 'and who was useful against in-game opponents early in the game' - This reads weirdly.

  Reworded

• 'but that it petered off eventually and largely became useless.' - This is on the edge of reading like being written like a fandom entry. Unsure about the use of the word 'petered', but it probably doesn't violate INFORMAL.

  I'm not sure what you mean? This part is just describing what the write said in the article.

This appears to have been edited now. 11WB (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

• 'a meme due to its emotion.' - 'Its' meaning Butterfree's emotion, or our emotion?

  Fixed and changed to emotional impact

• 'for Ash for him' - Reads weirdly due to repetition, this should be reworded.

  Fixed

• 'which he argued contrasted with the "uncontrolled destiny" of Butterfree's. - Of Butterfree's what?

  Fixed

• 'He also argued that Ash and Butterfree's relationship is like a father-son one' > 'He also argued that Ash and Butterfree's relationship resembled that of a father and son.'

  Fixed

• 'certain features of Butterfree's, including its fangs, antennae, eyes' - No connective needed here, drop 'including its and the preceding comma.

  Fixed

This article is mostly written fine, with some MOS:TENSE and INFORMAL issues that require wording changes. 11WB (talk) 10:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

This criteria is passed. 11WB (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Verifiable?

• Ref 8: ResearchGate is not reliable. The original URL needs to be swapped for the ResearchGate URL. The information appears to be verified however. The citation itself should follow the correct Template:Cite journal format. Y

Fixed by @SunloungerFrog. Y

• Refs 10-13: This should follow WP:CITEBUNDLE. Information is verifiable. Y

Looks like this has been done. Y

• Ref 18: This is fine. Y
• Ref 20: Verifies the information, however CBR is not considered reliable and is a WP:VALNET source. I have no issues with this being included, but other editors may remove it as WP:UNDUE. Y
• Ref 21: Confirms the VA. Y
• Ref 26: No issues here. Y
• Ref 28: I can't currently access The Wikipedia Library due to this Phab task. I was supposed to ping @Samwalton9 about this, so I'll take the opportunity to do that now. This citation needs to follow Template:Cite journal. Can't verify the information at this time. ?

Fixed by @SunloungerFrog. Still can't access the source as it's paid however. Y

A bit unorthodox, but I verified the information through the preview you see when you search "The Pleasures and Pains of Pikachu" "Butterfree" in Google Scholar. This text specifically: "When Butterfree falls in love and wishes to leave Ash, he is saddened because this is the first Pokémon he caught"

Can confirm the quote is verifiable on page 471. The word finder doesn't function on SageJournals reader, so I had to find it manually. Y 11WB (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

• Ref 31: This is marked as orange on CiteHighlighter. The URL contains the word "post", which means it may be an WP:SPS. Unsure of the reliability of this. I don't know what "Morphon" is, but the information may not be verifiable in this source. Second opinion requested

• Pinging @Sergecross for another opinion on this source. 11WB (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

• Ref 32: This is fine, but the source does say that Butterfree and Venonat's inclusion together in S&V was significant. Does this not warrant inclusion? ?

This is well sourced for the most part! 11WB (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I have, I think, fixed ref 29. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@11WB, can't you access it through the Wikipedia Library courtesy link in the reference?

• Full access available to users of The Wikipedia Library.

SunloungerFrog (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I can, but I can't verify the specific information that is in the article due to the length of the paper and the lack of a working search feature. 11WB (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah I see. I was going by your comment against the reference, which doesn't say that. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

No worries. I've been having some ongoing issues with TWL. 11WB (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Likewise ref 8. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

The remaining suggestion is optional, so this is fine now. 11WB (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

This criterion is passed. 11WB (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Broad in coverage?

The sections currently included give a satisfactory picture of Butterfree. Inclusion of specific promotional coverage would be good for the reception section. 11WB (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm unaware of anything remaining to be included like that - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

This criterion is passed. 11WB (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Neutral?

No personal opinions are given in the article, and all quotes are attributed to their respective authors. 11WB (talk) 11:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

This criterion is passed. 11WB (talk) 11:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Stable?

There is no evidence of edit warring or disputes on the talk page. 11WB (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

This criterion is passed. 11WB (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Well illustrated?

The image in the infobox is fine and displays what Butterfree looks like to the reader. The article discusses the similarities in appearance between Butterfree and the Venonat family, perhaps an image showcasing this can be included? An image of Butterfree being released in the anime might also be a worthwhile inclusion. 11WB (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I added Venonat's image; I don't know that a third image could be justified, though. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

This criterion is passed. 11WB (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Discussion of Magmix

Since this source may require more discussion, I'm creating a separate section. In my research, I've found that it's owned by parent company Media Vague. The source in particular is written by Harara Shobo, who is listed as an author on reliable sources Real Sound and Impress Watch. While the about page is lacking, this is a problem with multiple Japanese sources, including Famitsu. It would create significant issues if we determined that a lacking about page made a source unreliable, as it would affect multiple reliable Japanese sources. It has also been evaluated at FAC, particularly here. Another thing is that this link affirms that there exists an editorial department. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Pinged @Serge above, but as it stands, the bylined writer of the source used in the article also writes for Real Sound, a reliable source. Unsure about the reliability of the site generally, but this specific one is probably fine. 11WB (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Result

• Everything has been taken care of and the article looks excellent. I have no remaining issues and am happy to pass this! 11WB (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

This article meets all the criteria and can be reassessed as a good article! 11WB (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2026 (UTC)