79
edits
Talk:Hoopa (Pokémon): Difference between revisions
→Is Hoopa The New Pixie?
Tiddlywinks (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
:"Small" is subjective, "cute" and "'fairy'-looking" are opinionated, and "600 BST" is a trait shared by a TON of Mythical Pokémon beyond just those six, meaning that the only ''factual'' relation between specifically them is that they are all Mythical and have straight-100 stats. Hoopa is Mythical, but since it doesn't meet the ''only'' other criterium, it doesn't qualify, so rather than being considered "the only Pixie not to have straight-100 stats," I would just not call it a Pixie. Please remember that this has to all be fact-based, so we can't just categorize Pokémon based on similar appearances - if Hoopa counted as a pixie despite not having straight-100 stats, then wouldn't Diancie and even Darkrai also have to? They also have BSTs of 600 and are Mythical; they, ''like Hoopa,'' lack the straight-100 stats, but if Hoopa counts, there's no reason for them not to count. I don't think Hoopa can be grouped with the Pixies - we ''didn't'' count Diancie and Darkrai, did we? [[User:EpicDeino|EpicDeino]] ([[User talk:EpicDeino|talk]]) 11:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC) | :"Small" is subjective, "cute" and "'fairy'-looking" are opinionated, and "600 BST" is a trait shared by a TON of Mythical Pokémon beyond just those six, meaning that the only ''factual'' relation between specifically them is that they are all Mythical and have straight-100 stats. Hoopa is Mythical, but since it doesn't meet the ''only'' other criterium, it doesn't qualify, so rather than being considered "the only Pixie not to have straight-100 stats," I would just not call it a Pixie. Please remember that this has to all be fact-based, so we can't just categorize Pokémon based on similar appearances - if Hoopa counted as a pixie despite not having straight-100 stats, then wouldn't Diancie and even Darkrai also have to? They also have BSTs of 600 and are Mythical; they, ''like Hoopa,'' lack the straight-100 stats, but if Hoopa counts, there's no reason for them not to count. I don't think Hoopa can be grouped with the Pixies - we ''didn't'' count Diancie and Darkrai, did we? [[User:EpicDeino|EpicDeino]] ([[User talk:EpicDeino|talk]]) 11:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
::Subject? Likely. Either way, [[Appendix:Fan terminology#Cute Legendary Pokémon|we have a definition on the Appendix]]. (Though, they are not called Pixies.) --[[User:Super goku|Super goku]] ([[User talk:Super goku|talk]]) 21:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC) | ::Subject? Likely. Either way, [[Appendix:Fan terminology#Cute Legendary Pokémon|we have a definition on the Appendix]]. (Though, they are not called Pixies.) --[[User:Super goku|Super goku]] ([[User talk:Super goku|talk]]) 21:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
:::So is that a yes or a no? Hoopa seems to fit the entire definition in the Appendix aside from the 100 stat spread. --[[User:BlackButterfree|BlackButterfree]] ([[User talk:BlackButterfree|talk]]) 09:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Pokemon Infobox problem == | == Pokemon Infobox problem == | ||