13,925
edits
User talk:Shiny Relicanth: Difference between revisions
m
please don't edit messages on your talk page. It's not allowed.
m (please don't edit messages on your talk page. It's not allowed.) |
|||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
Relicanth here. | Relicanth here. | ||
One can not assume that they are the same individual. There is no evidence to suggest this. | |||
As for the non-unique pronouns thing, this has happened many times (too many to list). But here are a few: Regice in OR/AS (talking to a little girl), Groudon/Kyogre in OR/AS (talking to Archie/Maxie), Groudon/Kyogre in HG/SS (talking to Prof. Oak), Volcanion in OR/AS (talking to the TV producer), Mewtwo in X/Y (talking to Trevor), and many more which can be found. When I say "non-unique pronouns", I mean words like "a", "the", "that", "their", etc. | As for the non-unique pronouns thing, this has happened many times (too many to list). But here are a few: Regice in OR/AS (talking to a little girl), Groudon/Kyogre in OR/AS (talking to Archie/Maxie), Groudon/Kyogre in HG/SS (talking to Prof. Oak), Volcanion in OR/AS (talking to the TV producer), Mewtwo in X/Y (talking to Trevor), and many more which can be found. When I say "non-unique pronouns", I mean words like "a", "the", "that", "their", etc. | ||
Next up is the shiny/IVs. Yes, they are game mechanics, but they wouldn’t have been applied to legendary Pokémon if they were one-of-a-kind. If legendaries were truly one-of-a-kind, then each one would have set natures, IVs, characteristics, and wouldn’t have the ability to be shiny. Denouncing something to being "just game mechanics therefore it's not evidence" without any reason as to why it CAN'T be considered evidence is illogical at best | Next up is the shiny/IVs. Yes, they are game mechanics, but they wouldn’t have been applied to legendary Pokémon if they were one-of-a-kind. If legendaries were truly one-of-a-kind, then each one would have set natures, IVs, characteristics, and wouldn’t have the ability to be shiny. Denouncing something to being "just game mechanics therefore it's not evidence" without any reason as to why it CAN'T be considered evidence is illogical at best. | ||
Now let's tackle PokeDex entries. Latias' entry talks about herds. That means that somehow, they must be being created. And the only way pokemon are created is through reproducing (unless you count the ones who are created by people, but I digress). Entei's Pokedex entry talks about a new one being born whenever a volcano is formed, thus reproducing (be it biological or not). So yeah, they're aren't many entries on reproduction of legendaries, but lack of evidence is not evidence to the contrary (argumentum ad ignorantiam). Also, no PokeDex entry ever says that they ARE unique either. Plus, many non-legendary Pokemon are referred to as if they were one-of-a-kind. For example, Volcarona’s entry makes it sound like it is the only one in existence, even though it isn’t. See here: “When volcanic ash darkened the atmosphere, it is said that Volcarona's fire provided a replacement for the sun.” Froslass’ entry also makes it sound like its one-of-a-kind: “Legends in snowy regions say that a woman who was lost on an icy mountain was reborn as Froslass.” Both of these Pokémon can be captured more than once in each save file, but their entries suggest that they are one-of-a-kind. | Now let's tackle PokeDex entries. Latias' entry talks about herds. That means that somehow, they must be being created. And the only way pokemon are created is through reproducing (unless you count the ones who are created by people, but I digress). Entei's Pokedex entry talks about a new one being born whenever a volcano is formed, thus reproducing (be it biological or not). So yeah, they're aren't many entries on reproduction of legendaries, but lack of evidence is not evidence to the contrary (argumentum ad ignorantiam). Also, no PokeDex entry ever says that they ARE unique either. Plus, many non-legendary Pokemon are referred to as if they were one-of-a-kind. For example, Volcarona’s entry makes it sound like it is the only one in existence, even though it isn’t. See here: “When volcanic ash darkened the atmosphere, it is said that Volcarona's fire provided a replacement for the sun.” Froslass’ entry also makes it sound like its one-of-a-kind: “Legends in snowy regions say that a woman who was lost on an icy mountain was reborn as Froslass.” Both of these Pokémon can be captured more than once in each save file, but their entries suggest that they are one-of-a-kind. | ||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
Finally, why should we just assume legendaries are unique until proven otherwise? It is never specifically stated that ANY are unique, just as it is never specifically stated that ANY are non-unique. We can see that in the games other Pokemon aren't one of a kind. So why should we treat legendaries differently? And the only hint from Gamefreak as to how many legendaries there are is just that they're "rare". The definition of rare is: “not found in large numbers and consequently of interest or value”. The word “rare” implies that, while there aren’t many, there is more than one of whatever is being talked about (in this case, legendary Pokémon). If there is only one of something, the word used is “unique”. However, if there is more than one of something, but that something is just very uncommon, the word is “rare”. | Finally, why should we just assume legendaries are unique until proven otherwise? It is never specifically stated that ANY are unique, just as it is never specifically stated that ANY are non-unique. We can see that in the games other Pokemon aren't one of a kind. So why should we treat legendaries differently? And the only hint from Gamefreak as to how many legendaries there are is just that they're "rare". The definition of rare is: “not found in large numbers and consequently of interest or value”. The word “rare” implies that, while there aren’t many, there is more than one of whatever is being talked about (in this case, legendary Pokémon). If there is only one of something, the word used is “unique”. However, if there is more than one of something, but that something is just very uncommon, the word is “rare”. | ||
Also, I just think that I should point out that we're in a three VS one situation here. Both | Also, I just think that I should point out that we're in a three VS one situation here. Both MonsterSnorlax, SquidBonez, and I seem to disagree with you. So why should the one person who disagrees get the say of what the article displays? We are working as a team here on Bulbapedia, and teams need to make decisions. And as of now, the view that MonsterSnorlax, SquidBonez, and I hold is the most popular. Not to sound like an ass, but it's just how things are. | ||
I'll wait (for a reasonable amount of time) for your response before I do anything. Otherwise I'll make the corrections | I'll wait (for a reasonable amount of time) for your response before I do anything. Otherwise I'll make the corrections due to the current-standing consensus on this subject. | ||
(Sorry if this post doesn't turn out...I don't use talk pages often.) | (Sorry if this post doesn't turn out...I don't use talk pages often.) | ||