Talk:Jigglypuff

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. --Geopgeop 08:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Use Internet Archive and find it again. --haha169 (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

SSBM Rest

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.

But using Roy's counter on G&W's Down+B is even stronger. RememberMe? 23:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

SSBB

Unless someone can offer definite proof that Jigglypuff is highly likely to return in SSBB, it's considered fan speculation. 199.126.137.209 04:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe I read somewhere that the original 12 were not going to be removed, but I can't remember where. RememberMe? 23:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

This post is from 2006. It's obsolete.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 06:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Purin

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

And? Add it! -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 04:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think purin the food should have its own article. Apparently it has egg in it!

While late, if Purin is Japenese for Pudding, then Purin should have it's own page. GROH!!! Arceus493 (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Beta Tester!

Or just redirect to pudding... MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a japanese edition of wikipedia, where 'purin' has its own page. 94.168.187.254 (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it male or female?

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.Einsteinboricua 13:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Jigglypuff's gender ratio is 25:75 (male:female), so "it." -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 15:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

and i belive Jigglypuff is a female to, I think Jigglypuff looks like a she. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.201.125 (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In the case of the Super Smash Bros. series, Jigglypuff is exclusively female, which is stated on the confirmation page of Jigglypuff being in Brawl. However, it can be male in the Pokémon univierse (play Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen and catch one if you don't beleive me). So calling it "it" is proper. brickdude^_^ 16:41, 31 March 2008 (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)

Jigglupuff's gender has never been explicitly stated in the anime. Therefore, it is the ony reasonable way to reference Jigglypuff. 69.67.80.203 (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

TODO: Links to use for reference purposes.

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.
• Mentioned here
• CNN mentions it by name
• IGN names it as one of Nintendo's mascots
• Mentioned by name on CNN regarding anime's popularity
• Another mention on CNN, seems to precede the first, might not use it.
• Last found CNN ref, mentions how they're "cute" and kids can enjoy them as a result? Reading it fast...
• Nintendo website cites it as a classic in reference to toys
• Nintendo cites it as popular here (Google cache), mentions it on the special edition gameboy in the same context as Pikachu
• Game informer cites Jigglypuff as most humiliating way to lose in Smash Bros. until Waluigi is in the roster...eh, could be worked into the article
• This reveals some journal info regarding the character and cultural impact...probably footnotes, hard to tell without access. Will return with further information, storing this here for now.Article excerpt with specific mention. Small, but significant?, Another mention in the same article, this one pertaining to recognizability as a female character in the series.
• mentioned as well here in the context of infusing a like of drama into students. Unfortunately can't make use of this without an account to get the full context...
• Same problem here, though it does clearly list her as one of the "top 10" so further info might not be fully required.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)R

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard can be used to help decide if a reference is reliable. -Malkinann (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

WP: Mammals?!?!?

Just curious here as I found it really funny. WTH is Jigglypuff doing on WP:Mammals??!?!?!?! 143.106.1.39 (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Puff Up

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)

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)

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.

Thanks!

SunDragon34 (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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.

Who here can read Japanese? Maybe this article has some helpful information. It's the Jigglypuff article on the Japanese Wikipedia: プリン (ポケモン) SunDragon34 (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume you meant this? Artichoker[talk] 20:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. I hadn't figured out how to link to a different language Wikipedia. Thanks for showing me how. SunDragon34 (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you know someone who could read it? SunDragon34 (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. And sorry I don't know of anyone. But have you tried any Google searches for the development of Jigglypuff? Artichoker[talk] 20:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Bridge of Eldin glitch?

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)

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)

Okay. Thanks! SunDragon34 (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Category suggestions

Fictional characters who can stretch themselves

Comments? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Does she stretch all the time or only in her Final Smash in Brawl? Useight (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a no-brainer. In no adaptation have I seen a Jigglypuff extend its extremities. Even if it does vaguely, categorization would be innapropriate. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Just checked the cat, and it does mention bodies. So yeah don't see a reason why this wouldn't apply.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Discussion of Jigglypuff in SSB

There's not really anything about his role in SSB/M/B. There's probably reception of his role in it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

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.

_{Scott Jon Siegel (2008-01-21). "Nintendo accidentally confirms Lucario, Ness, Jigglypuff for Brawl". Joystiq. Retrieved 2009-06-04.}

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)

References

Why I mention that Jigglypuff must be unlocked

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)

This is because everyone at the Wikipedia Pokemon Project thinks every bit of in-universe information is too trival to include. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Never mind that Pokemon period are trivia...that would also explain why Pikachu is the 2nd-least covered. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

He's exaggerating for the record. Your bit was valid, though it would help if you used {{cite videogame}} with it or citing a game guide using {{cite book}}.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

GA

If this article is ever going to become GA, it needs Super Smash Bros and Pokemon Adventures info to help bulk it up. Bulbapedia has some good manga info. Referencing it is a pain though. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Marina's Jigglypuff (Legend of Thunder)

Should it be noted that Marina's Jigglypuff is shiny? Tsutarja494, the Grass Snake Editor (talk | contribs) 02:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It has different colored eyes, not body. Shiny Jigglypuff are grey. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Pudding?

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)

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)

Second. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

File:ANA B767-381 JA8578 Pokemon-Jet98.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:ANA B767-381 JA8578 Pokemon-Jet98.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	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. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402134334/http://www.mania.com/pokemon-vol-14-jigglypuff-pop_article_75704.html to http://www.mania.com/pokemon-vol-14-jigglypuff-pop_article_75704.html

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:17, 12 January 2018 (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.

---

Last updated: 05:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC) by Cukie Gherkin

Estimated finish date: March 25, 2024

Status:  Passed

100% reviewed

   

See what the criteria are and what they are not

1) Well-written

1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

1b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

2) Verifiable with no original research

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)

2c) it contains no original research

2d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism

3) Broad in its coverage

3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

4) Neutral:

4) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

5) Stable:

5) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

6) Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

6a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

,

6b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Overall:

Comments:

@Pokelego999, I am starting this review. Please let me know if you have any questions through the review process. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments from first read-through:

@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)

@Cocobb8 I've made the changes you've requested. If anything is still amiss, let me know, though a couple of notes.

1. 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."
2. 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.

Let me know if there's any other alterations I need to make or if I need to do anything about the above two points. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Pokelego999 Thanks, that checks out wording-related criteria. Will complete reference and media checks by next Monday. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Lead:

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.