Talk:Legendary Pokémon

The following is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

---

Defence/Water

Um...Articuno and Regice are ICE types xP Arcuneh Meeps 20:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a very simple answer to that: it doesn´t matter if they are ice or water types. For instance: Groudon and Regirock are ground and rock, but that is not the point. If you think carefully, you will see that the Regis represent a, so to say, "solid" status of the three types: Regice is ice, the solid status of water. About Registeel, electricity can not be put in a solid form, obviously. Therefore, it is steel type, because steel is metal and a representative of electrical conductors. It still has the "speed-factor" (all electrical Pokémon have high speed), but this time translated in flexibility. But about Regirock, you can not turn fire into solid. Rock or ground represent the earth, and passion (just like fire, if you see the japanese five elements), and that is why Groudon is ground-type and Regirock is rock-type. Remember, what counts here are not the physical part of the elements, but what they represent.

About Articuno, the reason is quite simple: try to imagine a water/flying bird. that isn't easy (except maybe a seagull), especialy if you want it to be a legendary bird. in the case of articuno, the image or the physical part of it was based on the Anka (see Articuno).

Another thing I would like to add is about the Legendary Royalty. Kyogre represents water and the sea, Ground represents fire and the earth and Rayquaza represents electricity and the sky. Altough fire and earth, electricity and sky have nothing to do with each other, Sui, Ka and Fū explain this very easily, that is why I think that these Legendary Elements were inspired on the Five Elements of the Japanese philosophy.

Jorge jojae

Tier system

Why Are Ho-oh and Lugia listed with Mew on the tier system? Should this be changed or is it correct. If it is correct, perhaps elaboration on why it is so?

That question can be easily answered. The Legendary Pairs are like Yin and Yang: two opposites that can not live without each another. A good example is that Latias can not live without Latios, and vice-versa. They represent the two opposite sexes: male and female.

Mew and Mewtwo are two opposites because Mew is the Origin, the ancestor of all Pokémon and Mewtwo is the Copy, just the physical and power side of Mew. In that sence, they are like the two opposites Chi and Kū (see Five elements (Japanese philosophy)). Chi (Earth) is the material part, hard, solid, soulless maybe: Mewtwo. Kū (Void) is spirit thought, creativity, inventiveness: Mew.

Ho-oh and Lugia are two other opposites: Light and Shadow. Ho-oh is a Rainbow Pokémon, it flyes around the Earth with its magnificient, 7-coloured wings: Light (Good?). Lugia, on the other hand, is a Diving Pokémon, it lays deep in a cave, alone, because its powers are too strong: Shadow (Dark?).

Jorge jojae 14:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Original Interpretation?

Some of the ideas on this page - namely the idea of legendary trios related to the elements from Japanese philosophy, and the theorised relationship between Mewtwo, Mew, and Deoxys - seems to run contrary to Wikipedia's research policy. Wouldn't it be better to explain the Legendary Pokémon only in terms of their appearences in the games, anime, and other media, without theorising about categorising the legendaries and so forth?

After reading your text carefully, I believe that you may be correct. I am new in Wikipedia, but I created those parts from the page and I agree to delete and/or simplify them. 89.180.15.58 17:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Chart or descriptions?

I don't like the charts. They include some fanstuff (Mew and Mewtwo being "equivalent" to Latias and Latios), and ignore some more concrete info (the stat totals of Mewtwo, Lugia, Ho-Oh, and Rayquaza are equal to each other and no other Pokémon.) Someone tried to change it to descriptions, but forgot about half of the legendaries. We need consensus. --HeroicJay 19:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of the description over the chart as well. The charts made it impossible to list all of the Legendaries to satisfy everyone. I'm also okay with not mentioning the Fourth Generation Pokémon. While the box art monsters may in fact be Legendary, I'm starting to have doubts over whether Lucario is indeed a Legendary Pokémon. I may be wrong, but if it was Legendary, would there already be game screens of it? -SaturnYoshi 00:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

On GameFAQs, people are calculating the base stats of Pokemon whose overall stats are now known. Lucario's base stats, no matter what assumptions you make, are lower than any legendary's (though not by a whole lot). So I agree with you that we should wait for official confirmation, even for Diaruga (beh, I find it easier to say "Dialuga", but whatever) and Parukia, who seem fairly obvious. --HeroicJay 01:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

GameFAQs are really starting to bug me. But we have at least come to an agreement about not listing any Fourth Gen, including Manaphy. Being the star of a movie doesn't necessarily make one Legendary. Even though the way a player can capture it is reminicent of Mew, etc., we're not completely sure. And the way I feel, it's either all or none. And we certainly do not know all. -SaturnYoshi 14:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This time, they actually have a point. Stats in the third Pokémon generation are calculated by a set formula. The stats of a few Pokémon have been seen in screenshots, so they calculated backwards to find Lucario's base stats (or at least, Lucario's maximum base stats if he's got a neutral nature). I checked the math, too. Their total was lower than any current legendary. Which is all tangential to this conversation, I admit. No fourth-gens until we can be sure of what's what. --HeroicJay 16:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I already reverted the page once because someone had added Manaphy. I'm sticking to the NO FOURTH GENs rule until we have concrete evidence. -SaturnYoshi 16:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC

Maybe kinda late, but we have concrete 4th-gen info from Japanese imports of D/P. Lucario is NOT legendary, but there's a whole lot of Legendaries in D/P, including a fourth Regi, Regigigas. And Manaphy is Legendary, though it can breed; the offspring is called Fione, which is simply a weaker version of Manaphy, yet does NOT evolve into it. Diaruga and Parukia are legendary, and we have another always-female Legendary (not sure if there's a male one). All info on the Legendaries and how they are obtained is on Serebii.net. --Fighting Dreamer 23:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Charts and descriptions?

I have an idea. What if we make it so the charts that were here before we did change them into descriptions, actually were seperated into a section. It's hard to explain, so I'll just show you in an example, maybe Suicune.

= = Suicune = = [no spaces]

Legendary Beasts:

Raikou

Entei

Suicune

(section description)

[Suicune is in bold, in case that's hard to see]

-

So, what'd'ya think? DarknessLord 15:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

But what purpose would these charts have?? -SaturnYoshi 22:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

So we can tell what the Pokémon is categorized as, so we do not have to go: [name of Pokémon] is one of the Legendary [type of categorization], along with [second Pokémon in that categorization] and [third Pokémon in that categorization]. And if you haven't noticed, I meant that to be the section with the descriptions in the section for the Pokémon.

And plus, this page will look more official... and cooler ^_^ DarknessLord 00:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It still risks being fanstuff, it's not really necessary as all of the Pokémon are listed on the page anyway, and will cause problems for Pokémon without any closely associated legendary (Celebi, Jirachi, and Deoxys come to mind.) --HeroicJay 06:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Geez, whatever I try to help this page it turns out to be deleted next edit.

"It still risks being fanstuff"

Raikou-Suicune-Entei, Rayquaza-Kyogre-Groudon, Moltres-Articuno-Zapdos, Latios-Latias, Mewtwo-Mew, Mew-Celebi-Jirachi-Manaphy (even if the last one isn't legendary), Ho-oh-Lugia, and Diaruga-Parukia (even if they aren't legendary) relations are not fanstuff.

"it's not really necessary as all of the Pokémon are listed on the page anyway"

Hello? I'm not relisting the Pokémon!

"and will cause problems for Pokémon without any closely associated legendary (Celebi, Jirachi, and Deoxys come to mind.)"

I never said every single Pokémon had to be categorized. And plus, Celebi and Jirachi fall together under unique. DarknessLord 16:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it, all Legendary Pokémon are unique and do not need to be classified in such a way to show how they relate to one another. None of these Pokémon are bound to each other by the red string of fate. Simply stating in the descriptions that Mewtwo is a clone of Mew; or that Rayquaza is responsible for quelling the battle between Groudon and Kyogre should be enough. Besides, these relationships are mostly based on just similarities between the Pokémon in each group. -SaturnYoshi 17:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, my ideas are rejected by failure to realize my cause.

And, you guys are so safe and precautious that you fail to realize Manaphy, Diaruga, and Parukia are legendaries. I can bet you thousands of dollars they are legendaries. Manaphy is normally unobtainable in the main games, ring a bell? Cough, Jirachi, Mew, and Celebi, all are legendaries, Cough. LUGIA, HO-OH, SUICUNE, GROUDON, KYOGRE, RAYQUAZA: Box art, all legendaries.

These two things have given me so much anger I might just add the charts myself! DarknessLord 13:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Before Lugia and Ho-oh were on the boxes it was Venusaur, Blastoise, Charizard and Pikachu. Obviously not Legendaries. No one said that Nintendo has to continue with the format adopted for Gold and Silver. And as far as Mew, Celebi and Jirachi... Information about them was kept secret until after their games' release. Why, all of a sudden, would they release info about their secret Pokémon months in advance before the games are even out. Now, I'm not saying that those three aren't in fact Legendary, I'm also leaning towards the fact that they are. However, we have no relevant information on them other than they're going to be in the next installments. Bottom line, we don't need to add the Fourth Gen right now, and those charts aren't really needed as they wouldn't add any more information than can be said in the descriptions. -SaturnYoshi 13:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. But Diaruga and Parukia can't be two of the three stage 2 starters, with the basic starters confirmed, along with the fact that Diaruga and Parukia are obviously not turtles, birds, and monkeys. Also, it's pretty obvious neither are replacing Pikachu as inofficial mascot of the games. Possibly the anime, but no way the games.

Also, who says they Nintendo have to continue the format they used for Mew, Celebi, and Jirachi. DarknessLord 13:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I never meant for it to sound like Diaruga and Parukia are part of the starter Pokémon families or that they will be new "stars" of the series. But by pretty much the same reason that Fourth Gens aren't allowed on the National Pokédex article right now, we're refraining from adding any Fourth Gens here until we are 100% positive they are in fact legendary. That's all. --SaturnYoshi 16:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this is drifting off topic. We're talking about charts-descriptions here. Anyway, if that is your reason for no charts and descriptions, ask yourself. What's the point of charts and descriptions? Good. Now think the next few sentences and see my point. What's the point of deleting the charts in all?, What's the point in waiting until you get the National Pokédex, even though the Pokédex won't help us out with a thing except the number of the Pokémon? (Dratini, Dragonair, Dragonite, Larvitar, Pupitar, and Tyranitar ring a bell?) What's the point in deleting someone's entire edit and making them redo it instead of just deleting the things that were supposed to be deleted?, What's the point in putting up such a large argument over something extremely similar to what you guys did?, "What's the point of descriptions anyway if people have links to much more in-depth descriptions?, and What's the reason for making over half the section on Lugia and more on the ORIGIN OF THEIR NAME? 13:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC), the not logged-in status of DarknessLord

Okay, I've got a better idea about it:

Look at this:

= = Raikou = = [no spaces]

Legendary Beasts
Raikou	Entei	Suicune

The difference is it looks better, and it provides links to others on the page, meaning I link to their section, not their own article, which would work with the Mew-Celebi-Jirachi-(maybe) Manaphy relations. DarknessLord 19:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that I've added the charts on the page, what do you think? DarknessLord 20:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I just visited this page for the first time today, and I think there's too many of these little table box things. Wouldn't it work better to just group these Pokémon into sections in the article? --Brandon Dilbeck 16:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You know, that actually seems like a good idea... like how Bulbapedia does it... DarknessLord 23:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Legendary Pokémon categories

It would be so much easier if every Legendary Pokémon fit into a nice little category. Any suggestions for the Latis and Lugia and Ho-oh? Also, the descriptions should be more based on how the Legendaries relate to the others and should roughly all be the same size. --SaturnYoshi 21:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That post was so off-topic (not being rude), I'm gonna put that post in a new section. Also, Latis fall together in their own category, and Lugia and Ho-oh intersect. Didn't you see? All of them have a chart. 24.63.62.243 12:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I know they are together in their own charts but, for uniformity purposes, shouldn't all the categories have a name? I think this was why the charts were deleted in the first place. --SaturnYoshi 14:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

How's that? 24.63.62.243 16:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Although I have real doubts about Lucario being a Legendary... SaturnYoshi 16:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You know what...

I think this page needs a little pizazz. Something to kick it up a little. Maybe like an image... artwork wouldn't work, too predictable... maybe under their name and main article and above their chart they have like their third-gen/fourth-gen article.

On a seperate note, don't you think that we should just ==[[]]== the article, instead of popping up those annoying, space-eating, main article thingies?

Keep It Poké, Keep It Mon. DarknessLord | T | C 21:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Update: No response in about one hour and I'm considering adding something myself. DarknessLord | T | C 21:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What kind of image, exactly? -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 00:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking of their icon on that sprite sheet on your page, or a sprite from a recent game, (not counting fourth gen), like Emerald or Mystery Dungeon or et cetera. DarknessLord | T | C 00:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I do have all the current game sprites. I'm not too sure how to source them so they won't be deleted by a bot in the future, though. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 01:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking just source the site and what game they're from, what they are, etc. DarknessLord | T | C 10:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I just uploaded a bunch of sprite pics. You can see them at my sandbox. I also have the shinies if need be. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 21:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I added them to the page. Hopefully they're not too much. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 22:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

SWEET. In addition to that, as you can see, I'm giving the charts liveliness too. Yay! This page is not boring to look at anymore! DarknessLord | T | C 22:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Looking at the article, there's not really much on there that isn't on each of the Pokemon's individual articles. That said, I suggest that we scrap whatever information we have on the page right now besides the groupings, the description at the top, and possibly a breif description for each group, then move to List of Legendary Pokémon. Even then, the article will need major rewriting: the description at the top is poor, at best, and some groups have poorly thought out names (Latios and Latias, regardless of what their species are called, are not eons). You Can't See Me! 07:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've slashed this down to a stub. I'm not entirely sure we need a separate article for this concept, but the old one was awful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well then tell us next time! BEFORE you do it. That took hours for us to make! DarknessLord | T | C 10:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

And it wasn't a bad fanpage. Unfortunately, as an encyclopedia article, its problems were legion:

• It was entirely unsourced.
• It had a boatload of decorative fair-use images, not one of which had a source or fair-use rationale.
• It was highly speculative, especially in the case of D/P Pokémon.
• It had a ton of OR-ish "groups" of Legendaries.
• It was written in a style aimed at Pokémon fans, not a lay reader.
• It had a fair amount of game-guide content.
• There was lots of OR-ish comparison; the size comparison in the game Pokédex and the anime is an example.
• It was almost entirely in-universe, especially in the anime section.
• It had lots of ugly tables and links in the headers.

It was desperately in need of some merciless editing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

SPECULATIVE?! How in any way was it speculative? If it was, then it was probably one small edit by a nameless user (an IP) that we hadn't looked over yet.

Well, I'm settling with the way it is now, so deal with it!

Sorry for all that roughness. We're gonna keep it as it is now and update all the info that this article should have.

But come on, the WHOLE ARTICLE?! You need to resolve your edits to contemplate your anger.DarknessLord | T | C 10:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Speculative:

• "Not much else is known about him, but it is speculated that he is the 'guardian' of the Regis as Lugia and Ho-oh are to the two previous legendary trios."
• "However, it is much weaker and they should not be considered evolutionary legendaries, because Fione does not evolve into Manaphy."
• "Aruseus is said to be the creator of all Pokemon, however, this is just a rumor with backup, though most likely true."
• "It is most likely the third part to Palkia and Dialga, because of its 680 base stat total and the fact that it is part Dragon."

We're not going to keep it as it is now. We need, desperately, to start from scratch, as this article is full of speculation, OR, in-universe commentary, dubious or just-plain-wrong nonsense, and game-guide advice. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the last verbose version. Restore pieces of it if and only if you are sure you have sourced it, rewritten it into encyclopedic tone, and removed speculation, OR, game-guide-style advice, and other junk. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the list is gone. The list of the legendaries is essentially the main point of the article. I agree that most of the junk on the page should have been taken down, but not the list. With permission (or if nobody responds to this at all in the next 24 hours), I will restore the list. You Can't See Me! 22:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do we need the list? We have six lists of Pokémon, as well as a category with all of the legendary Pokémon. What annotation are you planning to add to this list which wouldn't be in those? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

My bad. I didn't notice that we had a category for it. You Can't See Me! 23:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert

I hate to keep going back to this stub, but the additions just aren't encyclopedic. Let's go through step by step.

They are usually the last numbers in a Regional Pokédex, along with very powerful three-stage evolution Pokémon in the first two generations.
Each generation of Legendary Pokémon gain more and more by generation (5, 6, 10, 14).

This is sourced to direct observation of the games, is largely a tautology (if there are new Pokémon, it stands to reason there will be more legendaries), and the Pokédex thing is a largely trivial, game-only plot. It doesn't really belong anywhere, especially not the lede.

The list

This is yet another list of Pokémon, broken down yet another different way. Why are we duplicating the cat?

And why do you care? DarknessLord | T | C 21:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Usage

This is bollocks. Nintendo allowed legendaries in pretty much all their tournaments, many legendaries are allowed in the Battle Frontier and Battle Tower, and Netbattle-style restrictions only prevent a small fraction of Legendaries. Heck, a number of these Pokémon are UU or BL.

Gender/Breeding

All legendaries can't breed and don't have gender! Except for this exception, and this exception, and this exception, and that exception, and that exception... This is filled with holes and exceptions, and borders on original research. The importance of these claims aren't made clear (legendaries can't breed to emphasize their uniqueness, and you should say this when you have a source), and aren't supported by sources.

I hate to be undoing the work that was previously done here, but I think what was done was inadvertantly harmful, encouraging unencyclopedic speculation and original research, and the additions, while well-meaning (I hate to be undoing them), don't solve the problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that the images were bad? I thought that if it works for the Weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series page, it could work here too. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 20:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say there isn't really much of a point to add pictures to this page when we can just link to the articles. The Zelda page isn't a good page to compare it to because those are on that page only, so the pictures actually have an effect. Though a good picture to add may be that one of the stone tablet from an early episode in the anime. Nemu 20:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That's probably a bad example. Not only do these Pokémon already have their own articles with pictures, but that list has waaaaaay too many fair-use images. The only time you can really get away with that images is when they're free (compare Final Fantasy VII and cat). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Bummer. I wish we could incorporate the sprite images into the articles themselves (if only to compare the normal and shiny versions), but that too, is probably a bad idea. *Sigh* -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 20:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Almost certainly a bad idea. Focusing on an alternate appearance so obscure that someone can play the game through and through, collecting every single Pokémon and never see it? Not a good idea for a general-purpose encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Shakes in anger*............................................................................ A man in Black...................................................... AUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *Pants* *Takes a really deep breath* Why do you even care? I've seen much more articles in very bad condition. All those hours spent posting the images, making the charts, coloring the charts, adding the sections, adding descriptions for Pokémon, talking about misconceptions, the Unown, breedability, gender, notes, unobtainability, roaming Pokemon, main articles, adding the Fourth Gen, cleaning the article, fixing typos, deleting rumors (Yes we were; those were just TO BE DELETED), brainstorming, adding information, correcting spelling/grammar, linking to pages, avoiding redirects, allowing senseful redirects to the page, looking up where it's in all the games, making the introduction logical, categorizing the Legendaries, Pokédex numbers... more... And you think you can just delete that.............. how shameful. I will not look at your response; and at the same time will not do anything. But think about what I have said. DarknessLord | T | C 21:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

And when you insult my friends like that ("A very bad idea indeed..." -A Man in Black) that REALLY gets me steamed. DarknessLord | T | C 21:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

And the last verbose version YOU edited!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm at a loss... I'll think of something, though. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 21:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I insulted SY, and I came to take a look at this article because I am interested in Pokémon in general and because this article in particular was brought to my attention by another editor. My suggestion is that you not take things so personally and read my advice carefully, as I have been doing this for quite a while and do generally know what I'm doing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

In particular, you're saying you were planning to do several of the things I counselled specifically against: for example, categorizing the legendaries (based on nebulously- or controversially-defined categories I've never seen before), Pokédex numbers (of interest only to Pokémon fans), and coloring the charts (please don't do that, it impairs accessibility and looks unprofessional). I don't mean to drive you away, but certain things aren't part of this project, and much of this just isn't Wikipedia material. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I have an idea. Someone could put the old version on a user subpage. -- ~PinkDeoxys~ 23:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources

So. Um. Got any? We've got Serebii and the similar sort-of-reliable-fansite strata of links, but I'm coming up with zippo for anything harder. Google News gives nawt, and a regular Google search has given me loads of crap but no gold. Maybe someone could hit Lexis-Nexis? (We have to have a student here who can poach a prof's or the school's access.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Lexis-Nexis??? -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 22:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

LexisNexis. Thing is, it's a paid service. Lots of universities have subscriptions, though, and a fair number of profs do. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

And they would have information on Pokémon?? -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 00:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

LexisNexis maintains a database of articles published in newspapers and other publications (as well as other info, but that's not really relevant here). If something has been published mentioning Pokémon, Lexis is a start. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Manaphy/Fione Relationships

Manaphy can breed Fione, but Fione can not evolve into Manaphy. See Serebii.net's index (it may be under archives) for more information. DarknessLord | T | C 15:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Do we have a better source than a patchy fansite Pokédex? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay then. Suit yourself. But when I'm right... bah, you won't care anyway... DarknessLord | T | C 19:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not about being right; it's about using reliable sources. Serebii is good for simple stuff, but they're just not reliable on cutting-edge stuff; no fansite is. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

But Serebii does own the games. You can't get anymore accurate than that. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 21:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

How do they know there isn't a hidden way to evolve RioruFIONE? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought Rioru does evolve. Into Lucario. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 21:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The various fansites are inconsistent on this point, and the previous version of the article stated that Rioru couldn't evolve. This is why I don't want to be using fansites unless absolutely necessary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Duh. I typed Rioru, didn't I. I meant Fione. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

We can wait and see, but I'm pretty sure that Serebii has finished the game already. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 21:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

How do you know they didn't miss some hidden way to evolve this or that Pokémon, or a hidden way to find this or that hidden Pokémon? We really need to wean ourselves off of fansites whenever possible. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with A Man In Bl♟ck, although i use serebii a lot, information there, has been shown to be wrong - Plau 15:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

---

you know what this page needs? a list of the pokemon, the catagory way of finding them confuses people--Cody6 23:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for Improvements

Having just surfed in, a pokemon lay person, and generally being the target of this kind of article, I found it strange that it lacked the basic information. Namely, what Cody6 above me suggested. A simple list of all the legendary pokemon to appear in the games would improve this article enourmously, as that's generally what people surfing in are looking for.

Pokemon Movies

I've noticed that all movies except for Mewtwo Returns seem to have two legendary Pokemon. I haven't seen all the movies, but it seems like they do. The first has Mewtwo and Mew, 2000 has Lugia and the Three Legendary Birds, 3 has Entei and Unown, 4 has Celebi and Suicune, 5...I haven't seen 5, is it the Deoxys one? Well that one has Deoxys and Rayquaza, and the Jirachi one has Jirachi and Groudon, and that's all the movies I can think of. Should this be noted in the article?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.121.137 (talk • contribs)

5 is Latios and Latias, then Jirachi Wishmaker, then Deoxys, then Lucario, then Manaphy. Point is, you nullified your own argument; the Unown aren't officially legendary Pokémon. And Sign your posts.—ウルタプ 03:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)ウルタプ 03:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This article states that "To date, every Pokémon movie has centered around an encounter with one or more legendary Pokémon". But Lucario isn't ledgendary, is it? Heartandstar27 18:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Abbreviations

I do not think the amount of abbreviation used in this page is really acceptable for an encylopaedic article. The terms such as RBY , GSC and RSE are never explained and could be quite unclear to anyone not knowledgable about the pokemon game series - or even people who are but have never heard the abbreviations. At the very least their should be a glossary but I personally think that terms such as "R/S/FR/LG/E to D/P" - make parts of the article alsmost unreadable. I tried putting in the abbreviations after the main titles so that some kind of link could form in people's minds (e.g. Red, Blue and Yellow (RBY)) but this was deemd unneccessary. I really think these terms are not common usage and are just jargon used by a certain section of fans. At the least there should be a glossary or a fleshed out example the first time an abbreviation is used (e.g. RBY (Red, BLue and Yellow)). I'd also question the need for what is really a very text heavy article when most of the information contained within it is present in the pages for the individual pokemon. Surely an explanation of what 'Legendary Pokemon' are and their common characteristics (e.g. high stats, rarity} followed by a list of the creatures (organised into appropriate catagories) would be enough. I realise that a lot of these issues have been discussed before but I think their are definate problems with the page. Fire Red and Leaf Green - the FR and LG from the incomprehensable "R/S/FR/LG/E to D/P" are only mentioned in the Deoxys section with no links - I think it could be very difficult for the uninitiated to work out what's going on. Any thoughts? [[Guest9999 17:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)]]

On a seperate issue the article is also probably the dullest to look at on Wikipedia - no pictures, lists, info boxes, anything - almost looks like an essay - makes it a bit hard to follow. [[Guest9999 17:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)]]

You can do something like expand all the abbreviations to actual words youself…but do that, because they're very unencyclopedic and we shouldn't have to be in a position to explain it.—ウルタプ 22:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think I got all the abbreviations - although I'm not exactly sure about the results. I still think the page is a bit of a mess. Might need attention from someone with a greater knowledge of the subject than I. [[Guest9999 22:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)]]

Phione

Does Phione count as a legendary Pokémon? After all, it isn't unique; just keep breeding Manaphy and/or Phione itself. Wouldn't this make it a regular Pokémon?

Rigigigas

I was thinking...Jorge jojae said that the three Regis represent the solid state of fire (Regirock), water (Regice), and lightning (Registeel). What does this make Regigigas? Or am I simply thinking of something no one else is anymore?Leprechaun Gamer 00:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Who?
2. What?
3. Fire≠magma.
4. How is metal solid lightning, exactly?
   —Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 01:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Read the Defence/Water talk at the top of the page to see what I'm talking about.Leprechaun Gamer 19:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use gallery

Those images do not comply with WP:FAIRUSE. Decorative galleries are unneeded, ugly, and forbidden. Fair use images must be used sparsely and encyclopedically. The different ones are already covered in the template anyways. TTN 22:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• What part of the fair use policy do the images not comply with? I didn't add it but I found it helpful and it seems to be constantly appearing and disappearing whenever I use the article. I wouldn't class it as "decorative" (or "ugly" for that matter). MagicBez 21:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

They fail 3a, 5, and 8 here. TTN 21:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well 3a and 5 are subjective and very debatable and 8 still uses the term "usually" so it still isn't a concrete rule - still I can see why it was taken out, though i wouldn't say it's quite as clean-cut as you say.MagicBez 21:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Lugia/three birds

The Lugia-rules-over-the-three-birds thing is anime-only; specifically, it comes from the second movie. There is NEVER any connection between Lugia and Articuno/Zapdos/Moltres stated ANYWHERE in the games. So there's no reason to have a mention of it in a section that's very clearly labeled "in the Pokémon video games." *growls and removes it yet again* 63.215.28.146 20:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"Uncatchable Pokemon"

In the first section (pokemon in the video games), the fact that mew can be caught via glitch in the game is left out.

Please sign your post. And a glitch is not really legitimate means. Mew is meant to be uncatchable. Gargomon251 13:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.