Open main menu

Bulbapedia β

User talk:Shiny Relicanth

Welcome to Bulbapedia, Shiny Relicanth!
Bulbapedia bulb.png

By creating your account you are now able to edit pages, join discussions, and expand the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia. Before you jump in, here are some ground rules:

  • Be nice to everyone. It's in the code of conduct.
  • Make good edits. Preview them before you save to make sure they're perfect the first time around.
  • Use wikicode and link templates when adding content to a page.
  • Use proper grammar and spelling, and read the manual of style.
  • You can't create a userpage until you've added to the encyclopedia. It's a privilege. See the userspace policy.
  • Use talk pages to resolve editing disputes. Don't "edit war," or constantly re-edit/undo the same thing on a page.
  • If you have a question about something, be proactive. Take a look at our FAQ. If you're still stuck, ask for help. The staff won't bite.
  • Sign all talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~). This will turn into your name and the time you wrote the comment.
  • For more handy links, see the welcome portal.
Thank you, and have a good time editing here!
  サトシ101 (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)  

The Preview Button

Instead of editing a page several times in a row, try using the preview button to make sure your edit looks the way you want it to. It's right next to the Save Page button. Please try it out, so as not to clog up the Recent Changes. Also, if you want to edit multiple sections of the page, make sure that you click "edit this page" at the top of the page rather than editing it by section. Thanks! --Abcboy (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Legendary Pokémon

Stop adding lines to Legendary Pokémon saying that there are multiples of species. Nothing on the page says anything to the effect of Legendary Pokémon being the only members of their species. And as the above message says, use "Edit this page" at the top of the page instead of editing several sections. glikglak 18:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

This goes for species pages as well. The anime sections already denote that individuals are different. Stop adding counts of them. glikglak 23:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Legendary Pokémon anime vs games

The back and forth with pretty much that one bit of the Legendary Pokémon page has gone on for quite long enough now. Let's please move the issue to a talk page. Even if someone else makes another change to that info, just let it be. Talk about it instead.

Thanks. Tiddlywinks (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Legendary Pokémon

To go through your points in detail, since I'm not limited by an edit summary length:

  • Some can be found in different regions: This is not evidence in favor of one way or the other. If these are different individuals, they may exist in separate places; if they are the same individual, it's easily plausible that they may have traveled.
  • Some are referred to with non-unique pronouns: Can you please point me to a specific instance? I can't recall a time this has happened outside the Mystery Dungeon series, which is independent of the core series (which is, to my understanding, what we're really talking about here). Some sources may say they (though I can't find any from a quick search), but please note that this may be the {{wp:singular they}}.
  • Can be shiny/have different IVs: Pure game mechanics, thus not valid proof. (See also: the contradiction between Pokédex entries saying Escavalier is fast and its actual Speed stat being abysmal. My point is, you can talk about lore or you can talk about game mechanics, but you can't use one as proof for the other.)
  • 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. 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.

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.)

- unsigned comment from Shiny Relicanth (talkcontribs)

Just popping in to share my thoughts, yes, I do agree with Shiny Relicanth. He already explained everything so I'd just be repeating him. And I do feel as if we should stick to the more popular opinion rather than what one has to say. SnorlaxMonster is already outspoken on this subject and this is me speaking out as well (and it's obvious where you two stand). So yeah...3v1 looks about right.

I don't know how to do a timestamp like Pumpkinking0129 did so I'll just type my name here.


(resetting indent) Resetting the indent since everything above is a bit messy. Here is my opinion. Everything was technically correct on the June 27th, 2016 revision and is the basis of my opinion. The edits to the language and the Eon Duo are alright in my opinion with one alteration I will make in a moment. My opinion is that in at least the anime, there are unique Legendary Pokémon if it is in the sense on there being multiples of the same Legendary. If it is on the basis of how important one Legendary is over another, then I can also accept that point when comparing those of the "Mascot trios" sub-group of the Legendary trio article to those of the Legendary duo article and those who are neither a trio or duo. --Super goku (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

So to clarify, you do agree with the idea that some (Arceus, Dialga, Palkia, and Giratina) are unique in the anime, correct? I too agree with this. But the discussion was about multiples of legendary pokemon of the same species in both the anime and games. We all seem to agree that with the exception of said pokemon that legendaires aren't unique in the anime. But when faced with the evidence I listed, what would you say about the games? I'm arguing that the anime and games are essentially the same when it comes to legendaries; all are non-unique except Arceus, Dialga, Palkia, and Giratina (in the wild, that is as Arceus can recreate them if a trainer has caught one as noted on the Arceus article). SquidBonez has also said he agrees. SnorlaxMonster SUPPOSEDLY agrees as well. What say you?
Shiny Relicanth (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)Shiny Relicanth
Please cite any evidence, literally any evidence whatsoever, for your claim that "all are non-unique except" those four. There are a handful that we know are definitely unique or definitely non-unique, but my point (which you don't seem to understand) is that we have no evidence for either claim for most Legendaries — we cannot prove they are non-unique, nor can we claim they are unique. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 04:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I'll try to ask a quick/simple question... ShinyRelicanth, are you saying that you believe Arceus is totally unique in the games? Tiddlywinks (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Pumkinking0192 I understand what you're trying to tell me. But I'm arguing that there IS evidence to suggest that most legendaries are not unique in the games. And my original comment IS my evidence (I even cited where the pronouns thing came from). And I explained why non-unique pronouns, IVs/Shinyness, and being found in multiple regions could be used as evidence. And I asked you why we should just assume legendaires are unique until proven otherwise. I have yet to get an answer on that.

And the reason as to why those four in particular are unique...well, I have already explained this in my reply to Super goku. And I should have explained it better. My evidence was drawn from two sources: the Sinjoh event and the Arceus page. Sinjoh event shows that Arceus can create the Creation Trio at will. The Arceus page claims that it does so in order to protect the dimensions when a trainer has captured one of them. So when I said "unique", I should've explained that they were only unique in the wild. Mulitples can exist, but only under the ownership of trainers. They're the guardians of the dimensions, so how could there be more than one in the wild? I'm short, a trainer captures let's say, Dialga. Arceus creates a newborn Dialga to take its place so the universe remains in tact. However, there are now TWO Dialga in existence; one in the wild and one in the ownership of a trainer.

I would also like to point out that the anime is based on the games. While they are separate canons, why would a basic fact about legendaires (how many there are of each) change between canons? And additionally, is there even any evidence that something like that would/has changed? If they're not unique in the anime, why would the games be any different? Especially when the anime and games are part of the same franchise made by the same general group of people? Either way, I have posted my arguments for game-exclusive evidence already.

@Tiddlywinks I believe it is probably unique in both canons. But I also believe (and this is just speculation) that if it is caught, it can recreate itself. This is due to the fact that Arceus came from an egg. And the Sinjoh ruins even shows that it can recreate the creation trio if they are captured. But how does it do this? It creates eggs. So I think that it can re-create itself if caught. So in the wild it is unique. But multiples can exist under the ownership of trainers (just like the creation trio). Like I said, this is PURE THEORIZING and should not be used as evidence. I believe that we should Arceus and the CT as unique in the article for the sake of simplicity. But as I said with on my reply to PumpkinKing, I could accept that it isn't unique as well. I just currently do not think so.

Shiny Relicanth (talk) 05:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)Shiny Relicanth

You're kind of confusing me, but...if any Pokemon will be treated as unique, then you can't theorize that IVs/Shininess mean anything about whether two Pokemon are unique (separate, distinct beings) just for being distinguishable by those stats.
Also, anime VERY MUCH does not equal the games. This is shown in many ways many other people would know much better than I, but the short version is that you can't rely on either canon to "prove" anything about the other.
Also, some Legendary/Mythicals' lore also just doesn't lend itself to any suggestion of multiple of the Pokemon floating about. Mewtwo was pretty much a one-off experiment. Groudon/Kyogre/Rayquaza are spoken of as being in a three-way struggle that lasted thousands of years, not to mention Groudon/Kyogre supposedly creating the land/sea; the things that are said about them (even the pronouns/articles used to refer to them, as near as I can tell) really don't provide any reasonable room for the possibility of more than one of each. Tiddlywinks (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Shiny Relicanth: To answer your points, in order: You are bringing up things to suggest that most are not unique, but you are not providing actual proof, just implications, inferences and theories. Please understand the difference. You are jumping to conclusions.
Again, because you still don't seem to understand: I'm not saying we should assume most are unique unless proven otherwise. I'm saying that we cannot assume either way unless it is explicitly stated. The only thing we can say with certainty is that there is not enough evidence in the games to support either the most-are-unique theory or the most-are-not-unique theory.
I was not asking why you think those four are unique. I was asking what explicit evidence you have that all others are not unique. You don't have such evidence, because it doesn't exist.
The games and the anime are actually made by entirely different people, so it's patently ridiculous to assume that anything in one affects the canonicity of anything in the other. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 06:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk page comments

Per talk page policy, please do not remove content from your talk page. If you wish, you are welcome to archive your whole talk page and start a new one. Tiddlywinks (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, do not remove content from your talk page. If you would like to clean your talk page, you may archive it, but you may not remove comments. --Abcboy (talk) 00:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh sorry I didn't notice your comments here. OK. That's fine.

~Shiny Relicanth

Please don't edit messages on your talk page, even if they are full of spelling errors it's not allowed. Also don't forget to end your comments with four tildes (~) to give the correct timestamp. --Raltseye prata med mej 03:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Shiny Relicanth".