67
edits
Talk:Dracozolt (Pokémon): Difference between revisions
→Are fan designs of the properly reconstructed Galar fossils noteworthy?: new section
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
::So basically whoever add those moves in the signature move page just mis-match where they were supposed be. Well that is awkward.--[[User:Jacob9594|Jacob Kogan]] ([[User talk:Jacob9594|talk]]) 05:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC) | ::So basically whoever add those moves in the signature move page just mis-match where they were supposed be. Well that is awkward.--[[User:Jacob9594|Jacob Kogan]] ([[User talk:Jacob9594|talk]]) 05:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC) | ||
::What about Nature's Madness? It's considered a signature move, yet it's not exclusive to a single evolutionary line. By that logic, why would Bolt Beak and Fishious Rend not be? [[User:ThighFish|ThighFish]] ([[User talk:ThighFish|talk]]) 16:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)ThighFish | ::What about Nature's Madness? It's considered a signature move, yet it's not exclusive to a single evolutionary line. By that logic, why would Bolt Beak and Fishious Rend not be? [[User:ThighFish|ThighFish]] ([[User talk:ThighFish|talk]]) 16:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)ThighFish | ||
== Are fan designs of the properly reconstructed Galar fossils noteworthy? == | |||
I've seen plenty of images showing fan designs of the original ancient Pokémon that the Galar fossils are actually from. All designs I've seen of the Pokémon that the Fossilized Bird originated from call it "Velozolt" and have many universal design features. Is this noteworthy? [[User:ThighFish|ThighFish]] ([[User talk:ThighFish|talk]]) 16:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)ThighFish | |||