1,171
edits
Talk:Zoroark (Pokémon): Difference between revisions
→Semi-legendary?
Frenchhorn (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 158: | Line 158: | ||
Well it's obviously not a legendary just because it was the star of a movie. That's obvious. But you seemed to have overlooked two things. 1-There are several other reasons to believe it is legendary-like other than being the star of a movie. 2-It is most certainly not a legendary. I said that. What I wanted to point out is that it is legendary-like, hence the title semi-legendary. Given these two factors, perhaps my suggestion makes a bit more sense. [[User:Frenchhorn|Frenchhorn]] 01:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC) | Well it's obviously not a legendary just because it was the star of a movie. That's obvious. But you seemed to have overlooked two things. 1-There are several other reasons to believe it is legendary-like other than being the star of a movie. 2-It is most certainly not a legendary. I said that. What I wanted to point out is that it is legendary-like, hence the title semi-legendary. Given these two factors, perhaps my suggestion makes a bit more sense. [[User:Frenchhorn|Frenchhorn]] 01:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC) | ||
:So your arguments are "there are several reasons it could be" and "but i'm not saying it is"? I'm sorry but I don't understand what you want to do. Hitmonlee, Smeargle and Marowak have signature moves too, Unown has its own movie, and Pichu can be an event Pokémon. I don't see how Zoroark can be mistaken for legendary except for the few weeks when it came out for the first time. '''[[User:Toon Ganondorf|<span style="color:#00693E">Toon Ganondorf</span> ]] [[User Talk:Toon Ganondorf|<span style="color:#D4AF37">(t</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Toon Ganondorf|<span style="color:#D4AF37">c)</span>]]''' 23:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC) | |||