Talk:Legendary Pokémon

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tier system 

message: 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)
thread_title: Original Interpretation?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Chart or descriptions? 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Okay, I've got a better idea about it:
Look at this:
= = Raikou = = [no spaces]
Legendary Beasts	Legendary Beasts	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)

text: Now that I've added the charts on the page, what do you think? DarknessLord 20:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You know, that actually seems like a good idea... like how Bulbapedia does it... DarknessLord 23:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charts and descriptions? 

message: ::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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: How's that? 24.63.62.243 16:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it.  Although I have real doubts about Lucario being a Legendary...  SaturnYoshi 16:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Legendary Pok&eacute;mon categories

message: 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)
replies: text: What kind of image, exactly?  -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 00:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I added them to the page.  Hopefully they're not too much.  -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 22:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  You know what... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Lexis-Nexis???  -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 22:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: And they would have information on Pokémon??  -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 00:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

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

text: But Serebii does own the games.  You can't get anymore accurate than that.  -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 21:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I thought Rioru does evolve.  Into Lucario.  -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 21:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Manaphy/Fione Relationships 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pokemon Movies 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Abbreviations

message: 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)
replies: text: They fail 3a, 5, and 8 here. TTN 21:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use gallery

message: 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)
thread_title: Lugia/three birds