Open main menu

Bulbapedia β


Talk:Legendary Pokémon

9,674 bytes added, 12:04, 2 October 2018
Don't respond to comments over six months old, this discussion has been resolved and does not need further commenting.
:::Either way, though, I don't believe it means anything... There's not enough room to say anything definite from a phrase like that, especially when other pieces of evidence are considered. At least in my opinion. --[[User:Celadonkey|Celadonkey]] 23:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I believe we got this information from the either the Regional Strategy Guide or National Pokedex Guide as his proof for this matter. I recall seeing that line or something similar as well.--[[User:Jacob9594|Jacob Kogan]] ([[User talk:Jacob9594|talk]]) 23:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
:::: Here the page, Ten tips for catching Legendary Pokémon.Pika fanatic 05:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
== Legendary Pokemon Regional Terms ==
So from the official staggery guide of USUM, I discovered these region term for the Legendaries. They are called Kantonian Legends, Johtoian Legends, Hoennian Legends, Sinnohan Legends, Unovan Legends, Kalosian Legends, and Alolan Legends. Shold they be added to the Legendary Pokémon page and individual pages? Just asking out of curiosity.--[[User:Jacob9594|Jacob Kogan]] ([[User talk:Jacob9594|talk]]) 02:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
:If you want, go ahead and put them on trivia on the individual regions pages. (I think I suggested to put it there when Bulbapedia was down but I guess it never happened.) However I don't think that they should be put on this page... the demonyms aren't really exclusive to legendaries. --[[User:Celadonkey|Celadonkey]] 03:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
::My source for these terms came form the official USUM Guide book.émon-Ultra-Sun-Moon-Official/dp/074401882X --[[User:Jacob9594|Jacob Kogan]] ([[User talk:Jacob9594|talk]]) 18:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
== Type: Null and Silvally ==
Since both Type: Null and Silvally are officialy Legendary Pokémon, i thought in call their evolutionary line as ''Beast Killers'', because of the Beast Killer project that resulted in their creation, and i saw some wikas call then with this name, what are you think? [[User:Pika fanatic|Pika fanatic]] ([[User talk:Pika fanatic|talk]]) January 19, 04:50 (UTC)
:It's probably better not to make up an imaginary name for a group that's so small that we can just say the Pokemon's names. It's not that difficult to just write "Type: Null and Silvally", unlike larger groups. [[User:Pumpkinking0192|Pumpkinking0192]] ([[User talk:Pumpkinking0192|talk]]) 04:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
== Type: Null, Silvally, and Tapu trivia ==
I just want to say they were controversial at the beginning due they were not pointed in the Japanese media as legendary Pokémon. I think this need to be included in the trivia? [[User:E9310103838|E9310103838]] ([[User talk:E9310103838|talk]]) 15:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
:I know right, and it took the Pokémon company 1-2 years to finally confirm they status as Legendaries. It cause quite the debate when it happened. I am glad both the anime and Year of Legendary Pokémon finally settle the debate but why this long? Heck, this is a debate is huge like the time with the Ultra Beats being thought o be Legendary Pokémon even though there is proof they are not, unless you count the Cosmic Duo and Necrozma. But again it up to the admins to decide on the trivia matter.--[[User:Jacob9594|Jacob Kogan]] ([[User talk:Jacob9594|talk]]) 15:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
::There was no controversy. Fans assuming and guessing things is a common thing with the fandom.--[[User:Force Fire|<span style="color:#F1912B">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#F6B775">orce</span>]][[User talk:Force Fire|<span style="color:#5599CA">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#90BDDC">ire</span>]] 15:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
:::Indeed and it usually leads very interesting theories that end up being either true or false, give or take depending on the situation.--[[User:Jacob9594|Jacob Kogan]] ([[User talk:Jacob9594|talk]]) 16:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
== Replacing the Entei anime movie picture ==
So I have a suggestion that needs approval. I was thinking maybe replacing the this picture Entei Book picture that is on the top of the Legendary Pokemon Page with the 2018 Legendary Pokemon Distributions artwork picture. My reason is that I find that picture more fitting and better represents the Legendary Pokémon themselves as whole and their page on Bulbapedia. The Ultra Beast Page and Mythical Pokemon does the example as seen with both pages showing a variety of different Pokémon of said group each. What do you think guys?--[[User:Jacob9594|Jacob Kogan]] ([[User talk:Jacob9594|talk]]) 15:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
:I agree. Any new-ish official artwork with a substantial group of Legendaries would clearly be better than a shot of a single Legendary from more than a decade and a half ago. [[User:Pumpkinking0192|Pumpkinking0192]] ([[User talk:Pumpkinking0192|talk]]) 16:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
::Thank you for agreeing me. Now once more approval comes, the switch came be done.--[[User:Jacob9594|Jacob Kogan]] ([[User talk:Jacob9594|talk]]) 19:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
:::Don't say that you're going to wait for more approval only to make the change anyway. Have patience, a response is not going to come magically. I don't mind using an image that has all (or at least some of) the legendary Pokémon, so it's fine. But still, actually wait for more approval, don't just add it because one person approved it.--[[User:Force Fire|<span style="color:#F1912B">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#F6B775">orce</span>]][[User talk:Force Fire|<span style="color:#5599CA">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#90BDDC">ire</span>]] 05:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
::::Fair enough sorry about that. I will revert my edit.--[[User:Jacob9594|Jacob Kogan]] ([[User talk:Jacob9594|talk]]) 05:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::Well... I ''did'' say that it's fine (i.e. gave approval), so you didn't have to revert yourself.--[[User:Force Fire|<span style="color:#F1912B">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#F6B775">orce</span>]][[User talk:Force Fire|<span style="color:#5599CA">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#90BDDC">ire</span>]] 06:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
::::::Okay then, that you for understanding and giving approval Force Fire.--[[User:Jacob9594|Jacob Kogan]] ([[User talk:Jacob9594|talk]]) 06:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
== the averaging ==
i always find it strange to have different forms count as different pokemon. they are the same species. why are we treating them separately? I would like to suggest an alternative way to average. rather than counting all the forms as separate pokemon, we average the forms first, then use the average for that pokemon. for example, instead of treating mewtwo as three separate pokemon, we average the stats of the three form, and count that as mewtwo's (average) stats, and then we use this to average everything. Mewtwo would still be counted as 1 species of pokemon rather than 3. I am not saying this is the best way, but perhaps we can have a discussion on whether to keep the current way or have this instead. thank you (same for the mythical). -[[User:Pokeant|Pokeant]] ([[User talk:Pokeant|talk]]) 03:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
== Merge duos + trios ==
I believe we should merge the pages of legendary trios and duos. We now have two quartets of legendary Pokémon as secondary legendaries- the Swords of Justice and the tapus (arguably the Legendary titans as well, although the use of the term is ambiguous). Neither of these groups get a place in either the legendary trio or duo pages, despite their relationship being just as important- the number of Pokémon in each group limits the scope of the article. There is not much reason to keep the two pages separate, as the two pages focus on the same topic: relationships between legendary Pokémon. (Additionally, the two pages, as they are right now, are very different: the legendary trio page is considerably less detailed than the legendary duo page.)
I also think that, if we were to merge the pages, they should be written to focus more on the relationships between the Pokémon in each grouping rather than just simply describing each group, to prevent the article from becoming a lite version of the "List of Legendary Pokémon" section on this page.
(Also, I hope I don't seem impatient, but it's an issue I feel strongly about- have any developments been made on Necrozma's trio status? The evidence is, in my opinion, clearer than other trios.) --[[User:Celadonkey|Celadonkey]] 01:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
: I agree with you Celadonkey on the matter and what you are getting at. Other than information reveled in the Post Game USUM Guide book and yesterday's episode, still taking time. From that I hear there is definite proof but from what an admin told me, we still need approval from the staff to finalize it if I recall, look how it took for Zygarde for example. So we may still have to wait for it. Also if we do that would the Trio Master be included as well to support it or just those two? Just was curious thats all as it a big proposal.--[[User:Jacob9594|Jacob Kogan]] ([[User talk:Jacob9594|talk]]) 01:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
::I feel like, apart from Lugia and Ho-oh, trio masters are already a part of their respective groups. Earlier I mentioned Regigigas which is also a strange case due to the existence of an official term. Where it gets weird, imo, is Arceus. Not only is Arceus a very asymmetrical case when compared with Dialga, Palkia, and Giratina, but it is also the master of the lake guardians. I think that trio masters are worth mentioning, but not much redefining is to be done there in my opinion. I would be welcoming of the inclusion of Arceus into a quartet with Dialga, Palkia, and Giratina but it’s not really my choice.
::Tl;dr: I think trio masters would be a valuable thing to bring up in a legendary grouping article but I don’t think that, for example, Lugia should be included with the legendary birds. --[[User:Celadonkey|Celadonkey]] 02:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)