Open main menu

Bulbapedia β

Changes

User talk:Shiny Relicanth

3,985 bytes added, 21:59, 10 July 2016
m
Legendary Pokémon
* ''Pokédex says some can breed'': Latias' Emerald entry is the only one I can find that directly states anything about any Legendary species being either unique or non-unique. (In this case, it says Latias group together in herds of several members.) I can't find any reference to breeding in a Legendary's Pokédex entries, though I didn't check Mythicals. In any case, the vast majority of Legendaries, especially in early generations, have entries that seem to strongly imply they are, in fact, unique.
My reasoning for insisting on the sentence being in the anime section was because I thought there was no proof one way or the other in the games, so claiming ANYthing would be speculation. Now that I've found Latias' Pokédex entry, I'll rephrase the sentence to fit the evidence. Please revise it ''with a specifically cited source'' if you find more canonical instances one way or the other, but otherwise, please do not make any new generalizations. [[User:Pumpkinking0192|Pumpkinking0192]] ([[User talk:Pumpkinking0192|talk]]) 19:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 
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.
 
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.
 
And now for the stuff I left out (summaries only allow so much space, you know). SquidBonez pointed out the fact that Battle Chatelaines use legendaries (specifically the trios). These cannot be the same ones you can catch, thus meaning more exist. SnorlaxMonster pointed out the Sinjoh Ruins event. While technically the Creation Trio is unique in the wild, they can be recreated if captured by a trainer (as the Arceus article points out).
 
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 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.
102
edits