513
edits
User talk:Ataro/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
→{{p|Keldeo}}: well
m (→{{p|Keldeo}}) |
(→{{p|Keldeo}}: well) |
||
| Line 180: | Line 180: | ||
Well, I haven't read the Three Musketeers, though this does make me want to, but I think Keldeo is part of the other 4, they all have the same special ability and [[Sacred Sword (move)|signature move]] (though Keldeo one level later), so I wouldn't call them a trio. --[[User talk:Venomoth|☯ ]][[User:Venomoth|*Ɣℯ№ӎօṫհ*]][[User talk:Venomoth| ☯]] 22:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC) | Well, I haven't read the Three Musketeers, though this does make me want to, but I think Keldeo is part of the other 4, they all have the same special ability and [[Sacred Sword (move)|signature move]] (though Keldeo one level later), so I wouldn't call them a trio. --[[User talk:Venomoth|☯ ]][[User:Venomoth|*Ɣℯ№ӎօṫհ*]][[User talk:Venomoth| ☯]] 22:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
: Yes but in the story he isn't really counted as one (hence the three musketeers) [[User:Ataro|Ataro]] 22:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC) | : Yes but in the story he isn't really counted as one (hence the three musketeers) [[User:Ataro|Ataro]] 22:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
:: No one's arguing against the basis and inspiration being the Three Musketeers, but I'm saying for the sake of {{pkm}} it's part of the set. I think it's awkward just leaving it out like that. In the other cases of related {{pkm}} in [[Legendary trio]] it's the [[trio master|leader]] who's excluded, but Keldeo left out just leaves him as a legendary, non-leader, seemingly oxymoronically unimportant (but of course he is because he's a legendary) all alone, it's just wrong. They should either all be there (which is wrong because there 4, not 3) or none of them should - "All for one, and one for all". --[[User talk:Venomoth|☯ ]][[User:Venomoth|*Ɣℯ№ӎօṫհ*]][[User talk:Venomoth| ☯]] 23:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC) | |||