Pecharunt and Kieran
There is also a hint that it can influence humans while asleep - There is a blink and you'll miss it moment before the Loyal Three revive, where there is a flash of purple when Kieran punches the monument, and it was in frame before that at the time Kieran asks why the player would lie. However, this is at most worthy of trivia because of how subtle it is. https://youtube.com/watch?v=lYOYrxH3wak Shows the scene in slow motion to show the flash. Very blink and you'll miss it, it's amazing it was caught at all. Shadowater (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Only mythical in Gen IX?
Has this been confirmed or something? Because it definitely seems possible that GameFreak could do something like they did with Zeraora and Meltan/Melmetal in Gen VII. CyberDragonM (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Are these statements actually a stretch or not? I think we should have discussed this before removing these.
Here are the points in question I am talking about, I argue they should be included since Pecharunt is themed around the number 8 and I believe it belongs there for that reason in particular. I would have added them back in, but to avoid what got me in trouble again, I decided to take it to the talk page instead.
- It's stat total of 600 is also divisible by 8 (75 * 8 = 600) (I also just happened to add that one earlier mostly)
- Pecharunt learns a total of 16 moves leveling up (8 * 2 = 16). Excluding those learned at level 1, all of its moves learned are at levels which are multiples of 8.
- receives double damage from 4 types (2 * 4 = 8), is immune to 2 types (0 * 2 = 00, appearing like a sideways 8), and has a total type damage resistance of 8⁻² (¼ * ¼ * ½ * ½ = 1/64 = 1/8²).
- It's National Pokédex position #1025 is similar to 1/8 = 0.125, swapping the 0 and 1 positions. - unsigned comment from TurtwigFan4848 (talk • contribs)
- I think all of these are a stretch -Minibug (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Look with all due respect, I would also like to hear from others as well, especially since you were the one who did remove the points in question. Now I am not saying you were wrong to do so or that your view isn’t valid, however I would like to see if others have the same view or not as well. - unsigned comment from TurtwigFan4848 (talk • contribs)
- Minibug removed something else from the article. I was the one who removed the trivia. And yes, it's a stretch. Pecharunt's stats all being 88 shows a clear connection to the number 8, and is notable. But it's stat total being divisible by 8 is not a direct connection, which makes it more of a stretch and not quite notable enough to be worth including, in my opinion. Landfish7 00:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Also, trivia does not really need to be discussed before being removed. If there's a disagreement about removed trivia, a conversation is appropriate to resolve the dispute. Landfish7 00:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Well I was only doing what I should have been doing before, since I got suspended for 2 weeks in part because of not using talk/discussion pages, hence I was doing this to avoid repeating the same mistakes again after that suspension gave me time to reflect on my actions. That’s why I felt it was appropriate to discuss this here. I still wish more people could share their opinion here because while I am not saying your opinion is wrong, I feel that for things like these it is important to here what others have to say, as their opinion is just as valuable for things like this. Don’t worry I am not going to add these back in any time soon unless I knew for absolutely certain that I have been told it’s okay to do so as I don’t want to start another edit war again. - unsigned comment from TurtwigFan4848 (talk • contribs)
- Don’t worry I am not going to add these back in any time soon unless I knew for absolutely certain that I have been told it’s okay to do so as I don’t want to start another edit war again. - unsigned comment from TurtwigFan4848 (talk • contribs)
- Well I was only doing what I should have been doing before, since I got suspended for 2 weeks in part because of not using talk/discussion pages, hence I was doing this to avoid repeating the same mistakes again after that suspension gave me time to reflect on my actions. That’s why I felt it was appropriate to discuss this here. I still wish more people could share their opinion here because while I am not saying your opinion is wrong, I feel that for things like these it is important to here what others have to say, as their opinion is just as valuable for things like this. Don’t worry I am not going to add these back in any time soon unless I knew for absolutely certain that I have been told it’s okay to do so as I don’t want to start another edit war again. - unsigned comment from TurtwigFan4848 (talk • contribs)
- Also, trivia does not really need to be discussed before being removed. If there's a disagreement about removed trivia, a conversation is appropriate to resolve the dispute. Landfish7 00:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Minibug removed something else from the article. I was the one who removed the trivia. And yes, it's a stretch. Pecharunt's stats all being 88 shows a clear connection to the number 8, and is notable. But it's stat total being divisible by 8 is not a direct connection, which makes it more of a stretch and not quite notable enough to be worth including, in my opinion. Landfish7 00:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Look with all due respect, I would also like to hear from others as well, especially since you were the one who did remove the points in question. Now I am not saying you were wrong to do so or that your view isn’t valid, however I would like to see if others have the same view or not as well. - unsigned comment from TurtwigFan4848 (talk • contribs)
(resetting indent)Saw these when you added it and thought that it was one hell of a stretch. Like it's one thing to try to look for connections, but at what point does it come off as trying to grasp at straws? Cause that whole "trivia" certainly reached that point. Long story short, try not to go too over board with it, it's not always that deep.--ForceFire 05:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm very glad to see that you've learned from your mistakes and are using the talk page to discuss this, TurtwigFan4848. That being said, not every possible method of getting the number eight from something related to Pecharunt is notable. Many of these suggestions seem like coincidences rather than intentional design choices to highlight the connection between Pecharunt and the number eight. Addressing them individually:
- Pecharunt is a Mythical Pokémon. All Mythical Pokémon have a base stat total of 600 besides Phione, Arceus, Keldeo, and Meltan. Its base stat total has nothing to do with the number 8.
- Learning a total of 16 moves by leveling up is likely a coincidence, especially since some of those aren't actually learned by leveling up—they're only available via move reminder. A wild Pecharunt can't learn 16 different moves.
- Learning moves at levels which are multiples of eight may be an intentional design decision, as from the sample of Legendary/Mythical Pokémon that I looked at, most of them learn moves at a regular interval (every 8 levels, every 9 levels, every 10 levels, etc.) but the length of that interval varies. Pecharunt may learn a move every 8 levels because of its connection to the number 8.
- I am very, very skeptical that *any* consideration was given to the number of type matchups it has when picking its type. Its lore and design are far more important considerations. The fact that a Poison/Ghost Pokémon has any connections to the number 8 in its neutral, resisted, super effective, or immune type matchups is pure coincidence.
- The fact that you have to swap two numbers to connect its Pokédex number to the number 8 indicates that you're stretching to make a connection there.
- I'll touch on the ones currently in the article as well:
- Most of its stats being 88 is definitely an intentional design decision, especially as this results in all of its stats (except Defense) being below average for a Mythical Pokémon.
- It being caught at the end of the epilogue at Level 88 is definitely an intentional design decision. Most Legendary and Mythical Pokémon are caught at a level that's a multiple of 5, so there was clearly intent in making Pecharunt different from the norm here.
- The signature moves of Legendary and Mythical Pokémon often have only 5 PP. Moves with 5 PP always have a maximum PP of 8. Malignant Chain having a maximum PP of eight is purely coincidental.
- The Loyal Three being bound by a total of eight chains is likely an intentional design decision, as I don't believe Pokémon designers would throw more chains on Okidogi or Fezandipiti "just because".
- So, to summarize, the only trivia point noted here that I think is reasonable to add is the fact that all its level-up moves are learned at multiples of eight. I also think the points about Malignant Chain having a maximum PP of eight and Pecharunt taking neutral damage from eight types, which are currently on the page, should be removed. Storm Aurora (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)