Talk:Legendary Pokémon

Archive #1
Archive #2

Separating Mythical and Legendary Pokémon

The matter of separating the articles of Legendary and Mythical Pokémon is in discussion because of Generation VI's newly introduced disambiguation of the term Mythical Pokémon. I have started a short draft that anyone should feel free to expand. Meanwhile, in response to Bwburke94 (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC):

A better phrasing might be "a related group of Pokémon related to Legendary Pokémon", but I'm being conservative for the time being. I haven't found evidence supporting that Mythical Pokémon are indeed Legendary (as far as Japanese media are concerned), and the fact that recent text refers to all of them collectively as "Legendary and Mythical Pokémon" makes me think they aren't. Mythical Pokémon as an English term may be relatively recent, but 幻のポケモン has always been a thing -- it has been in use on and off since 1998 (potentially even earlier, in Mew ads from 1996). It started catching on (that is to say, being used more commonly) around 2007 or 2008. Prior to that, reference to Mythical Pokémon has been generally informal, with several other terms like 特別なポケモン (Tokubetsuna Pokémon, probably a parallel to Event Pokémon) seen in official media. Ever since Gen 5, it has been in use unambiguously. You can even find a formal definition of 幻のポケモン in Pokescrap's page.

As of today (arguably since Gen 5) the same holds for Mythical, as there is no reference of Mythical Pokémon being Legendary anywhere, as far as I know. Even cases like Deoxys, where 幻のポケモン was originally mistranslated as Legendary Pokémon, are now properly classified. The assumption that Mythical Pokémon are Legendary is natural, and the western community especially is accustomed to the convention for most of the franchise's life, with the proper term coined years after its Japanese counterpart (granted, the term Rare Pokémon was once being used in places like Pokémon Ranger and announcements), but I have to ask: what's the point of including Mythical Pokémon in the Legendary Pokémon page when they aren't officially referred to as Legendary Pokémon? Saving clicks? Is an encyclopedia's mission to pander to the community's fondness of obsolete terminology, or is it to be accurate and in-line with the series' current conventions and lore? Ash Pokemaster (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Bulbapedia's mission is not necessarily to be official, it's to be an informative English-language Pokémon encyclopedia, which happens to be a mission that involves official sources. Since we're just going in circles again, let me just point out that when the community searches for "Legendary Pokémon", they expect to find info on Mew, Celebi, Jirachi, et cetera in addition to those normally obtainable within their debut generation. Splitting the page would also have the effect of splitting Mew and Keldeo from their respective legendary "families", to the detriment of the wiki. In addition, my position since the start of English-language Gen V has been that mythicals are a subset of legendaries, and as I pointed out last time we talked about this, North American Super Smash Bros. for Wii U backs me up, while you have not cited an English-language source in your argument. Bwburke94 (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I suppose that we principally disagree on whether Bulbapedia's coverage should be based strictly on canonical sources (which exclude contradicting English-language sources which commonly include mistranslations, although this may also be a matter of argument) or be more in-line with fans' expectations. I will admit I have no source that downright states "Mythical Pokémon are not a subset of Legendary Pokémon", but what's the point of the "Legendary and Mythical Pokémon" statement if the latter aren't a separate group? It would be a redundancy. Your NA Smash Bros. argument only augments my point, if only because the difference between the European and the NA version simply proves that there's an existing ambiguity that the more careful sources (ie. the ones that don't spell Onix as "Onyx") take under consideration. Besides, why should it be taken under consideration over the European translation? What makes it inherently more valid?

I will agree that this is most likely going to go in circles. It would be better to let other people weigh in. --Ash Pokemaster (talk) 07:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

People expecting to find Mythical Pokémon when coming to this page can be solved with a hatnote and in-article prose. However, we should be using official definitions whereever possible. --SnorlaxMonster 09:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

SnorlaxMonster and Ash Pokemaster, I get what you're implying, and I see your reasoning, but do you actually have a source that directly states mythicals are not legendaries? Bwburke94 (talk) 11:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is an official source that explicitly shows they're separate groups that don't overlap: Corocoro. In either October or November 2014 - can't remember which - Corocoro promised that every Legendary Pokémon would be available for capture in ORAS. Come the games' release, we saw that this didn't include Mythical Pokémon. EpicDeino (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Corocoro is a Japanese source, and the debate is over the English terminology. However, both the US and UK official ORAS sites made the same claim, albeit with different wording, stating that "between XYORAS, all Legendary Pokémon will be obtainable". Bwburke94 (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

No, the debate is not on the English terminology, but on the group to which it refers. They're still called Legendary and Mythical whether Bulbapedia says Mythical is a subset or a separate group. In fact, the page has actually called Mythical by the same name under both circumstances in the past. that isn't being debated right now. What is being debated is whether Mythical Pokémon, a group which exists in other languages as well and is NOT exclusive to the English language, is separate from Legendary. This has absolutely nothing to do with the name of the group when the group itself is the same in the other languages - the idea of things having different names in different languages applies to basically everything else in Pokémon as well, and doesn't prevent foreign language sources from being used as evidence when the subject itself remains identical. EpicDeino (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The debate is on the group to which it refers in English, so this is indeed over English terminology. Bwburke94 (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but... I don't understand what you mean? As I JUST explained, the group exists in every language. The group, which is consistent throughout every language, is referred to in English as Mythical, but still exists, albeit by various other names, in other languages - like everything else in the series, actually. I even provided a link to the French encyclopædia Pokémonis as proof of the group's existence in other languages. The name has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about. By your logic, no Japanese source could be used for anything that has a different name in English. To reiterate from my previous post: we aren't debating the name of the group. We're debating whether or not said group, which exists in every language, albeit with a different name because it is translated like everything else in the series, is separate from Legendary, another group which exists in every language, again with different names because it is translated like everything else in the series. Please, explain why having a different name would prevent a group that is otherwise completely consistent between languages from being considered the same thing when everything else in the series is in the same situation. EpicDeino (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Mythical Pokémon = Events?

I know for a fact that the only difference I have found from Legendary and Mythical Pokémon is that most Mythical Pokémon are usually event exclusive with even stats all over (most of the time) and that Legendary Pokémon are usually found towards the ends of games and commonly have higher stats than Mythical Pokémon (not counting Mega Diancie). BowserBrowser (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It's actually even simpler than that. Legendaries are available in-game. Mythical are unavailable in-game. Nothing else you mentioned is related. It has nothing to do with high stats versus low, or being near the end of the game, or "usually" being event-exclusive (even Deoxys, formerly Mythical, has been listed as "other" in the Japanese promotional material and simply hasn't been referenced as either Legendary or Mythical in English promotions since ORAS made it available as far as I know - being event-only is not "usually" a trait shared, but always the case), or whether stats are balanced or specialized. There is a clear-cut distinction between them. (Also, just as a side note, the definition was already on the article before you said this, so I'm not really sure what your point was? XD) EpicDeino (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah. BowserBrowser (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Deoxys

To avoid edit warring, I'm not changing the page right now (I already had changed Deoxys to say it isn't Mythical and that was reverted, so I'm pretty sure doing so again wouldn't be allowed), but I just wanted to explain the argument against Deoxys being Mythical. In the Pokémon Scrap event, where you had to collect those clippings to earn Shaymin, Keldeo and Victini, the page on the official site explicitly stated something along the lines of "Shaymin, Keldeo and Victini, like other Mythical Pokémon, cannot be normally obtained in Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire." This is an official statement that Mythical does always mean event-only, so Deoxys isn't an exception - it's just not Mythical any more. It was before, but it has officially lost the status. EpicDeino (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed this ambiguity until now. You're quite right, it wasn't referred to as a Mythical Pokémon during the ORAS promotion. Granted, it isn't referred to as a Legendary either -- just "Pokémon Deoxys". I think it ought to be classified as a Mythical for the time being, if only because otherwise we might end up revisioning multiple Pokémon way too often (for all we know special "Episodes" that feature Mythical Pokémon might become a regular thing). However, a footnote for its special status is definitely needed, and we have to revisit its situation by the time the ORAS era is over and a new Deoxys event (or game inclusion) makes appearance.

Which Pokescrap page are you referring to, by the way? The definition used in the (now archived) page simply says that Mythical Pokémon aren't available during normal play of the games. It would be interesting if it was indeed explicitly mentioned somewhere that "no Mythical Pokémon are available in ORAS" as far as Deoxys's status is concerned. --Ash Pokemaster (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, sorry; I was actually wrong (I couldn't find the page, so I was going from memory) - it doesn't explicitly state "in ORAS." Still, the promotion was for ORAS, and Deoxys has not been called Mythical since, so it should still be valid evidence, right?

Also, I'm not sure it'd be as hard as you say to fix it. I mean, if the official classification changes, we should fix it here, right? We add hundreds of pages whenever a new game comes out, so changing one Pokémon's classification wouldn't be unfeasible under the same circumstances (and even if it's mentioned in a lot of places, if we miss a page when altering it, anyone who comes across it can fix it - this isn't a one-person project or anything!). That said, we don't know what Deoxys IS considered right now, so I would be okay with holding off on changing it until we do. We should just definitely fix it as soon as we do know. XD EpicDeino (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems you've assumed that Deoxys is no longer even a "Legendary", in addition to not being Mythical either. It seems to me pretty intuitive that Deoxys must be Legendary or Mythical (and definitely not neither), but in the meantime, Deoxys's inclusion under the Legendary Pokemon section of the official ORAS site should be proof enough that it is at least Legendary. Tiddlywinks (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

"Intuitive" is not the same as "fact," and, in fact, we even have a word. "counterintuitive," to illustrate the possibility of that difference. Assuming based on logic that Deoxys is Legendary is speculation, which, as far as I'm aware, isn't allowed here. This discussion shows that the Japanese site explicitly lists Deoxys as "other" and refers to it as neither Legendary nor Mythical. The "Legendary" Pokémon list is already wrong, with this page pointing out that all Legendary Pokémon can be obtained in-game, on the same site that has a page in the Legendary Pokémon section on the Mythical Pokémon Keldeo and Shaymin. I would personally say that what they actually say about it should take precedence over where they put it on the site. That said, I'm happy to discuss further, since there is conflicting information, as you have pointed out, and a lot of it is up in the air. (I wonder if Deoxys is going to become the new Phione in regards to debate. XD) EpicDeino (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I would say, though, that if it flies so in the face of logic, you need pretty strong evidence to say something like Deoxys is neither Legendary nor Mythical (preferably more than just one little thing). As it happens, though, you have perhaps made a bad assumption about SnorlaxMonster's comment. While it is true that the Japanese ORAS site has a section for "Legendardy Pokemon" (伝説のポケモン), the fact that Deoxys is located under "Other" (その他) very much does not mean that Deoxys is neither Legendary nor Mythical, not when Mythical (幻の) is mentioned nowhere. I believe SnorlaxMonster in fact meant to say that since it's not listed under Legendary, they must consider Deoxys Mythical. In fact, if you look at that page now, you will see that Hoopa is also listed with Deoxys under "Other", so either they consider both of them Mythical or, as you assume, neither Mythical nor Legendary...despite the fact that Hoopa fits the supposed definition of Mythical to a tee. Tiddlywinks (talk) 06:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I might be able to help with what I meant by my own comment. I wasn't trying to say that because Deoxys is intentionally not listed as a Legendary Pokémon that it is necessarily a Mythical Pokémon; I was simply saying that it heavily indicated that Deoxys is not a Legendary Pokémon. To my knowledge, no official material has referred to Deoxys as Mythical since the release of ORAS, but we also do not have any evidence that it has had its Mythical status revoked, so we should continue to list it as such. I didn't notice Hoopa was listed in the "Other" section too, but that certainly is interesting; however, the section is merely "Other", so it simply means that they do not fit into the other sections on the page, not that they are both Mythical or both not Mythical. --SnorlaxMonster 06:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

This survey strongly implies Deoxys is not a Mythical Pokémon. The question says "Which of these are your favorite Mythical Pokémon? (Choose your top 3.)", and includes every Mythical Pokémon, but not Phione or Deoxys.--SnorlaxMonster 11:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to state it plainly, it is still possible Deoxys is Legendary even though it does not appear anywhere else in the survey either, since there are other reliably "Legendary" Pokemon also missing (Mewtwo, Heatran, Kyurem, and Zygarde). Tiddlywinks (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I completely did misunderstand that comment. I'm sorry. >.< I genuinely thought it said Deoxys was neither Mythical nor Legendary; it wasn't so much an assumption as completely misreading. XD That said, shouldn't that site saying it's not Legendary (even if it doesn't mention being Mythical) and the aforementioned PokéScrap site saying it's not Mythical count as proof, even if they were separate? The PokéScrap site IS proof that the Mythical status was revoked, because it specifically says ALL Mythical Pokémon are unavailable, and Deoxys was available. EpicDeino (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not proof Deoxys is neither. For my money, the Pokemon Company(/whatever) just doesn't really have its mind made up or doesn't want to make up/make known its mind on Deoxys's status, and/or there may also be some disconnect between English and Japanese branches or something. They need to paint a consistent and/or unambiguous picture, and until they do, IMO we need to avoid drawing conclusions from little, inconclusive hints. (And in the meantime, we should either consider Deoxys to provisionally have its previous status or to at least have the status that it logically deserves.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Just checked the survey you cited. It asked to pick your favorite Mythical Pokémon, and ALL Mythical Pokémon were listed. However, the Legendary Pokémon section was specifically for grouped Legendary Pokémon - it specifically says "pick your favorite pair" and "pick your favorite grouping." It never says that's every Legendary, and, in fact, it clearly says it's only counting ones that are pairs or groups. As such, the survey is reliable (although it doesn't prove Deoxys isn't Legendary - just that it's not Mythical). In contrast, it did say it was listing every Mythical Pokémon, so Deoxys (and, unrelatedly, Phione) are not counted. Can you provide any proof that it IS Mythical? Because right now, that's what we're calling it, yet even your own argument points only towards it either being Legendary if it is either, and its placement in "other" indicates that it's not Legendary. Please stop saying it deserves the status and therefore speculatively claiming it is "logically" Mythical. Speculation isn't permitted in the mainspace as far as I am aware.

I'm also aware it being "other" and not Legendary and it being available and not Mythical aren't conclusive individually. That's why I gave them both. Together, they DO prove that it is neither, because each proves that it can't be one of the two.

Also, they do seem to have made up their minds. I'm pretty sure you're just looking for an excuse to call it Mythical when it clearly isn't any more. EpicDeino (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I never said that logically it is Mythical. I tried to say that it is not really logical that Deoxys would be classified as neither Legendary nor Mythical. (And beyond that, I don't really care which way Deoxys is classified, but there should be good proof behind whatever decision gets made.)

And that's the difference between you and I. You don't want to assume anything like that, and I think it is the height of folly to presume Deoxys wouldn't be counted either Legendary or Mythical. So when you see one place that implies Deoxys isn't Mythical and one that implies Deoxys isn't Legendary, you say, then it must be neither. Meanwhile, I see the same thing and just see contradicting implications and think everyone's not on the same page who should be (if they even know which page they want to be on, that is). And since all we have are implications, neither of us actually has anything approaching proof that Deoxys is X or Y or none of the above. For both of us, it makes sense, and there's nothing starkly clear enough to decide for us who is right.

That's why I said we need a clear statement from an official source. Until then, all our arguing about our interpretations of measly hints will get us precisely nowhere. Tiddlywinks (talk) 02:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: we've also forgotten the official ORAS English site I mentioned above. On the one hand, we have the official Japanese site that has a section for "Legendaries" but elects to include Deoxys under "Other" (implying Deoxys is not "Legendary"), while on the other, we have the official English site where Deoxys is included in the Legendary Pokemon section. If that's not a strong indication that someones somewhere are not on the same page, about one thing or another, I don't know what is. Tiddlywinks (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The Japanese information is not contradictory. If we're explicitly told that it's not Legendary and then explicitly told that it's not Mythical, that doesn't mean "one of them must be wrong," which is speculation, but that, given what we have, it is not Legendary or Mythical.

The English site's categorization can't be taken into account because it is already wrong (as I explained, Keldeo and Shaymin prove that it's already not accurate considering other statements also on the English site), but that's the only one we can prove is wrong. There is, therefore, not hinting but confirmation from the only sources we can't prove are wrong, that Deoxys is neither, and only information from a source I have proven is wrong to indicate that it might be one of them.

Even so, since, clearly, it IS still debatable, I would honestly suggest doing it like Phione, because the situation is exactly the same, with official sources seemingly contradicting one another; we could list points like "it used to be Mythical and no Pokémon has been demoted before," "even if it is no longer event-only, it should transition to Legendary instead of being normal" and "the English site lists it as Legendary" and whatever else you can think of for pro-Legendary or Mythical status and "the Japanese site has stated in an Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire promotion that only event-only Pokémon are Mythical, a requirement which Deoxys no longer meets," "the Japanese site has listed it as non-Legendary, indicating that it is neither Mythical nor Legendary," and "the reliability of its placement on the English site is questionable due to the already-contradictory information in it, with Shaymin and Keldeo being classified as Legendary despite another statement on the site claiming that all Legendary Pokémon are obtainable in Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire" for against. This would be completely true - it IS under debate - and it's the only way to accurately represent both sides in the article. Sound like an adequate compromise? EpicDeino (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

(resetting indent)I think you're being needlessly uptight about Keldeo/Shaymin and the statement that "all Legendary Pokémon can be obtained in-game". (I say this realizing that the same could perhaps be said about my conviction that Deoxys must be either Legendary or Mythical. =P ) There are reasonable explanations why they're included in the Legendary Pokemon section. They could easily consider Mythical and Legendary Pokemon similar enough, and/or consider it too much of a hassle to make a whole separate Mythical section, that including them under Legendary is good enough for most users (perhaps not for at least one, plainly =P ). In any case, the Legendary section is still plainly the section for Legendary or Mythical Pokemon. You're taking it too far when you try to dismiss it entirely as any sort of evidence about Deoxys' status.

"One source must be wrong" is no more speculation than "Deoxys is neither Legendary nor Mythical". Both fly in the face of plain facts (plain "statements" by different sources vs all of Deoxys's Legendary- or Mythical-like characteristics). They are in fact both reasonable conclusions, that simply differ as a result of placing different value on different pieces of evidence.

I am loath to say Deoxys should be treated anything like Phione. (But I wouldn't stop it if people think it should be.) Someone else can comment on that. Tiddlywinks (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

If I would say, I'd say that make a conclusion based on 2 sources with different languages (wait, is the survey available in other language, too?) is not what we should always do, because of the localization or something (I don't know why, but the survey even says Dialga, Palkia and Giratina are a pair).

About the Shaymin/Keldeo page, it clearly says "Change Two Mythical Pokémon!" and "The Mythical Pokémon Shaymin and Keldeo can change their appearance...", so I agree that it weird when you said about all Legendary can be obtain in ORAS (also, "between XY and ORAS", not "in ORAS"). And after all, maybe it's not so unreliable like you said, maybe it just whoever at TPC categorize the site thinks that "Mythical" is a subset category of "Legendary" (like what I always thought before last week).

And about treating Deoxys like Phione, I think we should just write the debates in the trivia sections (at both this page and Deoxys's page) as normal. I think it's not worth making things as serious as Phione. We should ask more people about this. --Yen01 (talk) 04:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

If other Pokémon that we know aren't Legendary are in the section, it can't be used as evidence that something else in it is Legendary, regardless of what you speculate they may have been thinking - they made an error in a nearly identical situation, and without verification, we can't be sure that Deoxys' placement isn't another, and we certainly can't use it as proof of anything. I'm not being "uptight" about it; it's an error and the source can't be used for proof if it contains other false information. We can put a trivia point saying "Deoxys was called Legendary on the ORAS website" like how we mention the errors in spelling Jessie's name by different sources. That said, again, it is debated, with conflicting official sources. Which really is the same as Phione, minus the fact that Deoxys has fan-designated traits associated with Legendary Pokémon and Phione has fan-designated traits associated with non-Mythical Pokémon. Deoxys' status is debated and there is conflict between official sources. You've said so yourself. Phione's status is also debated and there is conflict between official sources. Why is Deoxys' situation different from Phione's and why should they be treated differently?

Yen01, I did mean between XY and ORAS. Didn't realize I only mentioned ORAS in that retelling of the information. Sorry! Also, I'm not using sources from different languages. Both of the sources I presented were Japanese; other people were bringing up the survey and the English site, but I've been using a consistent language when bringing up new points, and going only by the sources from one language, I have explained why Deoxys is not Legendary and not Mythical. EpicDeino (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't try to downplay the commonalities among Legendary and/or Mythical Pokemon by calling them "fan-designated". They are not, as that implies, made up by fans. It doesn't matter if no official source has explicitly defined those characteristics in writing; they don't need to. They have manifestly created those "Legendary" and "Mythical" Pokemon and/or the games such that those Pokemon have common characteristics that are readily identifiable by anyone moderately familiar with the games. That is not "fan-designated", that's just being observant. Tiddlywinks (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

All pseudo-Legendaries were dual-typed and that was considered not only an observation, but a rule. Then Goodra came. Pseudo-Legendary is referred to not only as a fan term but a flexible one despite being a pattern of Pokémon specifically designed to have common characteristics readily identifiable by most fans. "Being observant" and using basic logic to solve something like this is speculation and assumption, which, no matter how obvious it is, can't be put on Bulbapedia. This is a site that still doesn't consider Zygarde a member of the Mortality Trio because it's not confirmed. Deoxys' status as Legendary or Mythical is, as of ORAS, just as inconclusive as Phione's, and no amount of your opinion on what makes a Pokémon "deserve" the status can change that. EpicDeino (talk) 06:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the English site including Deoxys and Mythical Pokémon under "Legendary Pokémon" can just be marked down to an error; we have ample evidence that Legendary and Mythical Pokémon are mutually-exclusive groups from both English and Japanese sources.

"pseudo-Legendary" is a fan term to describe a pattern in Pokémon. I had always argued that "dual-typed" was merely a coincidence and not a critical part of the pattern. Regardless, they were never officially defined as a group, so their parameters were always fan-designated, whereas "Mythical Pokémon" has been officially defined. The two are not comparable.

I think it's entirely reasonable to handle Deoxys like Phione at present. Both are permitted in the upcoming "Circle of Legends" tournament, which only permits Legendary and Mythical Pokémon, despite us having conflicting evidence about their status as Mythical Pokémon. --SnorlaxMonster 08:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You are as wrong as it is possible to be that I am speculating, EpicDeino. I am indeed assuming, but so are you and so is anyone who won't just shrug and say "I don't know". Lacking an explicit and unambiguous statement one way or another, that's all it is possible to do, in the end; look at all your evidence, weigh it, and draw your own, personal conclusion/opinion. You're no more special than I in that regard. Tiddlywinks (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Snorlax, I meant in regards to Legendary Pokémon. I know Mythical has fixed criteria. Sorry; it wasn't clear in that post, but when I said "fan-designated traits associated with non-Mythical Pokémon," I meant things like breedability that weren't official criteria and people were just assuming. I have mentioned the official distinction between Mythical and normal previously, and was trying (albeit very vaguely) to illustrate the point that any requirements that are fan-designated (that is, anything else) aren't actually relevant.

I am also aware that pseudo-Legendary is a fan group, and I was comparing the fact that fans claim that pattern is deliberate on Game Freak's part and entirely consistent to the fact that they also claim that the traits shared by Legendary Pokémon (which are, unlike Mythical Pokémon, really only bound by official statement of their status - there is no official statement of the traits that "make" a Legendary) are deliberate on Game Freak's part and entirely consistent, the latter of which was being used to say that Deoxys "deserved" the status more than Phione and being used as an argument against treating them similarly.

Tiddlywinks, may I ask why you claim I'm acting as if I'm "special?" You have cited fan-designated "rules" for Legendaries - and I've explained why fan-designated "rules" have changed in the past for other patterns that fans picked up on by being "observant" - and said "it deserves the status" and that it seems "intuitive" that it would be one of them, both of which are blatantly opinionated, along with citing exactly one source. You've also repeatedly disregarded the statements that I've made, saying that they are "contradictory" when they go hand in hand with one another and are from a consistent and accurate source, and that they prove nothing simply because they prove the two halves of the point separately rather than simultaneously... which means absolutely nothing about their validity. You've also said I'm being "needlessly uptight" about a factual error that conclusively proves a source's unreliability, then provided yet more speculation in the form of your idea of why the error might have happened, as if that makes it any less of an error. Common mistake ≠ not a mistake. Understandable mistake ≠ not a mistake. In contrast to all of your speculation, assumptions and allegedly "logical" statements that contradict facts, I've exclusively cited actual evidence and used no opinionated statements as reasoning, and I have proven - repeatedly - that the only source of real evidence you have brought up is unreliable. Despite this, I'm still trying to settle for the lesser option of acknowledging the debate on the page and treating it like Phione instead of trying to press my own stance, which seems to be what the majority of official evidence points towards, and having the page flat-out state that it's not Legendary or Mythical as I originally desired. There is still no proof that it is Legendary or Mythical, except for one categorization in a list that is already erroneous and therefore unreliable, while there is conclusive proof from a separate source that does not actively contradict itself. I still fail to see why you think your argument holds as much weight as mine, let alone that I must see myself as "special" - a case of ad hominem that has nothing to do with the argument, which is often frowned upon in the average debate almost as much as saying that the fact that it's not Legendary and the fact that it's not Mythical don't prove that it isn't Legendary or Mythical (how can something not be Legendary or Mythical, but... still be one of those things?) - for not being totally sold on the opinions, factually invalid "logic," patterns and invalid sources you've used to present your case. Just saying. EpicDeino (talk) 10:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding me greatly if you think I want to treat Deoxys unfairly. I never said that Doexys and Phione should not be treated similarly. I only said that I am (very much personally/selfishly) loath to endorse treating Deoxys like Phione. I very explicitly meant to leave open the possibility that it was/is the right thing to do; however, *I* simply did not want to be the one to validate that. The sole reason for that sentiment is that I would much rather have a solid answer than endorse another "Well, gee, we're not really sure, so let us show you a bunch of bits and pieces of info, and just have a think on it yourself..." in the mainspace. But, as I said, if it is the right thing to do, then I have no intention of gainsaying that; of insisting that Deoxys be treated "unfairly".

My quandry comes down to this... I don't think it should be radical to say that it would be a drastic action to officially strip a Legendary or Mythical Pokemon of those titles. (I really don't care if you think this is "just" opinion.) Given that, I think it is unconscionable to claim that this is what happened without a very explicit and unambiguous statement that that is exactly the case. We do not have that.

There did used to be a Mailbag. Is there no way to ask someone officially now whether Deoxys is officially a Legendary, or a Mythical, or perhaps neither?

Also, FWIW, "You're no more special than I", i.e., "You and I are basically equals" is not ad hominem. I just wrote it that way for a bit of (I feel) poetic flair or something. I think if you read it consistently with my statement there, it should come off as just saying "Hey, we both have opinions, and it's natural for you to think you're right, but please don't try to say I'm being wildly unreasonable (i.e., speculating)." I don't care if you think I am unreasonable (i.e., reasoning wrong), because I certainly think you are in places, but I think that to label my reasoning speculation is, itself, unreasonable. =P

(I could also try to state more clearly now why I'm reasonable—to answer your questions above of why I'm seeming to be "illogical"—but I really don't like long talk page posts and it really isn't sounding like I'm going to convince you of the merits of my arguments, or even that my logic is "logical" and not just opinion or speculation, so I kind of think it's pointless.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, as SnorlaxMonster mentioned above: "Both [Deoxys and Phione] are permitted in the upcoming "Circle of Legends" tournament, which only permits Legendary and Mythical Pokémon". Is that good enough for you? Tiddlywinks (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

"Phione is a usable Pokémon in the recently announced Rotation Battle tournament Circle of Legends where only Legendary and Mythical Pokémon are allowed." That's already mentioned on Phione's page - in the "evidence for" section, which, along with the "evidence against" section, still exists in Trivia in spite of this evidence. Bulbapedia has clearly deemed it insufficient proof for Phione, so it's insufficient proof for Deoxys. The "other" section of Phione's page also points out "Originally, Phione was not needed in order to complete the National Pokédex, as with other Mythical Pokémon. However, beginning with Pokémon X and Y, it is needed to qualify for the diploma." This is the same as Deoxys. It also mentions the mailbag, which not only changed its answer and therefore wasn't even included to favor a specific side, but nothing like which currently exists as far as I know. Not an option right now. From the survey and the Pokédex, we know it's not Mythical, so that just leaves the dispute between Legendary and neither. You've cited the Circle of Legends tournament - which is still being listed on the page as part of the dispute and not conclusive evidence in Phione's case - against the Japanese official site - which has not been proven unreliable, either, and should be considered equal. Two conflicting sources. Notice, also, that most of Phione's evidence is from different games. Deoxys has only had one game since the conflict started, so it makes sense that there would be less evidence, but an official source outside of games (the guide in Phione's case and the Japanese site in Deoxys') and the Circle of Legends tournament (for both) contradict each other in the same way. So, Deoxys is not Mythical - we even have in-game proof - and we have conflicting evidence from official sources that contradict each other on whether or not they were Legendary. Still in the same scenario as Phione. If you don't want to "be the one to endorse" that they should be treated the same, why? There's equal evidence for both sides. The scenario is the same - you're just saying that you personally don't want them to be treated the same regardless, simply because you'd rather have a clear official statement - which we don't have right now and can't get. When and if we get official confirmation of exactly what Deoxys is, we can change the page to say so. But Phione hasn't gotten that after eight years of being around, so that's utterly absurd - we cannot wait until something that may never happen before we address the fact that a Pokémon now listed as Mythical is NOT Mythical (that much, at least, hasn't been argued against once in this entire debate, and that is what the page currently falsely states), is either Legendary or normal and that there is conflicting evidence between official sources as to which of the two possibilities it is. This is no different from Phione. And while Deoxys may have less evidence, it has less for both sides, because the dispute hasn't existed for as long.

Side note: Yes, "you're no more special than I" does mean "you and I are equals." It also, unlike the presented alternative, contains many implications that are not only rude but, in this scenario, false (unless you care to explain why they're true, which the bottom of your post suggests you don't plan on doing) - "you're no more special than I" clearly states that the other person thinks he or she is more special carries the implication that they're acting in a biased (which more accurately describes some of your arguments, such as "it deserves the status"), entitled, or otherwise narcissistic or selfish manner. They have the same meaning, but "you're no more special than I" has much harsher (and, yes, insulting) connotations. It's not "poetic;" it's rude.

Last thing: how is it unreasonable for me to call your speculation what it is? I'll gladly admit I'm wrong if you explain why I am.

There's no valid reason not to simply treat it like Phione when the only proof you have is shared by Phione and the alternative you've requested isn't possible right now. EpicDeino (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You are having considerable trouble understanding me, when I thought I was being very clear. Read this and take it to heart, please: I am NOT trying to push that Deoxys should not be treated like Phione. I do not claim that there is conclusive evidence of anything for Deoxys. Please stop writing as if I am. I will ignore anything else from you for now until I believe you understand me on this. Thank you. Tiddlywinks (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

You explicitly stated that despite not being against the idea, you refused to endorse it in favor of waiting for an official statement. I explained in my post why that's probably not an option.

Second, "Oh yeah, as SnorlaxMonster mentioned above: "Both [Deoxys and Phione] are permitted in the upcoming "Circle of Legends" tournament, which only permits Legendary and Mythical Pokémon". Is that good enough for you?" Considering that this was in the same post that you said you wanted to deal with the issue when we got an official statement, this sounded an awful lot like an attempt at proving it was conclusively Legendary, particularly the last sentence. I only reacted to exactly what you said here.

Third, you're now using "I'm going to ignore you" as a way to avoid the other part of my post: you still haven't explained how the majority of your argument was anything but speculation, with your statements of "it deserves it," "it has common traits of Legendaries" and the like being absolutely opinionated and your previous insistence that people weren't on the same page and the evidence I presented was void when two pieces of evidence that didn't contradict one another supported the opposite side simply because you thought it must be an error for Deoxys not to be Legendary or Mythical after defending a source I criticized for already being wrong about something. You can't say I'm the one being biased and acting entitled or "special" when you have previously - in this same debate - tried to ignore perfectly valid evidence because it contradicted what you wanted at that point in the argument. EpicDeino (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

1)You seem to believe here that it is critical that you convince me of this, as if I am somehow stopping you or anyone else. Let me repeat myself: I take no part in that decision, in any way. (If you think I have, you mistake me.) Decide it with others (or yourself).

2) I'm sorry if it sounded like I thought it was a conclusive, official statement. That's not really the case. What I meant was, you had denounced the other things I had attempted to give you as valid evidence that Deoxys was Legendary or Mythical (either you think I'm speculating or you think it's unreliable); so, would you consider the tournament a valid piece of evidence that Deoxys is Legendary or Mythical? (I don't ask you to be convinced that Deoxys is Legendary or Mythical. I'm only asking that you recognize it as validly contradicting the conclusion you've held so far (when you've so far claimed that nothing I've brought up can), that Deoxys is neither Legendary nor Mythical; a smidgen of reasonable doubt, in short.)

3) Understand that "It has common traits of Legendaries" (Deoxys and indisputably Legendary Pokemon share certain traits that other Pokemon (not counting Mythicals) do not have) is not opinion, it is fact. What you mean is, you do not accept that there are any traits (short of officially being given the title) that define a Legendary Pokemon. Which is fine. But it does not mean Deoxys does not have those traits. Those commonalities cannot be wished away; the only point where you have choice (opinion) is in the conclusion you make from them. (FWIW, you also throw out a quote of me of "It deserves it" like it's something separate, but that's actually squarely based on Deoxys' Legendary traits. ...The rest, I can't really bring anything new to. I have explained and you've rejected; I'm comfortable with it being a simple difference of opinion.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

(Resetting indent.) 1) Okay. I just figured I might as well explain it anyway, since the purpose of this discussion is to get a consensus and you said you would prefer an official statement even though that's not an option. 2) Ah, sorry for misunderstanding. Then yes, that is a valid point that should definitely be brought up somewhere (after all, it is with Phione). 3) My dispute with that quote was more or less that I interpreted what you were saying as making it off as some kind of "rule" when other patterns that fans claimed were deliberate and consistent later changed. But considering your last post, I do understand your stance and... basically don't think there's anything to argue with you about any more? I apologize for misunderstanding some of your statements and probably coming off as rude in how I reacted to them (especially given that I was wrong in the first place). Thank you for the clarification! EpicDeino (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. =) Tiddlywinks (talk) 06:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm adding a little thing to this discussion: ORAS take place in another dimension/universe/whatever, right? Well, in that dimension Deoxys is Legendary, while in the previous one it's Mythical. This is only a possible explanation of the vague classification we have now from Game Freak/TPC, it should by no means be included in any page, but I thought it could be interesting to add to your conversation. In this way, there is no "change of classification" from Mythical to Legendary (or "other"): it simply is another world with its own classification. Shepeedy (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I all but laughed out loud when I happened to notice this... It turns out that Deoxys is actually explicitly called a "Mythical Pokemon" in-game. I'm not sure if there are any Youtube videos that explicitly show this, but if you return to the second floor of the Mossdeep Space Center after clearing the Delta Episode, there's a small dialogue event where it happens. If you look up the text dump, you can see it there, or of course you can test it yourself directly in-game.

IMO, if they've said it explicitly in-game (perhaps especially if it's in-game), then Deoxys is Mythical, even if the supposed definition of "Mythical" seems to contradict that classification. (I kind of think that in order to contradict this, TPC/whatever might have to either explicitly state that Deoxys is "not a Mythical Pokemon" or they'll have to explicitly say/show that Deoxys is Legendary (or common) with some consistency.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

This is the quote for future reference:

"Extrapolating from the energy readings we observed seems to show evidence of the Mythical Pokémon that lives in space: Deoxys."

And in the Japanese version:

「われわれの　かんそくした エネルギーは　から　すいそく　するに それは　うちゅうに　せいそく　すると　いわれる まぼろしの　ポケモン―――デオキシス」

The only other times the word Mythical is used in ORAS is during the Diancie Pokémon Center event and in the Volcanion TV specials. Legendary is only used in ORAS to refer to Kyogre, Groudon, Rayquaza, someone's wife, when you have more than three in your party for a competition, and in the Pokédex entries for the birds, tao trio, and Yveltal. --Abcboy (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Pfft, wow. I cannot believe I didn't know about that.

Well, I'm kind of embarrassed right now. XD I can't exactly argue with the game itself explicitly stating that it's Mythical, so... Yeah, I guess it is. :'D EpicDeino (talk) 02:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Deoxys is not allowed to join player's team in the next year as the world tournament, so I think the answer is obvious. E9310103838 (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If I remember right not long before/after Diancie was officially revealed there was a tournament that let you use any Pokémon except Diancie. I think the reason for that is obvious: it was officially revealed but was not yet distributed but people still had it through hacking. My point with that is that they can ban Pokémon from tournaments for practically any reason. So it's not impossible that it's banned because it used to be a Mythical Pokémon. I'm just trying to make a point and am actually neutral on the situation. And either way I consider Mythical Pokémon to be a type of Legendary Pokémon so to me it wouldn't be part of completely separate group either way.Flain (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

More?

Is there some logic that with some legendary pokemon there are more than one in anime(for example: Latios, Lugia), and with some only one (Mew, Tornados)? Lokki (talk), 19:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

No legendary is unique. Think about it. If it were unique, if one dies, the species goes extinct. That should have happened a long time ago if they were unique. We haven't seen ALL of Dialga's or Palkia's dimensions, either. Same goes for Giratina and Arceus. We have only seen small sections of them. For all we know, these dimensions could have thousands or even MILLIONS of their respective species. And of course, there are multiple Mews: One flies throughout the world, while another is at the Tree of Beginning. For Mewtwo, both fly around the world. One has a more woman-like voice, and that one can Mega Evolve. I could go on all day, naming all the legendaries and saying why we know there is multiple, but I'm getting bored of typing this. TheRealArceus (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is more suited for the forums, so please take it over there.--ForceFire 23:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Is Zygarde a Member of the Mortality Duo?(Therefore making it the Mortality Trio)

Look at it this way. Kyurem was the final member of the Tao trio. Giratina was the final member of the Creation Trio and Rayquaza was the trump card in the Weather Trio. If Game Freak has taught me anything its that the same formula works most of the time.PastureGaiPokemon12 (talk) 23:04:18 7 August,2015(UTC)

There's nothing that actually calls it a member of the Mortality Duo, therefore it is not listed as such. Litwick96 20:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It most definitely is, considering the clues and patterns seen before, so it's pretty blatantly obvious that Zygarde is most definitely in a trio with Xerneas and Yveltal. I will say that it definitely fits the pattern with Rayquaza, Giratina, and Kyurem, and there are a few clues with Zygarde being related to Xerneas and Yveltal. That being said, even though the clues make it obvious that Zygarde is related to Xerneas and Yveltal, it's not explicitly stated in X and Y and is therefore unconfirmed, which is why it is not listed as being in a trio with Xerneas and Yveltal. So in short, wait until we get an announcement of the inevitable Pokemon Z before we do anything with listing Zygarde as being in a trio with Xerneas and Yveltal. ScraftyIsTheBest (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Zygarde is known as the Order Pokemon while Xerneas and Yveltal are Peace and Chaos respectively (I think), Its like Rayquaza all over again. Balance is needed so we have Zygarde.(talk)

Unless it is explicitly stated, Zygarde is not part of any trio. Yes, it's quite obvious, but we have no official confirmation (from the game or the anime) that it is part of a trio. Giratina was not considered part of a trio until Platinum was released, Kyurem was not considered part of a trio until Black2/White2 were released. So it's the same situation here, we will have to wait for a game to be released that will confirm its relation with Xerneas/Yveltal.--ForceFire 03:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

There does seem to be some official evidence pointing towards them being a trio. Specifically:

• I haven't played Rumble World in a while, so this is from someone else, but apparently you need to get all three of them to unlock a Title, in exactly the same manner as every other Legendary Trio. (For reference, this Title is "Aura Traveler"). This is the strongest piece of evidence in that an actual game, albeit a side game, explicitly considers them a trio. and, in doing so, affects actual gameplay. Other trios (Super-Ancient Pokémon, Creation Trio, and Tao Trio at the very least) are treated exactly the same as this trio.
• CoroCoro explicitly compares Zygarde to Xerneas and Yveltal in the latest issue. Although it is only in terms of power, they singled out those two even though plenty of other Legendaries have exactly the same stat total. This is fairly tenuous, but they explicitly compared it to the very two Pokémon already considered a trio in Rumble World.
• All three have Aura-based Abilities, and Zygarde's directly interacts with those of Xerneas and Yveltal.

Not sure how much of a difference this makes, but considering actual in-game ties between exclusively Zygarde and Xerneas or Yveltal (their Abilities), comparisons between this trio and only this trio in CoroCoro, and an actual game considers them a trio, I think that it's been officially confirmed and not being made up by fans. EpicDeino (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello? I don't even care if the answer is yes or no, but there needs to be an answer. Bulbapedia's policy is that we're not allowed to change the page until discussion, and apparently even the fact that nobody is presenting a counterargument isn't enough, so people need to discuss whether they agree or not or nothing is ever going to get done. So... BUMPing this? (Is that the right term here?) EpicDeino (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

ForceFire's response above still applies. In short: just wait. Tiddlywinks (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

It is pretty obvious, besides it will likely be confirmed by early or late next year.Animaltamer707:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

ForceFire's response said to wait until we have proof. Rumble World recognizes them as a trio. How is that not proof

Again, I'm fine if that's not good enough, but at least respond to the evidence instead of saying a post from before there was any whatsoever that said to wait until there was any whatsoever still applies. Right now, evidence for consists of a side game and evidence against consists of "there is no evidence for," which is currently no longer true, although admittedly Rumble World IS relatively minor even if it is in-game proof. EpicDeino (talk) 09:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

From what you wrote above, it sounds like Rumble World only implies they're a trio. If Rumble World's treatment of trios is not something that they have plainly said, "This is something we will only do for trios", it does not amount to proof, it is only supportive evidence. We need something explicit (clear, unarguable, unopinionated). Tiddlywinks (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

(reset indent)As Tiddly said it only implies, until something from CoroCoro or any official source has confirmation that they are a trio (which again is obvious) it should be left unchanged.Animaltamer711:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

"a set or group of three people or things."

How does grouping them and only them together for an achievement only "imply" that they are a group? We can always take it off if there's any counterevidence, but we legitimately have them as a group in a game. EpicDeino (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Just be patient.Animaltamer704:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

We're not talking about just "groups". A "group" does not a "trio" make (not all by itself). Trios are a special relationship, and nothing so far has plainly testified to such a relationship.

You missed a very important point in my previous response: "If Rumble World's treatment of trios is not something that they have plainly said, 'This is something we will only do for trios', it does not amount to proof". Right now, you are ASSUMING that because they are grouped, that means they must be a Legendary Trio. But in truth, you have not shown that being in that group MUST mean they are a Legendary trio; you have only shown that it is reasonable. That is not sufficient. Tiddlywinks (talk) 05:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

First: I just gave the actual definition of trio. If they are a group of exactly three, they are a trio, and Rumble World makes it clear that they are a group of three.

Second: Have the others even been called Legendary Trios? We say it's "reasonable" to group Dialga, Palkia and Giratina because they're all Sinnoh mascots. But are they officially called Legendary Trios? Last I checked, that's not even an official term.

So I honestly don't know why having identical treatment to every other thing we group as a Legendary Trio is insufficient. Nor why people keep saying "be patient" as if I'm just saying "it's logical, why don't you idiots see it" without providing in-game proof that they are a group. (And yes, I've seen people say that and people have responded in exactly the same way. You're missing the fact that YES, I'm providing PROOF that EXPLICITLY considers them a trio. A trio that is made of Legendaries. How does that "not a Legendary trio make?") EpicDeino (talk) 05:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

All I feel capable of saying anymore is...just wait. Staff fairly plainly don't intend to acknowledge it yet. (Plainly enough, they're waiting for "Pokemon Z", or, as ForceFire said, something in the anime.) So. If there is any chance anyone can persuade you anymore, I imagine it will have to be staff. Sorry I wasn't able to shed enough light on things. Tiddlywinks (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

(resetting indent) Just to intervene. Rumble does group them, but that's all it does. It doesn't shed light on how they're related. The Aura based abilities is really the only concrete thing so far. Currently, and hopefully, the new anime series will probably connect the three or a new game will be revealed in the upcoming months. So, be patient. If you can wait for ORAS to be released, then you can wait for them to release whatever comes next.--ForceFire 06:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Pokemon Center Deoxys

According to the Pokèmon Center website, Deoxys is a legendary Pokèmon, not a mythical one. source: http://www.pokemoncenter.com/info/Pokemon_Characters The legendary Pokèmon list includes Mewtwo, Lugia, Regirock, Latias, Latios, Kyogre, Groudon, Rayquaza, Deoxys, Xerneas, and Yveltal. The mythical Pokèmon list includes Mew, Jirachi, Darkrai, Shaymin, Arceus, Victini, and Diancie. Note that the image for mythical Pokèmon also shows Genesect.

Because in-game text in ORAS refers to Deoxys as mythical, should we include this as a contradiction, or perhaps as an error? ᗧ•••ᗣ Pacack 01:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I've noted this in the trivia section, just as it was added to Deoxys' page. If anyone objects to this, please let me know. ᗧ•••ᗣ Pacack 16:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Wait, What Happened To The Movie Trivia?

It had been there forever. I don't remember the exact wording and stuff, but the general gist went like this. And I updated it to match what we've seen as of XY&Z, as well as M18.

• Ho-Oh is the only Johto Legendary to not be featured in the movies or an anime arc outside of cameos. Lugia was in "The Power Of One", Entei was in "Spell Of The Unown" and Celebi and Suicune were in "Pokémon 4Ever". Raikou was featured in both "The Legend Of Thunder", as well as "Zoroark: Master Of Illusions" alongside Entei, Suicune and Celebi.
  • Cresselia and Phione are the only Sinnoh Legendaries to not be featured in the movies or anime arcs. Mesprit, Azelf and Uxie were prominent in the Diamond & Pearl anime, Dialga and Palkia starred alongside Darkrai in "The Rise Of Darkrai", Manaphy starred in "Pokémon Ranger and the Temple of the Sea", Arceus and Heatran starred in "Arceus and the Jewel of Life" and Shaymin and Giratina starred alongside Regigigas in "Giratina and the Sky Warrior". However, Cresselia did have a cameo in "Giratina And The Sky Warrior", and both Legendaries have had standalone anime episodes.
  • Volcanion is the only Kalos Legendary to not be featured in a movie or the anime, though it will be in the upcoming 19th movie. Xerneas, Yveltal and Diancie starred in "Diancie and the Cocoon of Destruction", Hoopa starred in "Hoopa and the Clash of Ages", and Zygarde is the focus of the "XY&Z" anime.
  • All Kanto, Hoenn and Unova legendaries have had prominent roles in movies or anime arcs.

--BlackButterfree (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The user who removed it did so because Groudon appeared in M18, though that applied to Groudon's point not the whole trivia. I've only added back Ho-oh since the time taken makes it notable, Gen IV still has five Pokémon left rather than just one while Gen V is still recent.--ForceFire 04:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Separating Article

Is there a reason we have not separated this article into two separate articles on Legendary and Mythical Pokémon? There has been a clear distinction made at this point, and I see little reason not to make the split. The only potential disagreement I can forsee is on Deoxys, but we could include a footnote in this article and solve that relatively easily.

I can begin drafting the Mythical Pokémon article if there are no objections and if no one else has already. Paᗧ•••ᗣck 17:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I have created a draft of the Mythical Pokémon page on my userpage. Please look at it and offer criticisms and feel free to edit. I had some trouble with the images, but I believe the current layout is as aesthetically appealing as it can be without breaking anything.

Note that much of the information is repeated from this article, as it would be in the split itself. If you see any grammatical errors or missing information, please correct it in this article as well, as this was my source. Paᗧ•••ᗣck 18:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I honestly consider Mythical Pokémon to be a type of legendary Pokémon. So I don't see much reason too.Flain (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

We have confirmation against that, though. It has been stated by multiple sources that every Legendary Pokémon would be available between ORAS and X and Y, and yet no Mythical Pokémon were available. If Mythical Pokémon were indeed a subset, then that would not have been the case. Paᗧ•••ᗣck 02:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it's better to keep the page as it is, most fans would collectively call both groups as Legendary pokemon.Animaltamer703:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't mean these fans are correct, though. The Mythical term has been consistently used for a very long time at this point, and we are meant to follow official sources, not just the majority. Paᗧ•••ᗣck 22:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason to split them up. Mythical Pokémon are in fact legendary Pokémon, just extremely rare legendary Pokémon. No one could possibly argue that Arceus is not in fact a legend despite being a myth, for example. --BlackButterfree (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that this page defines Mythical Pokémon as "a related but separate group of Pokémon" from Legendary Pokémon. Mythical Pokémon are not a subset of Legendary Pokémon, but rather a related group.

Also note that the capitalization is important in "Legendary Pokémon" and "Mythical Pokémon." Legendary Pokémon can be featured in myths as well as legends, and Mythical Pokémon are sometimes the subject of legends (Arceus included). In that sense, "Legendary" Pokémon can be "mythical" and "Mythical" Pokémon can be "legendary." What ultimately defines a Pokémon as Mythical has to do with said Pokémon's exposure during regular gameplay, whether or not they are revealed with the rest of their generation, and whether they are necessary to complete the Pokédex.

If you'd like to know more, I'm currently working with another user to complete a draft for the Mythical Pokémon article [1], which we'll present to senior members of the wiki for approval along with a new Legendary Pokémon article. Paᗧ•••ᗣck 21:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I will continue to cite North American Super Smash Bros. for Wii U in order to oppose any splitting efforts, despite probably being in the minority on this issue. Bwburke94 (talk) 04:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Using Deity/Deities derived terms when speaking generically

What is wrong with using deity/deities or derived terms when speaking generically (no gender connotations that is)? Jdogno4 (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay I feel this something that needs to be asked, do you even know what a deity is?Flain (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Legendary v. Mythical: A Solution for Everyone?

I noticed that the page has been split in two, and after reviewing the Legendary and Mythical Pokemon debate, I thought of a solution that might make everyone happy. Some people, including me, come to this page to seek information on both Legendary and Mythical Pokemon. But there is a notable difference, so that poses a counter argument. I propose that we re-combine the two pages, but rename the page to "Legendary and Mythical Pokemon", while noting the difference between Legendary and Mythical, as well as stating which ones are Legendary and which ones are Mythical in their respective summaries. This would also solve the issue of Legendary Families being split (i.e. Mew Duo, Swords of Justice). Any links to the Legendary or Mythical pages would have to redirect here. If we can all agree on this, I can start recombining them, although I'm new to editing Wikis. TheRubberGuy (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think recombining them is a good idea since the Pokemon Company itself now treats them as separate groups. Given a choice between precision and convenience, I really think we need to prioritize precision, or else we risk implying (or worse, actively providing) false information. Anyway, we already give a link to Mythical Pokémon in the very second sentence, along with an explanation of why the groups are now treated as separate, so it ought to be plenty clear to readers. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Changes to legendary definition

Since Sun and Moon came out, which included a legendary Pokémon which evolves (Cosmog -> Cosmoem -> Solgaleo/Lunala), shouldn't we edit that in that legendaries can evolve now? Also, with this change of definition, will Type:Null and Silvally be considered legendary?

Would the Ultra Beasts also be considered legendary, even though some of them you can get more than one?

If these changes happen, I propose a new definition: "A Legendary Pokémon is a Pokémon that is only available in limited amounts in normal gameplay and cannot breed to create more of the same species." ----Celadonkey (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Type:Null and Silvally are more of a case of artificial pokemon like porygon, where it is possible to make more of them. The Ultra Beasts are kinda mysterious at the moment, making it hard to define whether they belong as legendaries or pokemon from another dimension like unown.Animaltamer713:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I think we should be thinking about it from a gameplay standpoint, not from a lore one. The fact is there is only one Type:Null available in the game, only one Nihilegos, two Buzzwoles, four Pheromosas, etc. And if you do want to think about it from a lore standpoint - Mewtwo is both artificial and Legendary, and Giratina is a Pokémon that is both legendary and from a different dimension.

I'm not going to state my personal opinion on the matter but I would like input and/or discussion from mods. ----Celadonkey (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't have my game on hand right now so I can't cite the exact colors, but if you look in the Alola Pokedex, the Legendaries (Cosmog's evolutionary line, Necrozma, and Zygarde) appear with one background color; the ordinary Pokemon appear with another; and there's a third background color for the Ultra Beasts, Type:Null, Silvally, and the Tapus. I think it's clear that the developers have intended to create a separate group for these that is not Legendary, but until we have an official name for it we probably can't really implement it. In any case, it's amply clear that the developers do not intend these as Legendaries.

Gameplay vs. lore should not, in my opinion, be a discussion that even comes into play when Word Of God trumps both. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I noticed it too but always thought both were legendaries. Would this potentially retcon the legendary status of older Pokémon, like Uxie, Tornadus, or Registeel? ----Celadonkey (talk) 14:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Impossible to know unless Pokemon Bank provides some similar visual indication when it's updated in January, since there's no National Dex and those Pokemon don't appear in the Alola Dex. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

That would be ridiculous if they did. Personally I think blue means non-legendary, green(?) is a legendary, and rainbow is a special legendary (the box legends and Mythicals). If a green page means non-legendary too, that would mean the Tapus would not be legendary, which I don't think is up for debate. But it's really the mods' decision. ----Celadonkey (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

How are the Tapus Legendary, much less not even up for debate? Game Freak has conspicuously avoided using the term "Legendary" for them, and now they have a different Pokedex color scheme. If Game Freak's going out of its way to avoid grouping them in as Legendaries, we shouldn't make that assumption even though the rest of fandom is. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, that was kind of rude of me. I'm sorry. But the general assumption right is that the Tapus are legendary. But you're right, we shouldn't assume things until the fanbase has a verdict that is agreed upon or until sufficient evidence is brought up. ----Celadonkey (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

For now, why don't we use "Guardian deity" and "Ultra Beast" as unique, Legendary-like types of Pokémon? So have Nihilego listed as a Rock/Poison-type Ultra Beast, Tapu Koko as an Electric/Fairy-type Guardian deity, etc. We know that they are unique instances from normal Pokémon, so this is a way we can show that without assuming their Legendary status.

It is worth noting, though, that Cosmog's evolutionary line are Ultra Beasts, too. Nutter Butter (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I do like this option. Keeping it vague is really the only way to please everyone. ----Celadonkey (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's my two cents. The easiest way to determine "Legendary"/"Mythical" is whether or not they're banned in certain game modes, in the case of Sun and Moon this would be the Battle Royal and Battle Tree. In Gen VII, Cosmog, Cosmoem, Solgaleo, Lunala, and Necrozma are banned. The Ultra Beasts are not. And I haven't tested, but it seems the Guardian deities are not. This seems to suggest that the deities and UBs are not legends, but some other classification. I don't even give a Schif (Talk • Contribs) 22:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The Legendary Beasts, Golems, Eon Duo, Pixies, and the like are not banned. I really think it should be up to the fans to decide, as most (cough cough) things are done here. ----Celadonkey (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

We only "decide" if there's nothing canonical to go by. If canon exists, we can't and won't override it with something uncanonical. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

But the "canon" is debatable. The only reasons you've given that they are not legendary are an assumption about PokeDex colors and the lack of official material calling them legendary.

It is undeniable that they belong to a unique and special group. Let's leave it at that, and preferably go with my idea :P, until there's official word. Nutter Butter (talk) 06:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your idea; I wasn't rebutting you, I was rebutting Celadonkey. Given the situation, not committing one way or the other on their Legendary status until Game Freak classifies them more specifically is probably best. Or at least, not committing one way or the other until Bulba staff make an executive decision on the matter. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 06:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

This article states that no Legendary or Mythical Pokémon are legal in VGC 2017. The tapu and Ultra Beasts are both legal, whereas Cosmog and its evolutions as well as Zygarde are not. --SnorlaxMonster 09:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, it says "Mythical and some Legendary Pokémon are not allowed," so that still doesn't really give evidence as to the Legendary status of any Pokémon that's allowed, at least as far as I can tell... Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Good catch! This is an issue that will require some thinking. We should probably wait a bit but that probably means there are some legendaries that are allowed. Probably. ----Celadonkey (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, they actually updated that article. When I saw it, it read "No Mythical or Legendary Pokémon are allowed". I archived the Google Cache as proof. --SnorlaxMonster 18:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Also a good catch! I thought it said that too but wasn't sure. Wonder what this means. ----Celadonkey (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

My gut instinct is that this indicates Nintendo itself (or at least, NOA) isn't sure which Pokémon Game Freak did and didn't intend to be Legendary. If they're still hashing that out among the corporate entities, then caution certainly seems to be the best course of action for us at the moment. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Until anything else comes up, we leave everything vague. ----Celadonkey (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the GTS in Sun and Moon has the option to filter out requests for "Mythical and Legendary Pokémon". I don't have the Pokémon in my Pokédex to check myself, but I'm told that enabling this option also excludes Ultra Beasts, the tapus, and Type: Null/Silvally. --SnorlaxMonster 01:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. So, what will the verdict be? Personally, I think we should wait a bit but I would like to see some of these Pokémon as legendary. Just my opinion though. ----Celadonkey (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

So does this mean we now have new Pokemon class and groups just like the Legendary and Mythical? It sounds like those Pokemon are in their own group.--Jacob Kogan (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

That especially I'd hold off until. It's kind of out of the blue to create a new group like that and I wouldn't unless, or maybe even, the Pokémon in question are very out of the ordinary. And even so, it's up to the mods. ----Celadonkey (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, we should wait until official sources have directly accepted the UBs & Tapus as Legendaries or not.Animaltamer703:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thats Pokemon for you, so many mystery and theories that Nintendo loves to give us.--Jacob Kogan (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, yet site like Serebii and Pokemon Wiki classified them as Legendaries. I wonder why?--Jacob Kogan (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Those are fan sites. It's very easy for them to be wrong. You shouldn't take what they say as truth unless there's proof. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

In the datamine, the Tapus and Ultra Beasts were listed as being Legendaries, albeit placed in the same listings as the Legendaries that are allowed to be used in battle facilities. I believe they were referred to in the code as being sublegends? Either way, SciresM has pictures of both lists up on his Twitter. Azureprism (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Interesting now that I think about it, some Legendary are allowed in battle facilities, same goes for Snivally. Hmm some maple are Hearten, , Regigigas, and Cresselia for example. a friend of ym optioned out in his own words "It's been like that since Gen 3. Pokemon with stats of 600 or higher are always banned from a battle facility, unless the 600 stats are from Psudo-Legendaries like Dragonite." There some exception to it. And the fact you can only encounter one in the wild (Even thought some Ultra Beats come in groups of 4), there is a possibility they are indeed and without a doubt Legendaries or Sub-Legendaries as Azureprism pointed out. Well, anything can happen, but I will leave up to you guys on your take of this.--Jacob Kogan (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Could you link that? I don't believe you're wrong but I wouldn't like to see. ----Celadonkey (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The Pokémon that are banned from battle facilities are Special Pokémon and Mythical Pokémon (whether Mythical Pokémon are Special Pokémon seems to be unclear). While only Legendary (and possibly Mythical) Pokémon can be Special Pokémon, not being a Special Pokémon has no bearing on whether a Pokémon is a Legendary Pokémon. --SnorlaxMonster 01:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

And yet some tournament allowed the sue of Special and Mythical?--Jacob Kogan (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Some special online competitions have allowed Mythical Pokémon (and Special Pokémon), and some official tournaments and VGC formats allow Special Pokémon. I'm not sure what your point is. --SnorlaxMonster 02:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah sorry about that, Any Those Pokemon, Ultra Beats, Tapy, and the Stythetic Pokemon are the only Pokemon tha that the special abckgorudn and glitter thing in their Pokedex number like Zyagrd for example. Anyway. And if what Azureprism said is true, should they be counted as Legendaries or another class of Legendary Pokemon like the Myhtical (Ultra Beats, Tapu, Type: Null and Snilvally?

That's what this discussion was about in the first place. TechSkylander1518 (talk) 02:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, hmm one I notice that they share with Legendaries is most of them you can only get one per save file, they were mention in legends in the past (The exception being the Synthetic Pokémon), extremely rare and powerful, unique powers. they have roles in Alola Region Lore and affecting it as seen with he Totem Pokemon, the some of them are protectors like the Swords of Justice, the Synthetic Pokémon was created just like Mewtwo and Gensect to be the Ultimate Weapon (For Ultra Beats) and the fact it was based on different types of Pokemon (Including Arecus), all of them can't breed and ar win the Undiscovered Egg Group as the other Legendaries, they are not easy to catch. My point is hopefully to help understand that these Poekmona re indeed Legendaries and they share many trait and heights common or associated with Legendaries and may possibly be in their own unique class. I hope this help the discussion. This my best way to help explain heir status as Legendaries or not. Hope you guys understand.--Jacob Kogan (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

TechSkylander1518: It's worth noting that there are three different Pokédex backgrounds: The one used by Legendary and Mythical Pokémon; the one used by Ultra Beasts, the tapus, and Type: Null/Silvally; and the one used by everything else. If anything, I would say that the Pokédex indicates they aren't Legendary (but I think the GTS indicating that they are takes priority). --SnorlaxMonster 03:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Jacob Kogan: With legendaries, you can only catch one per save file. You can obtain more by transferring Pokemon or by receiving a Mystery Gift. Furthermore, the reason you can only catch one is generally because there's supposed to only be one in the world-the Ultra Beasts and Synthetic Pokemon have all clearly shown there are more than one. (except, perhaps, Guzzlord) And you can catch more than one of UBs 2-4 per save file. And there are some Pokemon that you can only get one of in a game without breeding-would you consider fossil Pokemon, starters, or Snorlax to be legendaries? The Ultra Beasts are not mentioned in legends. I'm puzzled by your wording on "the exception being the Synthetic Pokemon". You tend to use that term to refer to Silvally and Type: Null, but they're not confirmed to be legendaries, you can't say they're the exception if we don't even know that rules relates to them. It is true that Mewtwo and Genesect were not mentioned in legends, however. Porygon can also change its type, and was created by human beings. That doesn't make it a legendary. A low catch rate and an Undiscovered Egg Group does not make a Pokemon a legendary. The Synthetic Pokemon aren't even caught, they're a gift. Again, not bringing this up to prove that they are or aren't legendaries, just to show--Jacob Kogan (talk) 05:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC) that it's not something that will be solved through debate; we need official information. (I had written this up before I saw SnorlaxMonster's reply-it becomes irrelevant pretty fast, I'm sorry)

SnorlaxMonster: I have noticed the different background, I've currently been taking that to mean that they are in a different class that might or might not be somehow related to Legendaries, but if the GTS calls them Legendaries, that definitely makes things a lot easier, both with wondering whether or not they are and with the possibility of a new classification. (I'm told I don't always get my point across clearly, so I'd like to clarify just in case-I'm not trying to act like I should be the one with the final say on their status, I'm just trying to say that I understand and agree with the GTS proving they are Legendaries) TechSkylander1518 (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

So does this mean we finally solve it with the Ultra Beasts, Tapus, Type: Null and Silvally?--Jacob Kogan (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe it does-we have official evidence, and SnorlaxMonster is a staff member, so they have enough authority to decide. (I'd add it in myself, but I'm not certain of everything necessary to make the changes-obviously there's the link to the Legendary Pokemon page on their pages, but I'm sure there's a lot more needed) TechSkylander1518 (talk) 05:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree Tech, at last this debate has finally been settled--Jacob Kogan (talk) 05:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The staff have decided that since the games don't explicitly refer to these Pokémon as Legendary, they should not be referred to as Legendary until and if an official source explicitly describes them as such. --Abcboy (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Since SnorlaxMonster brought up the GTS, I'd like to share my two cents! He said that he can't confirm with certainty, but that he had been told that the tapu, Type: Null, Silvally and the Ultra Beasts were counted. After testing it, I can confirm this; there were many requests for them when I checked in-game with Legendaries and Mythicals included, and none remained when I said to exclude them. I can also confirm that it wasn't simply a matter of their having been traded already, as they reappeared when I set it to include them again. Again: confirming that the game explicitly includes them as Legendary or Mythical Pokémon for that purpose! Make of that what you will; I'm not going to say any more regardless, as it's been made clear that this is the staff's decision and I will contribute facts but not say what to do with them. XP EpicDeino (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

It's interesting that canon is being considered here given the large amounts of evidence that do exist in the canon for something like, say, Zygarde's very obvious trio status, end up being ignored in favour of conjecture. BeforeJam (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Tapu

The Tapu have unique battle themes, are fought late in the game, can only be encountered once, are pivotal to the story, are high leveled, are difficult-ish to catch, and have BSTs that are in the same general range as most legendaries. Wouldn't they qualify as legendary? - unsigned comment from ChampionBlue (talk • contribs)

That's a debate that was just finished right above this section. TechSkylander1518 (talk) 05:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much TechSkylnader --Jacob Kogan (talk) 05:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

None of the things listed by ChampionBlue are a reason to consider the tapu to be Legendary. Rotom meets a number of those conditions in Diamond and Pearl, for example. BSTs are unrelated to whether or not a Pokémon is Legendary (see Cosmog, for example). Oricorio has the same catch rate as Lunala, and Beldum's is incredibly low.

Which Pokémon are Legendary is solely determined by which Pokémon have been officially stated to be. --SnorlaxMonster 06:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, the Tapus were listed under normal Pokemon by Sun and Moon official site. Only Solgaleo and Lunala (which were the only legendaries revealed pre release) were listed under the 'Legendary' section. If Tapus were legendary, they too would've been listed under 'Legendary' section. The legendary PkmnTrainerV is Here! (talk) 08:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to use the official site earlier, but currently the English site isn't listing either Cosmog or Zygarde as Legendary Pokémon either. The Japanese and Chinese sites give the tapu their own section (so I wouldn't take them not being in the Legendary section as evidence), but also don't call Cosmog a Legendary Pokémon. The Korean site doesn't call either Cosmog or Zygarde Legendary, but also doesn't give Mythical Pokémon their own section. --SnorlaxMonster 08:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Even Ultra Beats were not considered Pokemon... E9310103838 (talk) 09:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@SnorlaxMonster, pretty much what I was going to type.Animaltamer709:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The official site never said they weren't Pokémon, but it never said they were either. Until the game was released (or perhaps more accurately, until the game leaked), we didn't know whether or not they were Pokémon. --SnorlaxMonster 09:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

In the GTS, the ultra beasts and tapu WILL NOT BE SHOWN if we choose not to include legendary and mystical pokemon in the option. -Pokeant (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I just looked at this myself and can second this. On top of that, Type: Null and Silvally won't be shown either if you choose not to include Legendary and Mythical Pokemon in the requests from other Trainers. Does this count as a piece of evidence for the Tapus, Ultra Beasts, and Type: Null line being Legendaries? Nintendocan (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

For the moment, I see no harm in adding the Tapus to the Legendary section. They can always be taken back out if their classification proves to be incorrect. UB00 (talk) 07:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

That's not how we operate. Tiddlywinks (talk) 07:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

In that case, we would best be served by making a "disputed Legendaries" subsection for the time being, as mentioned below. UB00 (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

That was decided against as seen below - for a "disputed Legendaries" section we'd need a reason not to believe they are other than it wasn't stated against. ----Celadonkey (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I would declare the Tapus legendaries for the reasons stated above plus the fact that when you try to bring up their QR code it says "this is a special pokemon there is no QR code" --Gingerwithasoul (talk) 09:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

It has never been officially stated that Pokémon that do not provide QR Codes in the Pokédex are Legendary. In fact, Magearna does not provide one and is not Legendary (being Mythical instead). --SnorlaxMonster 09:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

here's some more evidence, the Tapus match Bulbapedia's definition of legendary pokemon "Legendary Pokémon are a group of incredibly rare and often very powerful Pokémon, generally featured prominently in the legends and myths of the Pokémon world." not to mention the game refers to them as "special pokemon" like every other legendary pokemon --Gingerwithasoul (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

As I just mentioned, in the context of lacking a QR Code in the Pokédex, "special Pokémon" is not exclusively applied to Legendary Pokémon—it is also used to describe Mythical Pokémon (as well as the 3 sets of Pokémon whose Legendary status is unclear). Bulbapedia's wording is a description, not a definition; Legendary Pokémon are defined by which Pokémon have been officially referred to as Legendary Pokémon. --SnorlaxMonster 10:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that "special pokemon" are either legendaries or mythicals, and since mythicals can only be obtained via events and the Tapus

can be caught in-game that means that the Tapus are legendaries right? Gingerwithasoul (talk) 10:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

(resetting indent)The definitions are fuzzy, and there's been exceptions in the past. It's not really enough to say "it has features of previous legendaries". --Celadonkey 12:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that the term "special Pokémon" is never defined in this context. There's no reason to assume that only Legendary and Mythical Pokémon qualify as special Pokémon in the context of lacking QR Codes in the Pokédex. There is another entirely separate usage of the term special Pokémon (which is also the predominant usage), but it contradicts the usage in the context of QR Codes in the Pokédex so it would only serve as a distraction to discuss it. --SnorlaxMonster 23:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the qr argument doesn't stand on its own but with all the other evidence like the fact they play a significant role in the main storyline, they can only be captured once, they cannot breed and they have their own dedicated catching location it seems pretty reasonable to assume that they are legendaries, there's so much evidence for them being legendaries and so little against and your main argument being that since Game Freak hasn't specifically said so therefore all the evidence is null is extremely illogical. Gingerwithasoul (talk) 03:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Waiting for official confirmation is how things work here. We wait for them to announce whether they're legendary or not. We're not going to assume, only to have Game Freak come out and say "lol nope, they're just normal Pokémon".--ForceFire 03:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

that argument is a huge appeal to tradition, just because something always happens doesn't mean that it's the right way. Also, if that's the case then I would be interested in knowing when they said that the Regis are definitely legendaries or the Lake Guardians or any other group of legendaries Gingerwithasoul (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This aspect is not up for any sort of argument or discussion: we do not assume. Period.

Something like the Bank HA Regi announcement is the easiest reference I know, but I'm sure there are a number of others. It's not remotely worth finding similar references for anything else beyond that "proof of concept", because this discussion is about not about all those others. Tiddlywinks (talk) 04:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

did you really just assume that these sources exist after we were told we're not allowed to assume? if you're going to debate please be consistent Gingerwithasoul (talk) 04:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Your questioning of every other Legendary Pokemon's status—including your reaction immediately above—is nothing but a tactic of distraction. It's not worth a substantive response. Tiddlywinks (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I actually already did look for confirmation of the status of every Legendary and Mythical Pokémon when we were splitting Mythical Pokémon from this article. You can find sources for every single Legendary and Mythical Pokémon (that existed in Gen VI) here. (Note that some of the links, specifically the pokemonblackwhite.com links, are now no longer available, so you'll need to use Wayback Machine or a similar service to access them.) --SnorlaxMonster 07:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Disputed legendaries section

There's a lot of debate on Legendary status of newly introduced Guardian deities, Ultra Beasts and Type: Null/Silvally (two sections above et all) as well the old debate on Manaphy and Phione. Do you think it'd be a good idea to add a section describing that dispute as well as explaining the stance Bulbapedia has taken on the subject? That would help to avoid potential debates and edit wars. Phione Trivia section is an example of how it could look like. — ∀ЫъГЬ ∃Talk page 13:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense to me, as this debate is till going, I sure the Admins will also be willing tog having a disputing Pokemon page, soundalike a good idea.--Jacob Kogan (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I would personally keep it under discussion, as this isn't a long standing debate like Phione. It'll most likely be confirmed within the next month or so considering it is already nearly confirmed. Also, Jacob: try to use colons before your posts so that they are staircased - one more than the previous posts.----Celadonkey (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Got it Celadoneky. I will be sure to remember that. --Jacob Kogan (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Phione actually has evidence for and evidence against listed. To create such a section here would require evidence against them being Legendary Pokémon—what evidence would that be? --SnorlaxMonster 14:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

But didn't the discussion above end with the conclusion they are not? With the major argument being Official site does not explicitly names them as such. Or did you mean the opposite? The argument that supports their status as Legendary Pokemon would be the GTS search filter. — ∀ЫъГЬ ∃Talk page

Official site not explicitly naming them as such is a lack of evidence for, not evidence against. I already pointed out above why the official site cannot currently be relied upon to definitively say something isn't Legendary yet (although once it is properly updated we should be able to). --SnorlaxMonster 11:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

However, when Guardian deities, Ultra Beasts, and Type: Null/Silvally register in the Pokedex, they will not show up as legendary Pokémon. So they are still some degree of controversy as legendary Pokémon, I think. E9310103838 (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, that's a lack of evidence for, not evidence against. The point is is that it isn't an established controversy, like Phione. ----Celadonkey (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, the message Rotom Pokédex gives for all of them is a special message. If it just gave a generic message, I think that would be reasonable evidence against. Instead, it has a special message that is used instead of the Legendary Pokémon message. --SnorlaxMonster 09:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

So the game is undeniably, definititively stating that they are all legendary. May I add them to the page now? Nutter Butter (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd say so, but we'd have to wait for mod approval, as sometimes they say something completely different than expected. ----Celadonkey (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

According to Abcboy, a Bulbapedia Administrator, two sections above: The staff have decided that since the games don't explicitly refer to these Pokémon as Legendary, they should not be referred to as Legendary until and if an official source explicitly describes them as such. Since this is the most recent official word from the staff as a whole, that's what we need to follow until they reconsider, if/when they do. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

If we're following that, we now have an official source stating that they are legendary (the GTS), so it can be added. Nutter Butter (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The GTS excludes Legendaries and Mythicals, but does not otherwise distinguish those groups. We will continue to wait for a source that clearly gives these Pokemon only one of those labels.

(I'd like to suggest that, going forward, anyone who thinks they have proof and is itching to make edits try contacting a staff member directly if there's no particular response here. Thanks.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Sub-legendaries

I've heard on the internet that the Tapus, Nullvally, and Ultra Beasts are included as a classification known as sub-legendaries in the game's code. What is interesting is that the "lesser trios" (i.e. Musketeers, Birds), as well as other minor legendaries such as the Latis and Heatran are grouped alongside them as sub-legendaries. Can someone confirm this for me, and in that case does this call for a massive overhaul to the legendary page? Or should we wait till January for Pokebank to finally make things clear?--Geektreecko (talk) 03:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Outside of game mechanics, details obtained by rooting around in the game's code are not considered an official source. I'm not sure exactly the rationale for this, but edits have been reverted before for it. Xolroc (talk) 03:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh! In that case, is the National Dex considered an official source? Assuming that when released it follows the format of the SM dex as well as the game code, it will likely group this generation's disputed legends and previous generations' minor legends under the green page background. Would that provide enough evidence to create a new grouping called sub-legends, and also give a conclusion as to the disputed legends' identity?--Geektreecko (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

See this talk page section for my response to this rumor. As for the Pokédex, as you can tell when you catch Island Scan Pokémon, the National Pokédex just isn't in the game. --SnorlaxMonster 03:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if it's been officially confirmed, but I seem to recall hearing that the national dex is going to be released along with the pokemon bank update. Don't know if you can really say it just isn't in the game--seems more like the way to unlock it just doesn't exist yet! Xolroc (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The National Pokédex will be in Pokémon Bank itself, rather than Pokémon Sun and Moon (based on officially announced information and the game data). For example, the Pokédex sprites used for Alola Pokédex Pokémon simply don't exist for non-Alola Pokédex Pokémon. ---SnorlaxMonster 04:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Legendary Disputes Part X

The Tapus, UBs, and Type: Null Line, are still in dispute - whether it may be game mechanic or folklore factors. Those two factors do prove that they are though. Folklore of course, undeniably speak of the Tapus and UBs as legends. Type: Null and Sillvally's stature may be postulated with the existence of the Cosmog Line, such that they can perform evolution, and Mewtwo, that they are artificially made. The game's code itself also prove it though. But let me say first that the non-prohibition of these Pokémon in Battle Institutions are very lousy proofs, since multiple minor legendaries are allowed. But one thing's for sure. The GTS. It has a systematic sieve, an option to filter out Legends and Mythicals. In reason: Only Legendaries and Mythicals can be filtered out of the GTS. The Tapus, UBs, the Type: Null Line can be filtered out in the GTS. Therefore, these are Legendary Pokémon. Phiraptor28 (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Your logic is faulty, and this has already been addressed on this very same page. The GTS filter means they are either Legendaries or Mythicals, but we don't know which. We won't be labeling them as one or the other until they have been officially labeled so we know which label to use. (You can see a staff member, Tiddlywinks, say this exact same thing in the last comment of the subheader "Disputed legendaries section" above, timestamped 05:43, 17 December 2016.) Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

We have to wait for Nintendo to confirm it--Jacob Kogan (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I hate to be a bother, but you're missing the colons I had told you about earlier... ----Celadonkey 19:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

"The GTS filter means they are either Legendaries or Mythicals, but we don't know which"—well, they're obviously not Mythicals, so, by using the process of elemination, we can conclude that they must be Legendaries. Therefore, the GTS should be enough to prove that they are Legendaries; however, it seems like the staff wants to wait for official confirmation, which I can understand, even if I disagree. But, I haven't found any official confirmation for Marshadow either, so by that logic, shouldn't we delete that article? —MartinZ (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Marshadow is in the games. Tiddlywinks (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I think MartinZ's point was that they haven't been officially confirmed to exist. IIRC, in Gen VI, we didn't have pages for Diancie, Hoopa, or Volcanion until they were announced. ----Celadonkey 01:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Per Talk:Marshadow (Pokémon)#Officially Revealed?, that's because at that time, datamining for the 3DS wasn't yet verifiable by the staff, so it was unknown whether those Pokemon actually existed or were being faked. The staff are now able to verify 3DS datamining, so Marshadow has its own page because it's confirmed to exist in the Sun and Moon data. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Necrozma

Should we state that it is currently unconfirmed if Necrozma forms a group with Solgaleo and Lunala, much like with Zygarde? There is a lot of evidence to indicate a relation between the three, but aside from the file name for Necrozma's picture (which itself is somewhat vague) nothing has been officially confirmed yet. --Geektreecko (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, it might turn out like with Zygarde where they might probably never officially state that their a trio. Animaltamer708:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that it's unnecessary and unencyclopedic to state that something is not known, the fact that it says nothing here should suffice that we simply don't know. --Raltseye prata med mej 11:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking about the unseen tag like the one for zygarde.Animaltamer711:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Shiny backgrounds in Pokémon Bank

Since Pokémon Bank is out, I got my Pokémon registered in the National Dex within, and apparently there's shiny backgrounds on the following Pokémon. I split them between Legendary and Mythical for readability, but they are all in a similar style:

• Legendary: Lugia, Ho-Oh, Kyogre, Groudon, Rayquaza, Dialga, Palkia, Giratina, Reshiram, Zekrom, Kyurem, Xerneas, Yveltal, Zygarde, Cosmog, Cosmoem, Solgaleo, Lunala, Necrozma.

• Mythical: Mew, Celebi, Jirachi, Deoxys, Manaphy, Darkrai, Shaymin, Arceus, Victini, Keldeo, Meloetta, Genesect, Diancie, Hoopa, Volcanion, Magearna.

What's notable here is that the Legendary are all Special Pokémon, but Mewtwo is the only Special Pokémon without a shiny background. Of the Mythicals, Phione doesn't have the shiny background, and I don't have a Marshadow to check. I'm not sure how this affects the definition of Special Pokémon, Legendaries, and Mythicals, but it's interesting that they singled out these Pokémon from the rest.- unsigned comment from RHeegaard (talk • contribs)

Whoops, just noticed I forgot to sign my comment above! - RHeegaard (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

And all the other legendary Pokémon get... nothing. But while this doesn't help to prove or disprove the Tapus' or the Ultra Beasts' legendary status, it could be another Evidence Against Phione. --Celadonkey 13:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't have Pokemon Bank, so for clarification, may I ask: what color are the backgrounds of all of the above Pokemon? And what color are the backgrounds of all the other Legendaries that aren't listed (and Phione)? Are all of them yellow*, or are the above ones yellow and the unlisted ones green? If the latter, that may be decisive evidence that the background color indicates Special/non-Special, and that the tapus, Type:Null, and UBs are non-Special but Legendary. If the unlisted ones are yellow as well, though, the plot thickens and the green background still has no obvious explanation. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

All Pokémon RHeegard named have a shine under their picture. All other legendary Pokémon have nothing to differentiate them from regular Pokémon. --Celadonkey 16:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

So all other Legendaries have blue backgrounds?!? That makes even less sense... Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The color of the background corresponds to the Pokémon's types. Mythical and Special Legendary Pokémon (except Mewtwo and Phione) also have a shine effect on the background. --SnorlaxMonster 16:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, so the backgrounds in Bank have no correspondence to the backgrounds in Sun/Moon? Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks completely different. Gives us nearly no info at all :T --Celadonkey 16:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, if you missed it, RHeegard's distinction between Legendary and Mythical is his own - Pokebank's Dex doesn't show a difference between them. Plasma (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

What's most surprising is that Mewtwo does not have a shine background. Overall though, it implies that Gamefreak is pretty serious about plans to make Legendaries and Sub/Semi-Legendaries separate categories.Plasma (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I like that, especially as someone who still considers Mythicals Legendary. ----Celadonkey 01:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Cosmog line

Should we have a page for the Cosmog line? We have a page for every other legendary group. --Celadonkey 18:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Just make the duo page and add notes there: Game mascot#Generation VII. Tiddlywinks (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Type:Null, UB's, and Tapus Revisited

The official Pokémon site says that Mythical and Some Legendaries are not allowed in VGC. Thus, there are some Legendary Pokémon that ARE allowed, but all Mythical Pokémon are NOT allowed. [2]

We have already determined that Type:Null/Silvally, UB's, and the Tapus are either Mythical or Legendary.

They are allowed in VGC, which rules out them being Mythical. By process of elimination, they're legendary. --Celadonkey 20:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't confirm anything. Ataro (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems quite obvious to me, but you're the staff :v could you explain? --Celadonkey 21:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed those two facts make all of them objectively legendaries, period (unfortunately logical thinking is not the strongest point of everyone here). The only possible counterargument here is that at least one those facts is incorrect, and even in that case, it should be justified for us to trust official statements as long as we can't prove they're false. Finally, I hope personal biases like "Type: Null just can't be a legendary! GTS must be lying!" aren't stalling this...--電禅Den Zen 22:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

So is it ok to say that they're legendary now? I don't want to edit anything w/o confirmation from a mod. --Celadonkey 22:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, a very explicit, unambiguous statement is always *best*. Taking the twist and turns of inference always leaves a door for some mistake somewhere, somehow (and I don't mean by the inferrers).

That said, I understand the logic and can't argue it. Just, like I said, I would personally be happiest to have a very explicit attribution. Tiddlywinks (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I can understand that you, being a mod, would like that. No worries. --Celadonkey 22:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Alright, so I'm going to go ahead and edit all of the pages to conform to this in a half an hour or so, if it's ok with you guys. --Celadonkey 22:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

...Tell you what. How about we call it 24 hours instead? A little patience won't hurt you. Tiddlywinks (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. (Also thanks for being a nice mod! I've been on a lot of websites where the mods are like dictators.) --Celadonkey 23:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that I don't think the only supposed counterevidence, "All Mythical and Legendary Pokémon are not allowed" from the rules of Alola Friendly, is not counterevidence at all. "Mythical and Legendary Pokémon are not allowed" sure would be, but if I'm correct, the word "all" in the beginning means some legendaries are allowed in that competition (and those are the three groups).--電禅Den Zen 10:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

"All Mythical and Legendary Pokémon are not allowed" means "there are no Mythical or Legendary Pokémon that are allowed". "Not all Mythical and Legendary Pokémon are allowed" would mean what you seem to be interpreting it as. --SnorlaxMonster 10:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I think Dennou reads it as "(All Mythical) and [~unspecified] Legendary Pokémon are not allowed" rather than "All (Mythical and Legendary) are not allowed".

Also, I'd like to add that the opposite/negation of "All X are not allowed" is not "Some X are allowed", but "Some or none X are allowed". Nescientist (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course "not all X are Y" would the most unambiguous way to say it, but my research supports that "all X are not Y" can indeed mean the same thing (but also that "no X are Y"); specifically, how "all X are not Y" is interpreted seems to depend on the region of the speaker or the emphasized word. And since there's other evidence for and no other evidence against them, I think it's fair to assume they indeed mean "not all X are Y" (in other words, that T:N, Silvally, Tapus, and UBs are all Legendary yet are allowed in the competition).--電禅Den Zen 11:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that "All Mythical and Legendary Pokémon" implies that "all" applies to both Mythical and Legendary, but as the same wording was deliberately changed to "All Mythical and Some Legendary" on the VGC rules I'd say that's the most accurate. --Celadonkey 15:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Just coming in to veto the 24 hour wait, and change that to until the staff has made a decision. Not to sound too harsh, but I really dislike this "I'm going to add it if no one responds" attitude. I know this has been going on for months, but Game Freak isn't really making it easy with their inconsistent word usage. So please, if there's still patience, wait until the staff gives you the all clear, regardless of if it's 24 hours or one year from now.--ForceFire 15:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I said "if it's ok with you guys", not "if nobody responds". But yeah, that's ok. Just make sure to let us know. --Celadonkey 15:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Legendaries such as the bird trio, beast trio, force of nature etc had always been allowed in tournaments. im sure they are trying to refer to Special Pokémon. The japan website just list those not permitted instead of referring to any group. but of course, we cannot just assume -Pokeant (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Elaborating on Dennou's earlier comment - I just realized, the Alola Friendly counterevidence doesn't really mean anything at all. It directly contradicts the GTS - if Type: Null and friends are allowed, and "all Mythical and Legendary Pokemon are banned", then they can't be mythical either. --Celadonkey 18:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

on a side note, the japanese wiki included these in their article. of course bulbapedia have different staff and rules but just a note -Pokeant (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, same with the French website, but all of the wikis are independent, so it shouldn't matter. --Celadonkey 14:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The Kanto X Alola Regional Rumble doesn't ban anything that isn't Mewtwo, Mew, Cosmog, Cosmoem, Solgaleo, Lunala, Necrozma, and Magearna. In other words, not only are the Silvally line, Tapu, and UBs not banned as before... but the Legendary Birds are not banned either. Shiramu Kuromu (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this means anything... It doesn't say anything about Legendary or Mythical Pokémon, it just lists the banned ones. --Celadonkey 01:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The main evidence against the gang from being legendary is this: "apparently Japanese versions do not say on GTS that those groups are legendary (or mythical), only that they're special Pokémon, so it's too early to say which of them are legendary" (Dennou Zenshi) I may or may not investigate this on my own.

My own opinion is that this should not influence the decision, because the same section in English mentions "Do you want to include people who are seeking Mythical or Legendary Pokemon" and when "don't include" is selected, already established legendaries and mythicals are excluded as well as the gang in question, and since this is an English wiki and since in the past borders between legendary Pokemon have been different than in Japanese, we should go by the English. --Celadonkey 01:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to add, but the Japanese GTS thing isn't evidence for either side, so I don't think it should really matter.

With all of this said, it is the mods' decision. --Celadonkey 01:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a game originating from Japan. They made the game. They make the rules. So yes, the Japanese text has just as much relevance to deciding (I might in fact go as far as their decision is absolute) what is and isn't a legendary/mythical.--ForceFire 03:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Except, that in this case, it seems that the Japanese GTS is more vague than absolute. If the Japanese games are not calling them Legends or Illusory, then it seems like the other languages might be more relevant at this time. --Super goku (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

(resetting indent) Can I just ask what we're even having this argument about at this point? If the English GTS says they're either Legendary or Mythical but doesn't clarify which one, and the Japanese one says they're Special but doesn't mention anything about Legendary or Mythical, then that seems to put us back exactly where we started — knowing they're either Legendary or Mythical, but not knowing anything more than that. This back-and-forth-ing over the Japanese GTS seems to be a lot of hand-wringing over nothing to me. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

English GTS says "Legendary and Mythical Pokémon" are excluded with filter. Japanese GTS says "special Pokémon", but we don't know what this means, since they are not referring to Special Pokémon that we know. From this, we can conlude that the gang in question are either Mythical or Legendary, which we have been doing until this point was brought up: Rules for VGC 2017 say that "All Mythical and some Legendary Pokémon" are banned. The gang is not banned.

In response to ForceFire's comment: I don't think Japanese decision is absolute if they don't tell us the decision that they've made. All it says is "special Pokémon", and since it isn't referring to box legends and Mewtwo, since Pokémon like Entei are blocked by the filter, it doesn't tell us anything. It's non-evidence. --Celadonkey 12:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Just realized, I didn't even answer your question, whoops. The argument is over whether these guys are legendary or not. --Celadonkey 13:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

After some research... I'm not 100% sure, but it looks like the Japanese GTS says "幻や　伝説ポケモンを\nほしがっている　人を". (I'm not sure what "\n" is, I copied this from the Japanese text dump on abcboy's page.) I definitely see "伝説" (Legendary) and "幻" (Illusory, the term Japan uses for Mythicals). And yes, Type:Null and the gang are still excluded when the filter is on. --Celadonkey 16:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

It's about this simple: as a matter of current policy, we're not satisfied by the current extent of revealed information. In other words, continuing to argue over the same current set of facts will go precisely nowhere. We know everything you do and are unwilling to make the jump.

If something new (especially direct, like "X is Legendary") pops up, feel free to mention that, please. Tiddlywinks (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

That's fair, thank you. --Celadonkey 16:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't mean to start an argument, but why are you not satisfied? It would help me to know your train of thought for the future, and I'm curious. --Celadonkey 19:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The simplest answer is probably that direct evidence is best. Tiddlywinks (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

That's fair, but what's the limit of what's good enough? I don't understand why a big tournament where "Mythical and some Legendaries are banned" and the gang not being banned, plus the gang being excluded from a filter that excludes "mythical and legendaries", is too vague for Bulbapedia.

Please pardon me if I'm a little rude, I'm just very confused why new points and rules keep being brought up every time we get closer to making a change. --Celadonkey 20:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm making an assumption, but it sounds to me like "deduced based on separate sources" is not good enough, whereas "a single source" would be unambiguously acceptable. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

If that is the case, that seems very silly. As Den Zen pointed out, logic may not be the strongest suit of the users of the Internet, but simple logic puzzles like this case shouldn't be shelved just for having two parts to it. I mean, it's one thing if it's a string of convoluted, conspiracy-esque sources, like how you would see boards in rooms with newspaper clippings and string, but this isn't like that. --Celadonkey 20:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

(resetting indent) Guys, just give up. Look at how lengthy this discussion is and ask yourselves, "are we even close to a solution or we'll have to keep posting messages until this thread gets long enough that we can publish a series of novels about it?" We don't have solid evidence stating that these Pokémon are Legendary or Mythical. We can't label them as such until we have a more concrete source. GTS filters are not enough when Phione has been referred to as a Mythical Pokémon by a large number of sources from Generation V onwards and we still say its Mythical status is disputed due to a Prima Guide from a decade ago!!! If Phione's case is not moving forward, I don't know why you insist on this. --Mikuri 21:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree.

Phione is... a different case. Phione has had lots of sources left and right saying "it's mythical" "it's not mythical" etc. There's a bunch of evidence for the Pokemon in question here being Legendary, and the only source against it has a wording that was used again after it, with the same Pokemon being restricted, yet it was revoked and changed.

And anyways, the talk page is meant for discussion like this. We may be close to a solution. We may not be. I believe that there is enough evidence for the case, and too little and not reputable enough evidence against it, to reasonably say that they are Legendary. I'm going to keep pushing forward until either a change has been made or I can understand the decision for the change not to be made. --Celadonkey 21:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Can it not be assumed that since there are no mythical or legendary Pokemon (minus Phione, Cosmog and Cosmoem), with a base stat under 580 and that in the Sun and Moon pokedex, they have a green background instead of the same one as confirmed legendaries, that they are therefore their own group. Could they not be defined as something like "Unique Pokemon" like Unown? LanceDrake286 (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Kind of like saying only Legendary Pokemon have unique battle music and- OH WAIT; Type: Null and Silvally share Gladion's theme with him, and the Tapu and UBs have their own separate music used solely among themselves. Shiramu Kuromu (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Unown are not "defined as unique Pokemon". They are, for wiki purposes, in the same category as any other non- Legendary or Mythical Pokemon. Either way, we can't assume what's Legendary or Mythical and what's not based on traits, especially if you have to make exceptions. It would be like if you were to say that Solgaleo and Lunala can't be legendaries, because they evolve from a Pokemon. --Celadonkey 00:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

A couple things I forgot to mention:

First of all, there actually is a confirmed Legendary Pokemon that's under 580 BST. It's 50% Zygarde.

Second of all, I'm going to stop pushing for the change with the current set of information. I've talked with staff and I now understand the decision that they've made much more. I will bring up any new evidence that comes up. I have faith in GAME FREAK that they will officially, explicitly mention these Pokémon as Legendary, as they have with previous Legendaries. --Celadonkey 00:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a specific form of a legendary can be counted as an exception to my 580 BST idea but I do agree that since there are a few exceptions, it's not 100% true.LanceDrake286 (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

to help end this I propose a criteria for counting a pokemon as a legendary

-the pokemon must have storyline/lore relevance

-the pokemon must not be able to be replicated by breeding

-the pokemon must only be able to be captured once Gingerwithasoul (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The sentiment is appreciated, but Legendary is an official classification of Pokémon, and since no official sources give us a criteria for this classification, it's up to those official sources to tell us whether Pokémon are Legendary or not. We simply aren't in a position where we can make those kinds of assertions without compromising the accuracy and integrity of Bulbapedia. --Haddady ~Straight Outta the Bag~ 02:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This might be me being pedantic, but even if we were to use fan criteria (which we won't), those criteria aren't really that good.

Point 1 - The Legendary Birds have never had any lore in the games. Neither has Necrozma. There are a few other confirmed Legendaries that don't fit that either.

Point 3 - Would this make Nihilego and Guzzlord Legendary, but no other UBs? Also, that would exclude Solgaleo or Lunala, confirmed Legendaries.

Either way, we're not using fan criteria for our pages, especially with something with as much gravity as this. --Celadonkey 12:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The Tapu, UB, Null and Silvally ARE Legendary. I have proof.

I'd just like to point out part of the VGC 2017 rules downloaded from here:

5.2. Case 2 – Severe Tier 2

o Any Legendary or Mythical Pokémon (with the black clover) that has Hidden Power as a Fighting-type move.

That's part of the manual hack checking appendix. It essentially means that they are Legendary or Mythical, as this appendix lists everything the electronic hack check misses, the Pokémon in question can't have HP Fighting, and if they AREN'T Legendary or Mythical, then they CAN have HP Fighting, as then this clause wouldn't apply, so HP Fighting would be possible in-game without hacking, and they defiantly can't catch impossible HP Fighting on Pokémon using the electronic hack check. We also have the official statement that NO Mythical Pokémon are in VGC 2017 and SOME Legendary Pokémon ARE in VGC to eliminate the possibility that they're Mythical. This is also an official source stating that the minimum 3 31 IVs thing is still exclusive to Mythical and Legendary Pokemon. Oh, and if they AREN'T Legendary because purely of the statement from the Alola Friendly, then the statement that you can't use Mythical or Legendary Pokemon in {insert name of any battle facility} in the games themselves eliminates the Legendary Birds, Legendary Beasts, Legendary titans, Lake Guardians, Cresselia, Heatran, the Swords of Justice and the Forces of Nature from being Legendary by the same logic. PartHunter (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC), wondering why this is so hard to make a decision on.

I think the issue is not whether they are Legendary or not, but whether they are Legendary or Mythical. --Celadonkey 14:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Nothing on that page says "VGC 2017"... The appropriate link is "Play! Pokemon VG Rules and Formats". (Just as a suggestion, maybe try to be more exact about how you're referring to links in the future.)

That guide as it sits has a pretty serious flaw: it doesn't define the Mythical and Legendary Pokemon. How's a checker supposed to know who they have to check and who not? That's really not an arbitrary question. Either it's up to each checker (in which case, say...maybe the UBs aren't Legendary because, pssh, there's no way you'd ever be able to get multiple of a Legendary Pokemon in the same game, of course), or they have to have some criteria that each person can obey to reliably reach the same conclusions.

If VGC anywhere states which Pokemon are considered Mythical or Legendary, that'd be absolutely GREAT. In the meantime, it's probably (i.e., I haven't asked at the moment, but, given the standing decision) not satisfactory for us to assume who that is, even if the explanation seems apparent. If they will explicitly state something and then change it, it's one thing for us to follow that and turn out wrong for that reason; if they haven't explicitly stated it, then if they make a clear statement later that's contradictory, we'll just end up looking the fools. Tiddlywinks (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

If the VGC checkers can decide for themselves who's legendary and who's not, that would be kind of silly, because then either legal Pokémon would be blocked, or illegal Pokémon would get through. I would think that they would either have a list of legendaries, or a list of legendary criteria. It would be wonderful if we could somehow get our hands on either. --Celadonkey 14:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that in Pokémon X and Y, Baby Pokémon caught in the wild are guaranteed to have three random IVs of 31 due to their inclusion in the Undiscovered Egg Group so at a point in time the 3 31 IVs thing was not true. Additionally the Ash Greninja received from the Special Demo Version also comes with guaranteed 3 31 IVs that are locked to Attack, Special Attack and Speed and it is definitely not a legendary mythical pokemon but it IS in the undiscovered egg group. LanceDrake286 (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This debate on Potential Legedary is one of the biggest discussions ones I have ever seen on topic. And Ash Greninja is a special one of kind Pokémon like the Type: Null and Silvally.--Jacob Kogan (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• sigh* Please don't bring up something completely unrelated to derail the discussion. Ash-Greninja is a form. That's all, period. It has nothing to do with this debate. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

LanceDrake- I think it was a glitch in X and Y. And the Ash Greninja thing, and it wasn't mentioned but this applies to Gen I VC Pokémon too, is a special case. All of those Pokémon are available with normal IVs. However, all Legendary and Mythical Pokémon are always guaranteed to have 3 perfect IVs, without hacking. And as was pointed out before, it has been officially confirmed that all Legendaries and Mythicals have 3 perfect IVs.

Anyways, it's been acknowledged by staff that the Pokémon in question are for sure either Legendary or Mythical. The question is, which. And at this point there's nothing (or at least I don't think there's anything) that falls in line with the staff's guidelines and expectations. --Celadonkey 18:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Ash Greninja was brought up to help disprove the above theory stating the 3 31 IVs thing was EXCLUSIVE to mythical and legendary pokémon. It's not unrelated to said discussion in any way.

Can I ask for a link to the official statement as well? It would help my understanding here. LanceDrake286 (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

it said that all mythicals and legendaries always have 3 perfect IVs, not that ONLY mythicals and legendaries have 3 perfect IVs. --Celadonkey 18:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

So, how is it a question whether the tapu and the Type: Null line are legendary or mythical? They're not event exclusive and not banned from online competitions, so they're not Mythical. Ergo, if they can only be either Legendaries or Mythicals, they have to be Legendaries. - unsigned comment from Missingno. Master (talk • contribs) 21:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm mostly going to repeat what I said above:

As a matter of current policy, we're not satisfied by the current extent of revealed information. We know everything you do and are unwilling to make the jump. (...With the possible exception of this latest info, which hasn't had time to be inspected much by staff. But I wouldn't expect it to change our official stance.)

If something new (especially direct, like "X is Legendary") pops up, feel free to mention that, please.

Like I said: this is our current "policy". I understand exactly where the "A & B = Legendary" people are coming from; but this is Bulbapedia. You're welcome to disagree—to be disgusted with us over it—but there are times when we very much prefer an abundance of caution. Tiddlywinks (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't this apply to the Legendary Birds, beats, Titians, Spirits, three of the Swords of Justice, and others I can name. As they aren't banned from Tournaments like the Ultra Beasts, tapu and the Type: Null line as mentioned before?--Jacob Kogan (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Those are already confirmed to be Legendary. We don't need another source to reaffirm they are. --Celadonkey 01:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

This is also an official source stating that the minimum 3 31 IVs thing is still exclusive to Mythical and Legendary Pokemon. - No it's not. The manual hack check is not exhaustive (it would be pretty hard to write a human-readable document that is). This statement says that if it is Mythical or Legendary, a Pokémon cannot have Hidden Power Fighting; it says nothing about the opposite.

Oh, and if they AREN'T Legendary because purely of the statement from the Alola Friendly, then the statement that you can't use Mythical or Legendary Pokemon in {insert name of any battle facility} in the games themselves eliminates the [snipped] from being Legendary by the same logic. - Where does the game ever claim that you cannot use Mythical or Legendary Pokémon in battle facilities? To my knowledge, there is always a specific list of Pokémon you cannot use (often including Eggs).

Now, the existence of this point is interesting, because it implies that judges know which Pokémon are considered Mythical or Legendary. However, I believe that only public rule documents can be enforced in official tournaments, so exactly how they determine this should be looked into. --SnorlaxMonster 01:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I talked with a VGC Judge and he said that nobody knows which Pokémon are legendary and the same discussion went on in their private forums. They decided to disregard the rule that says that legendary and mythical Pokémon can't have fighting Hidden Power, and instead have it as Pokémon who are guaranteed to have 3 IVs cannot have Fighting Hidden Power, as they couldn't figure out what was legendary and what wasn't. --Celadonkey 11:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a quote from the PWT, accessed by talking to the red attendant, selecting info and selecting the Kanto Leaders Tournament:

"Kanto Leaders Tournament is a tournament in which Gym Leaders from Kanto are participating. You may not have duplicate Pokémon or duplicate held items. The item Soul Dew and the move Sky Drop are banned. Legendary or mythical Pokémon may not participate, either. For these battles, all Pokémon will be set to Level 50. The winner will be awarded with a little more BP than usual. Good luck!"

And yet some Legendary Pokémon CAN participate in this tournament, the ones listed above. The games use that line in other places, too. The description for the Kanto X Alola Regional Rumble download rules says "Only Alola Pokédex and Kanto Pokédex can be used. Legendary and Mythical Pokémon are banned.", as well, yet confirmed legendaries, the Legendary Birds, are allowed in it. The X and Y Baby Pokémon thing never prevented HP Fighting, as it didn't prevent HATCHING those Pokémon with 2 or fewer 31 IVs. And if you're just going to say "use caution", there are videos on YouTube complaining about it, so maybe we should at least do somthing on the page to add more about them, like how Phione is on the Mythical Pokémon page. There is such a thing as being too cautious. And this debate is pretty dumb, as all the against camp has in evidence and arguments is a single quote from a source that isn't even all that reliable for this kind of thing, and a general "be cautious" thing. Also, while the manual hack checking isn't exhaustive, since it bothers to worry about Hidden Power's type at all then the descriptor for the rule about Hidden Power's type IS almost certainly comprehensive, and Gen I Pokémon and Ash-Greninja are not relevant, as they aren't even legal in VGC, so the manual hack check does not have to account for them. (Also, Ash-Greninja is easy, as only a single IV spread is legal for it, so Hidden Power is fixed and the automatic hack check can probably easily verify the legality of it because of this, since all it has to do is confirm that all the IVs match the single legal spread, not calculate Hidden Power's type, which is a significantly less efficient thing to do, and would slow the hack check down while using up more memory.) PartHunter (talk) 12:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I would have directly linked the rules, but clicking on the link to them automatically starts a file download, so I can't provide a direct link, as none appears in the browser to copy. PartHunter (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

While I mostly agree, the "be cautious" thing is an important tenet on Bulbapedia. I believe that there is evidence enough to prove so, but I understand that a rule like "if you can't be 100% sure, it doesn't belong yet" applies. --Celadonkey 13:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Those PWT rules seems a bit vague, but the Kanto X Alola Regional Rumble download rules are quite explicit. I don't really know what to say about them though, since while it indicates the Battle of Alola rules are suspect, it's also not confirmation in the other direction (since we weren't prepared to call them Legendary Pokémon even before finding that piece of evidence).

"Also, while the manual hack checking isn't exhaustive, since it bothers to worry about Hidden Power's type at all then the descriptor for the rule about Hidden Power's type IS almost certainly comprehensive" - I don't understand how you draw this conclusion at all. The manual hack check also covers illegal Poké Balls, but that doesn't mean it covers every single possible case (it doesn't). The fact that it mentions some property is illegal on some Pokémon doesn't mean that it covers every single possible time that is illegal.

Anyway, I asked Pokémon support and got the following response:

"In the "2017 Pokémon VGC Rules, Format, and Penalty Guidelines" document, Manual Hack Checking Appendix - Case 2 specifies that a penalty will be issued for "Any Legendary or Mythical Pokémon (with the black clover) that has Hidden Power as a Fighting-type move. Which Pokémon that are permitted in the current format are considered Legendary or Mythical Pokémon? I cannot find any indication of this in the games themselves or other rule documents."

"While we are not in a position to discuss the legality of Pokémon overall, Pokémon are illegal if they are flagged by the electronic hack check or violate one of the rules in section 5 of the VGC rules."

I was really hoping this would resolve the discussion, but they're being deliberately evasive... --SnorlaxMonster 22:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Wait, how'd you contact Pokemon support? I've been trying to find a way to do that, but the best I could do was contact a Pokemon Professor (VGC judge, he said he had the same issue). --Celadonkey 23:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

http://support.pokemon.com --SnorlaxMonster 00:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

On bulbapedia, listing things that aren't yet facts on the pages isn't accepted. Furthermore, additional proof against the argument is the Rotom Pokédex never explicitly saying any of the specified pokémon are legendary while it does mention when confirmed legendaries and mythicals are added. There's also the gold backgrounds being present for confirmed Legendary and Mythical pokémon while these unique or special pokémon do not.

The only way for us to ascertain whether they are legendary or not is if the TPC explicitly states it to be so. Everything else is speculation until then. LanceDrake286 (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Anime evidence?

Some of the translated summaries of SM019 outright state that Tapu Koko (so by extension, all the Tapus) are legendary, as seen here. Does this provide enough proof?--Geektreecko (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain an official statement cannot be taken from a translated summary of something that happens in the anime. Do the summaries still call them legendary pokémon in Japanese. There's also the matter of the anime itself not calling them legendary, only a translation of a summary. LanceDrake286 (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The summary indeed uses the Japanese word for Legendary Pokémon for Tapu Koko and it should be added to the "evidence for" section. Though I wouldn't say this is enough proof to start calling Tapus legendaries in Bulbapedia. It could be just anime writers or whoever wrote summary assuming they're legendaries wihout knowing for sure.--電禅Den Zen 16:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Random question: If the anime were to explicitly call Tapu Koko a legendary, would that apply to the other tapus too, or just Koko? --Celadonkey 11:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The episodes with Tapu Koko now have the "List of Episodes where a Legendary Pokémon appears" category, though the Tapus are still not listed as Legendary Pokémon otherwise. Frankly, I'm not too sure if we should use the anime as a source for confirming if a Pokémon is Legendary or not, given M03 states that Unown are Legendary (even if that was just a case of Early Instalment Weirdness). UxieLover1994 (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

We use the anime for a lot of things, like Lugia being the trio master of the birds, or Zygarde being a part of a trio with XY. It's likely that Unown is a case of Early Installment Weirdness. But I agree that we can't yet assume Tapu Koko is legendary JUST from that one magazine clip We need an episode, in English, or some sort of official episode description. Or some other source, not TV show. It'll probably happen eventually. --Celadonkey 12:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The Ultra Beasts

Okay in the PGL article for the upcoming Tiny Tournament It has a list of Pokémon they suggest using and one of them is Kartana. Now that by itself doesn't mean anything, however near the end of the article it says that the only Legendary Pokémon allowed are Uxie, Mesprit, and Azelf. If Kartana was a Legendary Pokémon then those three wouldn't have been listed as the only Legendary Pokémon allowed. I don't know about you guys but I'm pretty sure this proves the Ultra Beasts aren't Legendary Pokémon. Especially since it's from the official Pokémon website.Flain (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

You are correct that Kartana is eligible. However, the site says that the Pokémon that are eligible are: "National Pokédex No. 001 through 801, excluding Pokémon over 1 meter (3'03") tall, all Mythical Pokémon, and some Legendary Pokémon." Emphasis on some. In other words, no new information, as usual.

I really do hope that TPCI says something in the near future about the legendary status of the UBs. I don't even care if they say they're not legendary, I just want some confirmation of something to end this debate --Celadonkey 13:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Celadonkey, you overlooked the most important line of that article: The only Legendary Pokémon permitted in the competition are Azelf, Uxie, and Mesprit.

As the article notes, Kartana is eligible, so this line implies that Kartana is not Legendary. That's the point Flain was trying to make. --SnorlaxMonster 14:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I must have been looking at the wrong website, sorry. But I still hold with my statement. This website [3] states what I said above, and from what I could find, it appears to be newer (June 28, as opposed to June 3). Either way, these two pieces of conflicting information don't add anything. --Celadonkey 14:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

There's no conflict. The regulations do say exactly as you described, but that doesn't contradict the other article. --SnorlaxMonster 14:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Fair, but again, this doesn't really shake up the debate. --Celadonkey 15:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

About Silvally

So, are we confirmed that Silvally as Legendary Pokémon? E9310103838 (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it has been officially confirmed. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Ultra Beasts confirmed as Non-Legendaries?

The Pokémon official published an aricle with hints for catching Legendary Pokémon and the Ultra Beasts were not included and also has a part on the text saying "You'll be able to discover Pokémon that aren't found in the Alola region by entering these warp holes, including Legendary Pokémon and Ultra Beasts!" so Ultra Beast are not Legendary Pokémon. - unsigned comment from Pika fanatic (talk • contribs)

I am not really sure on that as the recent games seems to finally confirmed that there some Legendary Pokémon are indeed Ultra Beats, the examples are Cosmog and Necorzma, plus in the anime Gladion mentions Cosmog being an Ultra Beast.--Jacob Kogan (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Can someone please provide a link to this specific article? --SnorlaxMonster 23:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't have the article (in fact I haven't seen any articles mentioning that) but I can at least say that it says something along the lines of "Legendary Pokemon and Ultra Beasts" in the guide book a few times.

Either way, though, I don't believe it means anything... There's not enough room to say anything definite from a phrase like that, especially when other pieces of evidence are considered. At least in my opinion. --Celadonkey 23:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe we got this information from the either the Regional Strategy Guide or National Pokedex Guide as his proof for this matter. I recall seeing that line or something similar as well.--Jacob Kogan (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

https://www.google.com.br/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj02eH4i8XYAhXBHJAKHe8sATUQFggoMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pokemon.com%2Fus%2Fstrategy%2Ften-tips-for-catching-legendary-pokemon%2F&usg=AOvVaw32bQCWU65MKaCgrfJBUgFb Here the page, Ten tips for catching Legendary Pokémon.Pika fanatic 05:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Legendary Pokemon Regional Terms

So from the official staggery guide of USUM, I discovered these region term for the Legendaries. They are called Kantonian Legends, Johtoian Legends, Hoennian Legends, Sinnohan Legends, Unovan Legends, Kalosian Legends, and Alolan Legends. Shold they be added to the Legendary Pokémon page and individual pages? Just asking out of curiosity.--Jacob Kogan (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

If you want, go ahead and put them on trivia on the individual regions pages. (I think I suggested to put it there when Bulbapedia was down but I guess it never happened.) However I don't think that they should be put on this page... the demonyms aren't really exclusive to legendaries. --Celadonkey 03:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

My source for these terms came form the official USUM Guide book. https://www.amazon.com/Pokémon-Ultra-Sun-Moon-Official/dp/074401882X --Jacob Kogan (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Type: Null and Silvally

Since both Type: Null and Silvally are officialy Legendary Pokémon, i thought in call their evolutionary line as Beast Killers, because of the Beast Killer project that resulted in their creation, and i saw some wikas call then with this name, what are you think? Pika fanatic (talk) January 19, 04:50 (UTC)

It's probably better not to make up an imaginary name for a group that's so small that we can just say the Pokemon's names. It's not that difficult to just write "Type: Null and Silvally", unlike larger groups. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Type: Null, Silvally, and Tapu trivia

I just want to say they were controversial at the beginning due they were not pointed in the Japanese media as legendary Pokémon. I think this need to be included in the trivia? E9310103838 (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I know right, and it took the Pokémon company 1-2 years to finally confirm they status as Legendaries. It cause quite the debate when it happened. I am glad both the anime and Year of Legendary Pokémon finally settle the debate but why this long? Heck, this is a debate is huge like the time with the Ultra Beats being thought o be Legendary Pokémon even though there is proof they are not, unless you count the Cosmic Duo and Necrozma. But again it up to the admins to decide on the trivia matter.--Jacob Kogan (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

There was no controversy. Fans assuming and guessing things is a common thing with the fandom.--ForceFire 15:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed and it usually leads very interesting theories that end up being either true or false, give or take depending on the situation.--Jacob Kogan (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Replacing the Entei anime movie picture

So I have a suggestion that needs approval. I was thinking maybe replacing the this picture Entei Book picture that is on the top of the Legendary Pokemon Page with the 2018 Legendary Pokemon Distributions artwork picture. My reason is that I find that picture more fitting and better represents the Legendary Pokémon themselves as whole and their page on Bulbapedia. The Ultra Beast Page and Mythical Pokemon does the example as seen with both pages showing a variety of different Pokémon of said group each. What do you think guys?--Jacob Kogan (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Any new-ish official artwork with a substantial group of Legendaries would clearly be better than a shot of a single Legendary from more than a decade and a half ago. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing me. Now once more approval comes, the switch came be done.--Jacob Kogan (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't say that you're going to wait for more approval only to make the change anyway. Have patience, a response is not going to come magically. I don't mind using an image that has all (or at least some of) the legendary Pokémon, so it's fine. But still, actually wait for more approval, don't just add it because one person approved it.--ForceFire 05:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough sorry about that. I will revert my edit.--Jacob Kogan (talk) 05:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Well... I did say that it's fine (i.e. gave approval), so you didn't have to revert yourself.--ForceFire 06:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay then, that you for understanding and giving approval Force Fire.--Jacob Kogan (talk) 06:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

the averaging

i always find it strange to have different forms count as different pokemon. they are the same species. why are we treating them separately? I would like to suggest an alternative way to average. rather than counting all the forms as separate pokemon, we average the forms first, then use the average for that pokemon. for example, instead of treating mewtwo as three separate pokemon, we average the stats of the three form, and count that as mewtwo's (average) stats, and then we use this to average everything. Mewtwo would still be counted as 1 species of pokemon rather than 3. I am not saying this is the best way, but perhaps we can have a discussion on whether to keep the current way or have this instead. thank you (same for the mythical). -Pokeant (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Merge duos + trios

I believe we should merge the pages of legendary trios and duos. We now have two quartets of legendary Pokémon as secondary legendaries- the Swords of Justice and the tapus (arguably the Legendary titans as well, although the use of the term is ambiguous). Neither of these groups get a place in either the legendary trio or duo pages, despite their relationship being just as important- the number of Pokémon in each group limits the scope of the article. There is not much reason to keep the two pages separate, as the two pages focus on the same topic: relationships between legendary Pokémon. (Additionally, the two pages, as they are right now, are very different: the legendary trio page is considerably less detailed than the legendary duo page.)

I also think that, if we were to merge the pages, they should be written to focus more on the relationships between the Pokémon in each grouping rather than just simply describing each group, to prevent the article from becoming a lite version of the "List of Legendary Pokémon" section on this page.

(Also, I hope I don't seem impatient, but it's an issue I feel strongly about- have any developments been made on Necrozma's trio status? The evidence is, in my opinion, clearer than other trios.) --Celadonkey 01:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you Celadonkey on the matter and what you are getting at. Other than information reveled in the Post Game USUM Guide book and yesterday's episode, still taking time. From that I hear there is definite proof but from what an admin told me, we still need approval from the staff to finalize it if I recall, look how it took for Zygarde for example. So we may still have to wait for it. Also if we do that would the Trio Master be included as well to support it or just those two? Just was curious thats all as it a big proposal.--Jacob Kogan (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I feel like, apart from Lugia and Ho-oh, trio masters are already a part of their respective groups. Earlier I mentioned Regigigas which is also a strange case due to the existence of an official term. Where it gets weird, imo, is Arceus. Not only is Arceus a very asymmetrical case when compared with Dialga, Palkia, and Giratina, but it is also the master of the lake guardians. I think that trio masters are worth mentioning, but not much redefining is to be done there in my opinion. I would be welcoming of the inclusion of Arceus into a quartet with Dialga, Palkia, and Giratina but it’s not really my choice.

Tl;dr: I think trio masters would be a valuable thing to bring up in a legendary grouping article but I don’t think that, for example, Lugia should be included with the legendary birds. --Celadonkey 02:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Information from new DLC Trailer

So it has been confirmed The Three Legendary Birds are getting Regional Forms and the Two New Regi Duo are called Regielec and Regidraco. Can we start adding this in? Or wait for english trailer and website to get updated?--Jacob9594 (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

They are fine to be added to their respective articles.--ForceFire 14:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Ultra Beasts and Mythicals are Legendaries

Can you add the Ultra Beasts and Mythicals to the "Legendary Comparison" section? - unsigned comment from GlowstoneLove (talk • contribs)

No. Those are not Legendary Pokemon.--ForceFire 15:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

New Legendary Pokemon Artwork

So we ahve a new Pokemon artwork that officially shows all the Legendary Pokemon. Can we use this to replace Year of Legendary Picture for this? https://swordshield.pokemon.com/assets/img/articles/ex/legendary_2x.jpg--Jacob9594 (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry link is broken https://swordshield.pokemon.com/en-us/expansionpass/features/#legendary-pokemon --Jacob9594 (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that official artwork, and more like a collage. Also think that it being rectangular might not be as nice looking in a thumbnail as a square image would be, but that's my opinion.--ForceFire 16:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

ultra beast are referred to as legendary in Crown Tundra

This is worth discussing if ultra beast should be included on this page, or at least mentioned somewhere since in crown tundra ultra beasts are called legendaries too. -Pokeant (talk) 06:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

what he said. peony outright refers to them as legendary pokemon.Roserade57 (talk) 12:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Multiple Legendary Pokémon

Do we really still need the "Multiple Legendary Pokémon" section? It's been pretty firmly established multiple times that Legendary Pokémon are not unique individuals (as per that section). I don't think we need to document literally every single case on this page. Just a couple of examples from different media should be enough. --SnorlaxMonster 14:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Koraidon and Miraidon

Can both of them be considered as legendaries? They are just essentialy Paradox forms of Cyclizar, like any other Paradox Pokémon and yet these ones aren't considered legendaries. Futhermore, it's clearly stated in the subtext that they are not the only ones of thier respective spiecies in the eras witch they come from. - unsigned comment from Lugiadrien (talk • contribs)

They are essentialy legendary Pokemon in every possible way, their additional lore doesn't change that. What matters the most is being called legendary by official media and being programmed as such in the game code.--Rocket Grunt 14:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Plus this is not the first multiple Legendary Pokémon of the same species are encountered in one game. The Crown Tundra is a good example of that. Plus the the two Type:Null From Gen 7. Plus you have two solgaleo/Lunala thanks to the Cosmog you find in Alola after going through an Ultra Wormhole.--Jacob9594 (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The legendary treasures of Ruin

I don't know if its too early to not, but I think that we should create a specific page for the Treasures of Ruin, there is lore, a story told at history class, move sets and the extra information in dialog from the history teacher about how only pure heart people can remove the stakes to unlock the seals. So, what do you all think, I'm being to early to consider creating the page?

--Neos (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Good idea, we have more than enough for a page at least. Go right ahead.--Jacob9594 (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Revising Legendary pokémon page

So there have a good attempt to revise this page and mythical Pokémon information page to make more good and deciding which information was needed. But it got undo by a guest contributor, who made ti clear we need to rethink on how to do this properly. So I am kickstarting this to help lead to discussion and plans on how to do this going forward and ensure it does not get undone. Any has suggestions or tips? Like we do we need the information on where to find the Legendary Pokémon or keep it or have a separate page on their debuts in games and stuff?--Jacob9594 (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I think what this and the Mythical Pokémon page is missing is a structure like the Ultra Beast and Paradox Pokémon pages. A table providing an easy list of Legendary Pokémon with a brief description of their lore, and maybe even an overview of their game locations (which could be a separate table if that content is too much for the main list table). Landfish7 15:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

That can work and be creative. Plus more distinct and special.--Jacob9594 (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that we should go more towards what French wiki did. So, describe generally what it means for Pokemon to be legendary and just list all of them. Their lore is unnecessary when all legendary groups have their own separate articles and there's also page called "Myths and legends involving Legendary and Mythical Pokémon". Maybe there should be a simple table listing them with some of their legendary related traits. I made a draft here: Legendary_Pokemon.--Rocket Grunt 20:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. we just got to make sure no ine tries to undo this new direction.--Jacob9594 (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Team Rocket Grunt: While I'm open to paring down some specific details, I do wonder if readers would still appreciate having brief blurbs for each mon in one easy place? There's a slight difference there from how the Myths and legends page is presented. Landfish7 14:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Ture, its jus the myths and legends page is sadly ignored. While me and others do edit, its largely ingored and neve really fixed enough to be proper and have brief blues while still connecting to that big page to show its accurtae and enjoyable for our readers.Jacob9594 (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not very confident in writing, so I can't create detailed blurbs for each legendary Pokémon. These could easily get messy, trying to cover every place or event tied to their lore. It's challenging to pin down each Pokémon's themes, stories, or powers because the sources are varied. Official media often presents their lore in an open-ended way, leaving room for new stories to be told and that relies on interpretations, which are better suited for dedicated pages on each legendary group. Instead, I'd like a simple list of locations, myths, and artifacts relevant to each Pokémon's lore - for example, listing the Pokémon Mansion and its Journals for Mewtwo. This approach keeps things clean and easy to explore further.--Rocket Grunt 17:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

If you don't feel confident writing the blurbs, I could take up the job. Alternatively, we could do what the Paradox Pokemon/Ultra Beast pages do and copy-paste from the dex entries. Welkamo (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a point of repeating the same thing that already is on the wiki. It would have to be a custom text like Landfish is trying to do.--Rocket Grunt 20:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

(resetting indent)Catching up on this conversation...I definitely agree that a table would be helpful, but I don't really like the idea of leaving all the nuances of their lore to "dedicated pages on each legendary group". Where does that leave Pokémon that aren't part of a group, like Heatran or Eternatus? A big part of the appeal of Legendary (and Mythical) Pokémon is that they have lore, story relevance, and such, so I feel like that should all be collected in one place rather than making users piece together all the lore from tidbits scattered across several different articles. So I feel like either: a) there should be a separate section, after the main list, that details the lore of each Legendary Pokémon; b) there should be a separate article that details the lore of each Legendary Pokémon; or c) the scope of the "myths and legends involving Legendary and Mythical Pokémon" article should be expanded to include facts about them and their role(s) in the modern day. Storm Aurora (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I assume that Pokemon like Heatran should have their entire lore covered on their own pages. Here, on "Legendary Pokemon" page Heatran is described with two short sentences so what's even the point. I agree with the idea that the page "myths and legends involving Legendary and Mythical Pokémon" should be expanded and cover all that. Also, can its name be a little shorter?--Rocket Grunt 22:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Heatran does have nore lore to it evne tis not as cmmon or used often as others.--Jacob9594 (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)