Open main menu

Bulbapedia β

Changes

User talk:Shiny Relicanth

49 bytes added, 01:02, 11 July 2016
m
Legendary Pokémon
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 MonsterSnorlaxSnorlaxMonster, 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 MonsterSnorlaxSnorlaxMonster, 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 suggested by SnorlaxMonster, SquidBonez, and me, due to the current-standing consensus on this subject.
 
(Sorry if this post doesn't turn out...I don't use talk pages often.)
102
edits