Terminology
If Poltchageist is the only one that has been officially called "ecologically similar" and is also the only one that actually is ecologically similar (ghosts that possess tea, live in houses, and eat people's life force), then it doesn't seem to me like the term can be extrapolated to Wiglett and Toedscool, and with no official term referring to the category in general, it would make more sense to use "convergent". Pikcahu (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- "Convergent" is a misnomer (they aren't filling the same niches) so whatever the case, "convergent" is unlikely to be used, especially because Poltchageist is not a product of evolution.--MissDelibirda (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Filling the same niche is not a requirement and "convergent" describes better the relation between these Pokemon.--Rocket Grunt 15:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- So we should change rather instead to "Physiologically similar Pokémon" or "Phenotypically similar Pokémon". As it stands this article's name is misleading at best.Satosuke (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- The current title, while imperfect, is the closest thing to an official name we have, and does qualify itself in the Origin section. It's not ideal, but I'd prefer a quasi-official descriptor over a complete fan designator. Landfish7 00:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly, I thought these would be called "Coincidental forms" because that's the word used when they were presented for the first time with Wiglett and the word "coincidence" was used three seperate times, but only when describing Wiglett. However, "Fake regional form/regional fake" makes more sense because that's how three seperate species were described.--Rocket Grunt 09:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- The current title, while imperfect, is the closest thing to an official name we have, and does qualify itself in the Origin section. It's not ideal, but I'd prefer a quasi-official descriptor over a complete fan designator. Landfish7 00:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- So we should change rather instead to "Physiologically similar Pokémon" or "Phenotypically similar Pokémon". As it stands this article's name is misleading at best.Satosuke (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Filling the same niche is not a requirement and "convergent" describes better the relation between these Pokemon.--Rocket Grunt 15:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)