Talk:Legendary Pokémon/Archive2

Archive #1

This is a talk page archive. It contains old discussions of topics relating to the article. Please do not add or remove any content from it.

WTF?

Giratina controls dimensions? That's stupid... can somebody remove that? Time and Space (depth, lengh and width) are the freaking dimensions everyone! So Giratina has more power than both Dialga and Palkia? I think not. Remember that Giratina lives in the Distortion World... a place that disobeys the laws of Time and Space. hfc2X 22:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There are 2 types of dimensions, matematical, which you were talking about, and spacial, which would be under Giratina's control. If you don't belive me, look up "Plane (metaphysics)" on Wikipedia. The dimensions that Giratina controls are alternate planes of exictence, also called dimensions!- unsigned comment from GuyNamedSean (talk • contribs)

It seems that Giratina can control gravity, or atleast that is how I enterpreted the explanation of its form shift. It also makes some sense because gravity could be considered a third factor in time-space Enigmaberry 02:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with hfc2X, this needs to be changed. It was never officially stated anywhere that Giratina controls dimensions or anything at all, really. If you guys are going to write up fan speculation, you can at least, you know, actually make a note of that. Marlowe 02:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

An additional note, after editing the page a few times I noticed that only established users are allowed to make changes, my mistake there. Still, this needs to be changed for accuracy. Marlowe 02:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that this talk section is from BEFORE Platinum was released in English, right? R.A. Hunter Blade 02:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? Whether it's from one day or even five years ago, it doesn't change the fact that a change still needs to be made. As an encyclopedia, this doesn't need fanon crap. Marlowe 02:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Because Platinum confirmed it. Duh. ~ platinum_sol 02:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Prove it, then. Marlowe 02:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Disprove it, then. ~ platinum_sol 02:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It is also said in the Distortion World by Cyrus about Giratina's control over dimensions...I'm way, way ahead of that, otherwise I'd give you the exact quote.--^Psychic_Rider^☮ 02:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

My bad. I forgot. Giratina can't go between dimensions, or drag people into the Distorted World, or anything like that. Sorry. I guess it has no real power. R.A. Hunter Blade 02:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Spare me the reverse psychology, Sol, you said that Platinum confirmed it and I'm telling you to point to me where that was specifically confirmed. You're the one making false claims, not me. It was never stated that Giratina controls dimensions, this is FAN SPECULATION which is something that Bulbapedia frowns on if I'm not mistaken. At least it's something they should be frowning upon. Marlowe 02:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

If you can't prove that it hasn't been proved, then it's useless to try and say that it's fan speculation. PsychicRider has confirmed it, so no, it's not fan speculation. ~ platinum_sol 02:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Quit acting like a politician and disprove it. You're avoiding what somebody tells you that goes against what you're trying to say. R.A. Hunter Blade 02:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sol, you're the one who's in a position to prove something, not me. I basically asked "Where was that confirmed?" and you've yet to answer that question. I would like the specific quote of Cyrus stating this, though, as I don't recall it. Marlowe 02:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm way past that, as in Battle Frontier past, but I do remember that it is confirmed from Cyrus's dialogue. --^Psychic_Rider^☮ 02:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

So I'm apparently supposed to conveniently be at the point in time where Cyrus says that specific quote. ~ platinum_sol 03:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

No, this isn't a perfect quote, but: "Hmm... so Giratina disappeared into the real world... it doesn't matter. I'll capture it, and then I'll use the dimensional powers of Giratina to form a new world here and destroy the real one." R.A. Hunter Blade 03:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that's the quote I was looking for...boys, we have our proof. :D. --^Psychic_Rider^☮ 03:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

In that case (if that was explicitly stated), I stand corrected. Thanks. Marlowe 03:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't mention it. It only took me 30 minutes to think of. R.A. Hunter Blade 03:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Not to sound like a broken record here, but I've just gotten through the Distortion World on my second run-through and Cyrus doesn't make that statement anywhere. I even saved right before the battle with Giratina to see what Cyrus would say in both scenarios (catching Giratina or defeating it), but the dialogue only changes slightly and there's still no explicit mention of it having control over dimensions. Besides, aren't space and time dimensions as well? Judging from some of the official interviews on Giratina I've just read, I'm more inclined to say that Giratina simply controls antimatter. If I'm not mistaken, antimatter IS considered to be the third factor out of time and space, after all. I propose that we take "dimensions" out of the sentence. Marlowe 08:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I watched a Youtube video and saw the same thing. But no. Dimensions isn't coming out. The descriptions aren't just for the games, but also the anime/movies you have to remember. R.A. Hunter Blade 12:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Bubbly Mew

Wherever I go, whatever I read that's about Mew or the first movie, it says something like "The Bubbly Mew appeared in the first move", or something like that. Now, why is it called "Bubbly Mew" and why is it just the Mew in the first movie? And where did that term of Bubbly Mew ever come from?--DRAGONBEAST^X 22:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's that the Mew in the first movie enjoyed making bubbles. SD13 Simpsondude13>SD13 Talk 20:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Phione?

Does Phione really count? And why not Unown? I always thought of the symbols as legends. Me and my fellow torchics agree on this - Sk8torchic

Phione counts because to get one you have to breed a legendary. Unown doesn't because it's extremely distant from any other legendary. Note the beasts and the birds. Sure they're separated by the powerhouses and events by Dratini and Larvitar's families, but they're next to each other and divided from the others by no more than three Pokémon. Unown has 50 down and 42 up. TTEchidna 23:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

So all legends have to be near each other in the pokedex? Since when? Me and my fellow torchics agree on this - Sk8torchic 16:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Besides, nobody would buy Unown being legendary, what with how they're found all over the place in the Ruins of Alph, Tanoby Chambers, and Solaceon Ruins. Trust me, in the time it takes to breed for one Phione, odds are one could catch 2 PC boxes entirely full of Unown (although there's no guarantee that all 28 forms would be included)...--Shiningpikablu252 16:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we really stop saying that Rayquaza is based on a Ziz

It really isn't. The closest thing we have to a bird whose wingspan is large enough to block out the sun is Lugia, atleast according to the accounts of an elderly NPC in Ecruteak city.--Outrage DD 22:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Groudon isn't a giant hippo...elephant...rhino...thing...—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 23:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

They are both based on the concept of these legendary creatures. Masters of the sky and land respectivly.--MisterE13 00:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Info

Why is Rotom not a legendary?, I'm not complaining, I just want to know why.Pokemonguy1 18:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

*slaps with a wet Magikarp* Archives are your friends. — THE TROM — 01:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

because it doesn't have monster stats--PG1 FTW! 15:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither does Phione, and yet it's still a Legendary. Weedle Mchairybug 19:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That's because a legendary is needed to obtain it. --Theryguy512 19:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder that this is a forums topic.... o_0 Go there, peeps. — THE TROM — 09:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

All you need to do to catch it is to press a on a tv during night time. to get a phione, like it was said before, you need to have manaphy and breed it. --Usyflad10 (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Rotom can breed; legendary Pokemon cannot. Manaphy being the exception but it's more of a 'novelty' that it produces Phione when it lays an egg. Bttsstewart 03:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Legendary Pokémon group picture

I made this: [1]

I think it'll be nice if it was placed in this article, next to (or instead of) that Entei pic.

Greetz, Abel

It's nice really but the thing is that the Johto legends will be getting new artworks soon and, maybe, the admins might not like the signature on the upper right. Also, Deoxys is actually shorter than Mewtwo. ^tc²₆tc₂₆ 12:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder that fan art, I think, is generally frowned on. While that is very impressive, we can't use it here. — THE TROM — 21:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Latios and Latias

So I know that the current pic is better than the last, but I'm pretty sure it's fan made. And we aren't supposed to have fan pics on pages. R.A. Hunter Blade 21:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? That's the same font the Pokémon Company uses, it's in Sugimori's style, and it has his hanko on it...—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 22:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Who's the girl though? R.A. Hunter Blade 21:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Beats me. But that's definitely official. TTEchidna 21:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Latios and Latias should be jhoto legendaries because the movie takes place in jhoto. JetanHertz13 00:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That's... nice? If you join in a conversation that's like... 5 months old, at least add something important. The Dark Fiddler - You enter a poorly lit room... 00:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Latios and Latias appear in a Johto-era movie because they needed to hype up Hoenn. Der. The Eon duo don't even appear in Johto in HGSS, they're roaming Kanto! And it's JOHTO, not Jhoto. TTEchidna 00:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Since Heatran being the first with a variable gender is mentioned, shouldn't it be mentioned that they were the first legendaries to have genders? Goldenpelt 08:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Protection Error?

Isn't this page protected? I had no problem editing it, and I'm no admin. --CUBONE PWNS (Planet Cubone • Bone Club) THE VERY BEST PAGE! 20:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

New users are blocked from editing (which, at the current state of the wiki does nothing). Only admins may move the page, though. —darklordtrom 20:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ohhhhhhhhh... NOW I get it... --CUBONE PWNS (Planet Cubone • Bone Club) THE VERY BEST PAGE! 20:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Trivia: Legendary Pokémon Themes

It should be noted that in the upcoming games, HeartGold and SoulSilver, that Lugia and Ho-Oh now both have their own, distinct themes in the upcoming games. It was confirmed on the "never before seen footage" on Pokémon Sunday where they revealed meeting Lugia and Ho-Oh in the games. :) From the small clips you can hear, Ho-Oh's theme seems to be very Japanese-percussion based (taiko drums) and Lugia's is very orchestral-dramatics based. - unsigned comment from Gimmetokyo (talk • contribs)

I wonder if it's also pertinent to mention that the legendary beasts in HG/SS technically have their own unique themes, as well - or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they have their own unique remixes of a theme. Either way, their battle music in HG/SS is not shared (identically, at any rate) with any other Pokemon. --Xatni 01:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Xatni

New article

Since the Legendary Trios and Duos have articles, should the Legendarys without a group (Trio Master's not included) get there own article too? - unsigned comment from Blackstone Dresden (talk • contribs)

If you mean Legendaries like Mew, Celebi, and Manaphy, then no. What would we write that isn't already on their own pages? R.A. Hunter Blade 04:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Arceus HGSS pic

thumb|left|150px
How about adding it? -- RikkiKitsune 21:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If I could, I would!--The Bulb's Master 12:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Master of Bulbasaur and Turtwig♀

I didn't place that one since one for the Azure Flute event would be better. It would be similar to Darkrai and Shaymin. ^tc²₆tc₂₆ 12:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll put it in for now. We can always change it when the Flute event gets its own artwork. We're using the HGSS Beasts artwork aren't we? R.A. Hunter Blade 16:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit!

I can't edit, but one of you should include that they can be found in Sinnoh.--The Bulb's Master 12:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Master of Bulbasaur and Turtwig♀

"Legendary"

Is the term "legendary" an official descriptor or one applied by the fandom? Redstar 23:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Its official. It appears in the games, anime, and all sorts of sources. It even appears in some Pokédex entries. _Blake ^Talk·Edits 01:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been playing Blue and the first instance of the term "legendary Pokemon" is on Route 14 by a Bird Keeper, for future reference. Redstar 03:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Arcanine

"If you were looking for the "Legendary Pokémon" species, see Arcanine (Pokémon). " Why does it say that? What does it have to do with anything Qim1 00:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Arcanine's species name is "Legendary Pokémon". In comparison, Bulbasaur's is "Seed Pokémon". Just on the off-chance that someone thinks Arcanine is actually a Legendary Pokémon, in the sense meant on this page. —darklordtrom 01:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Arcanine is considered as legendary in Chinese... since many Pokédex entries says Arcanine is from China.Palkia38 07:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Pokemon of Legend, Illusion, and Myth

Is there any source for these categories of legendaries? The main paragraph suggests the Japanese versions identify legendaries differently that was narrowed for translation... What Pokemon are in these various categories, and why? What exactly do the Japanese versions say? Redstar 03:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Slowpoke/king

This may meet with some dissent, but would Slowpoke or Slowking qualify under "Other Pokemon of myth"? Slowpoke is pretty dominantly featured in GSC and HG/SS, as well as the corresponding anime episode, as the savior of Azalea in time of need. He's practically worshiped there. I don't believe this story was ever explicitly stated as fact, but rather as a cultural legend of sorts. That means Slowpoke is featured in a legend, and so possibly counts as a low-tier legendary like Arcanine of Togepi.

Slowking may same to fit the position more, but the extent of its qualification are the second movie. I don't know if human speech, a knowledge of ancient prophecies, and a role in that prophecy coming true/being resolved counts as a legendary, but should also be considered.

So, what are the opinions on counting on or both as minor legendaries? I'll agree to any consensus, but just thought it would be worth bringing up since Slowpoke does garner some "It's a legendary" statements from time to time. Redstar 00:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Pastoria worships Croagunk. Does that mean it's a minor legendary too? Slowpoke, as far as I know, only gets mentioned as legendary when people are being sarcastic.--Liquid ICE (User:Cold)^{(page, talk)} 00:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware of Croagunk's position in that area, though that does get me thinking... Slowpoke, Croagunk, and possibly some of the "Other Pokemon of myth" featured here might do well on a "Pokemon of cultural significance" kind of article. I expect gen 5 will introduce at least one new Pokemon that is treated similarly to these two, so at that time it might be feasible to make such an article. Redstar 00:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

We need more than two Pokémon of culutral significance to make it an article. —darklordtrom 01:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I suggested waiting until gen 5 when another Pokemon may be featured. But, as it stands now, Arcanine, Ninetails, and the Togepi line are strong candidates for such an article. Note that "legendary" is as much a fan-term as a canon one, so creating a corollary term for culturally-significant Pokemon would be ideal as well as alleviate the constant arguing about who is and isn't a legendary, when frankly many of the supposed legendaries would make more sense in a culture article. Redstar 01:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Unique Pokemon

So which Pokemon exactly are "unique" besides Mewtwo? I'm just curious. Also, has it ever been confirmed that Mewtwo is unique? '''LugiaRox''' 02:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well he is the first cloned legendary, first created legendary. But that's probably speculation.--Midnight Blue 03:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Mewtwo is a special case. He's not even a "legendary" in the in-universe sense (no associated legends), only in the fanon sense. Discussing what other Pokemon are "unique" is beating a dead horse, since it's been done before and there's no way we can no for sure. Looking at it one way, nearly every Pokemon is unique, but in another way there's room for multiplies. Who knows? As for created Pokemon akin to Mewtwo, I'm sure that area will be explored at some point. Come gen 5, all the loose strings will be tired up. Redstar 03:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe we could safely say that Arceus is unique. '''LugiaRox''' 05:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Arceus is the personification of a concept. There could very well be more than one, with each being an avatar of an incomprehensible concept. It's called pantheism. Hindis practice it. Redstar 05:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hindu's you moron, hindi is the language they speak in india!--Minimag 05:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Does it really matter? And the term "Hindi" also applies to Hindu literature and culture. Religion/mythology is within the scope of culture, so there you go. I know my use of language. Redstar 05:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was polytheism. Anyways, in Hinduism concepts, gods are an aspect of Brahmna, the eternal being, which could be what Arceus could be based on, with the three major aspects of Brahma being legendary trios. Though I doubt this because Nintendo is based in Japan and not India. Turtwig A (talk | contribs) 00:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent)

The non-uniques are:

• Mew (Mewtwo Strikes Back & Lucario and the Mystery of Mew)
• Lugia (The Power of One, Silver, and possibly Movie 13)
• Regirock, Regice, Registeel (Brandon's Regis & Lucario and the Mystery of Mew)
• Regigigas (Giratina and the Sky Warrior & DP129)
• Lati@s (Pokémon Heroes)
• Deoxys (Destiny Deoxys)
• Manaphy (Pokémon Ranger and the Temple of the Sea)
• Phione (DP113)
• Darkrai (The Rise of Darkrai and DP104)
• Shaymin (Giratina and the Sky Warrior)

Uknown, yet debateable:

• Cresselia - If there's more than one Darkrai, why not Cresselia?
• Heatran - Only one has appeared so far, and even then, it was in the distant past.
• Jirachi - It came from space. We don't know if more are out there like Deoxys and Clefairy.
• The legendary birds - Unlike the beasts, we don't know if there were only 3 specifically created, although it is probable that they're unique.
• The legendary beasts- Although we know that Ho-Oh created 3 from the ashes of Pokémon, Suicune has appeared multiple times and sometimes in different regions. It has appeared in 3 episodes of the anime and one movie. The Entei in Spell of the Unown was only an illusion created by the Unown.

Unique:

• Mewtwo - It isn't actually a legendary in the anime, just a bad clone of one.
• Ho-Oh - Even though its counterpart, Lugia, is known to be able to have offspring, Ho-Oh seems to be a single Pokémon that travels around.
• Celebi - Although many appeared in Pokémon 4Ever, they were the same Celebi, just from different time periods. The past and future came together in the present.
• Kyogre, Groudon, and Rayquaza - Kyogre and Groudon have appeared in the Team Magma and Team Aqua arc, and Kyogre has appeared in a movie or two. Rayquaza could be argued as having more than one in its species, but it is most likely the only one.
• Azelf, Uxie, and Mesprit - They were created by Arceus to keep Dialga and Palkia in balance.
• Dialga and Palkia - They are the keepers of time and space.
• Giratina - It is the guardian of the Reverse World, an distorted mirror of the Pokémon world. Although it could be argued that because mirror dimensions exist, and there would be Reverse Worlds for each of these mirror dimensions, that is extremely technical and most likely won't be mentioned.
• Arceus - Creator of the Pokémon universe. Not much more to say about that.

If that doesn't clear some things up, I don't know what will. R.A. Hunter Blade 22:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is no way that Celebi would be the same Celebi from different time periods (as most of those Celebi [those supposedly from the future] would also not exist if that were the case, since it died.). As for Groudon and Kyogre, it was heavily implied in the end of Scuffle of Legends that they went to sleep again for another age-long rest (almost eternal), and it was also implied that the orbs are the only way they can awake, so it's more likely that Kyogre, at least, has multiples (since unless someone had bonded with the Blue Orb, then Kyogre should not awake, and thus not appear in Movie 9 if it's the same one.). Rayquaza was also implied to be captured by Team Rocket, and it won't make any sense that Rayquaza would be around the atmosphere if it can't get out (which the scene of it's capture implies that it can't escape.) Dialga and Palkia, did they even recognize Ash and co. when they appeared in the Team Galactic Two-Parter? If not, they're definitely not one of a kind, and since Giratina is also part of the same trio, that means it has to have multiples as well. For the Three Pixies, if there are more than one Dialga and Palkia, there are definitely going to be more than one Pixie Trio. So far, the only pokemon to be completely confirmed to be one of a kind without a doubt is Mewtwo. If Arceus somehow appears later on and doesn't even recognize Ash and Co, then it's safe to say that Arceus is also not one of a kind. As for Ho-Oh, let's wait until Movie 13 before we can say that it's one of a kind (If it doesn't recognize Ash, then it's safe to say it's not one of a kind.). Weedle Mchairybug 02:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I wasn't asking for a "Your wrong, stupid." type of response. We're trying to clear things up, not get into a fight. But since you want an argument for my point... For Celebi, the concept of time in the Pokémon universe, both games and movies, isn't immediate. In PMD2, you don't disappear right away. You still have like, a minute before you start to go away after correcting time. In Movie 12, it took forever for Ash and co. to nearly disappear, which they didn't. Celebi would have enough time to come back to heal itself. And who said it died anyways? It would also know when it would need to heal itself since it's a time travellor, and has basically the same powers that Dialga has, except they're not as massively powerful. There also isn't more than one Palkia, Dialga, or Arceus, as they're the only ones that are in existance. Dialga lives in a dimension outside of time, and Palkia controls all dimensions, except for Dialga's and Arceus'. It doesn't really matter if Palkia and Dialga recognize Ash and co. in the anime, because the anime =/= the movies. And from what I can tell, they don't do anything anyways. Cyrus captures them, and then the Lake trio free them and they go away. And there isn't more than one of each of the Lake trio, because there's... wait for it... three lakes for the three Lake guardians, and three gifts to humans. And so what if it appears that Team Rocket has Rayquaza? That was only in the intro to Movie 9 to show that there's evil in the Pokémon world. As for Groudon and Kyogre, again, anime =/= movies. Can't stress that enough. Those anime episodes were directly based off of R/S. There isn't any movie that's based specifically off of any part of a game. R.A. Hunter Blade 03:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

If Anime=/=Movies, then you shouldn't have even cited the movies in the first place (In other words, you shouldn't have cited Darkrai's appearances, as well as the other Legendary Pokémons appearances.). As for who said it had died, the mere fact that even the newly purified healing spring wasn't able to heal it implied that it had died. And for the record, I wasn't calling you stupid nor even implying that you were. And another thing, just because there are three lakes in Sinnoh that hold the pixie trio does not mean that there cannot be more than one Pixie trio. It was earlier implied that there was only one Mew left in existance, yet it was later made clear that there were actually two mews. Weedle Mchairybug 03:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there more than one Dialga, Palkia, and Giratina because of every Gen. IV game having them, but in different ways. HeartGold and SoulSilver has Arceus create one on the spot while DPPt has one already there. Doesn't that mean they are debatable? Turtwig A (talk | contribs) 02:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think any of this matters actually. The only part that talks about unique legendaries, other than that one sentence, is the bottom where it lists the different in-battle music. I would say more, except I know Mchairybug will contradict everything I say. That's why I've stopped talking about it. R.A. Hunter Blade 05:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Definitively

We can only say without a doubt that Mewtwo is unique in the anime. Arceus, the dragon trio, and the lake trio are presumed due to their link to the universe's creation. The rest, we can't say definitively, though we can more or less assume there's been only one Ho-Oh we've ever seen (Ash indicates it), and the weather trio's important roles also seem to point to there being only one of each.

Also, don't, don't think in the game sense in the anime. Also, the movies are canon, Ash-haters, find another thing he's not worthy of to rip on him for... like Gible or something. TTEchidna 09:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It's notable though that in "Mewtwo Strikes Back" Mew is refered in the single sense by many trainers(Such as saying "Mewtwo was cloned from Mew" instead of "Mewtwo was cloned from A Mew"). It could be that this Mew is ether the last one of the Mew kind, or just the Mew that's DNA was used to make Mewtwo. It's impossible to say though, since the movie never expands on this fact.--Dsman195276 04:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Wobbuffett in the trivia section

Wobbuffett is not a legendary, but it along with Garchomp are the only non-legendary pokémon to be considered uber in competitive battling - unsigned comment from Rocklee clone (talk • contribs)

Unofficial tiers of competitive battling is irrelevant to this article. There's no need to mention Wobbuffet here. --electAbuzzzz 21:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Trivia; Other languages

So, I was looking on the French analog site (Poképédia) and noticed that there are only six legendaries that have had their name changed. (As far as I can tell, only a few of the non legendary pokémon retain the same english name.) They are: Zapdos (Électhor), Moltres (Sulfura), and Articuno(Artikodin); and Azelf(Créfadet), Mesprit(Créfollet), and Uxie(Créhelf). Does this count as trivia?--Lamb(talk) 00:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This is already mentioned in the article's trivia section.;)--Beligaronia (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Whoops. Didn't see that.--Lamb(talk) 06:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

In Game Re-battle

I know from elsewhere on this site that (in HGSS at least) if the legendary beasts are KO'd in battle, they can be 'revived' and battled again (for example, if you KO suicune, it'll keep reapearing in Burnt Tower until it's caught). I was just wondering which other legendaries can also be rebattled if they're KO'd? --Oatzy 23:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is any Pokémon that appears as a one-time capture, and you have to (re)battle the Elite Four in order to reset them. I know it works on Sudowoodo. On a similar note, I would like to know if its nature, IVs, etc. are reset when it reappears, particularly in regard to the roaming Pokémon. Giratina's stats were reset in Platinum. --JacobCrystal 19:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Champion Cynthia's team.

Did anyone else notice the groupings in http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Legendary_Pok%C3%A9mon#Other_Pok.C3.A9mon_of_myth ?

Out of the eleven bullet points on that list, Cynthia uses pokemon from five points, exactly one pokemon for each of those five points. The groupings aren't exactly hewn in stone, though, so it's hardly trivia worthy. --PLA 09:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Reshiram and Zekrom

MAGNEDETH made the completely understandable decision to lock down this page to curb speculation, but Reshiram and Zekrom are confirmed to be legendaries by the Japanese site: http://www.pokemon-sp.jp/top.html Drapion 20:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll be adding them later on. This whole damn page has been in cleanup for a couple months now, but I've been distracted. I'll finish editing it tomorrow and finally add them, under a Generation V header, tomorrow. Er. Today. I guess. It's early. TTEchidna 10:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Zoroark?

Should Zoroark be in Other Pokémon of myth?? Or do we need to wait till the movie has actually premiered so we know exactly what he/she/it is or done?

Wait till the movie comes out. We don't know much about Zoroark's role, yet. Takharii ~ Talk! 08:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, likely to be at least mentioned when I finish my cleanup of this damned thing. TTEchidna 10:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Is the fact that both Zorua and Zoroark event-only sufficient to declare them Legendary? I'm not sure, but I believe that all pokémon available only through events are Legendary. I'm honestly not sure, however, if that is distinction enough for to be considered Legendary. Lostdrewid 07:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit too soon to say that it is definitely a legendary. —darklordtrom 09:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it is, though. Are they not, by definition, 幻のポケモン? They're almost even more illusory than Mew, Celebi and the like - not only are they event-only, but you need to attend said event prior to the launch of the games. I ask this honestly, but... if that isn't the very picture of a Legendary Pokémon, what is? If what they are is not sufficient to be declared Legendary, then perhaps the article will need a tighter definition. Please do not misunderstand me, I'm not simply trying to be a nag [although I apologize, I realize I must sound like I am], I'm asking specifically because it seems to be that the status of these two is sort of at the crux of the definition of what it means to be Legendary and thus relevant, one way or another, to the article.

Let me see if I can word my thoughts better. The article discusses the definition of Legendary at the introduction, before the TOC; the first section mentions common characteristics of being Legendary. What we have for these two matches the definition provided in the introduction; what we don't have for these two is a match, or lack of a match, with the common characteristics. Regardless of whether we are ultimately "right" about their Legendary status, if we say we don't have enough information to declare them Legendary, then maybe should the common characteristics [or some of them, whichever are truly defining] be considered as a part of the definition and moved to the introduction of the article?

My goal here is not simply to see that Zorua and Zoroark be placed on the article. My goal is to see the article improve. I know, I know, it's a Featured Article and thus is considered awesome by the community - because, well, it is:) - but that doesn't mean that even an awesome article has no room to grow. In my original comment, I said plainly, I don't know whether being event only is sufficient to be called Legendary... but I shouldn't not know. Does that make sense?

I'm sorry that I'm not good with words. I fear I'm going to be misunderstood here. Text only shows so little of meaning that misunderstandings are simple. I'm not trying to be critical, I'm not trying to say the article is bad. It not only isn't bad, I'll happily reiterate that it's awesome. But ultimately, if the legendary status of these two Pokémon is still in question, then the article's definition of legendary needs tightening. Lostdrewid 16:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

TTE, let me also say that in no way are the arguments I've presented mean I am impatient to see the article updated. I completely understand that you're not a machine whose sole job in life is to update this site :) If this page is not updated until long after B&W comes out, I will not be upset. My sole desire is to see the article be as good as it can be. I feel that I do not have the proper words to contribute directly, even if the article was unlocked, so this is the only way that I feel I can contribute right now. Lostdrewid 17:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know where it's been confirmed that Zorua and Zoroark are only obtainable through the special events in BW? For all we know, Zorua and Zoroark will also be able to obtained in-game by normal means (wild encounter, NPC gift, etc.), it's just that the event ones are special for whatever reason.

Unless Spiky-eared Pichu is considered legendary now. :P 梅子^❀_✿ 18:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone inform me why Zoroark/Zorua isn't counted a legendary? Thanks. Marlowe 18:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not at the end of the dex (Victini does not count) and it evolves from another Pokemon Ataro 18:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

plagiarism?

I fear that content from this page has been copied onto this page. http://pokemonorg.wetpaint.com/page/Groups+of+Legendary+Pokemon and maybe loads of other original bulbapedia content has been hoarded. can any one look into this?mods?admins? - unsigned comment from AGGRON999 (talk • contribs)

Thanks, I'll take a look into it. —darklordtrom 11:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Even if the articles are original the images are taken directly from Bulbapedia and in fact link here when one clicks on the image.--Beligaronia (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the links go here too. I've spoken with the site owner and he's yet to get back to me. —darklordtrom 10:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :D - unsigned comment from AGGRON999 (talk • contribs)

Huh?

Um, actually, Heatran is not the only legendary Pokémon with a variable gender. There's also Spiritomb. --Green Jade 20:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Spiritomb isn't legendary.--MisterE13 20:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well then why is Spiritomb so hard to obtain? --Green Jade 20:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Feebas isn't a legendary, but it's almost equally hard to obtain as Spiritomb... they just choose to make some Pokemon difficult to obtain, and some easy to obtain. Adds variety, you know? ▫▫ティナ^♫★ 21:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, Spiritomb are able to breed. Just sayin' Bttsstewart 03:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

SIX Legendaries changed names?

Uxie's name is the same in Japanese and English; the lack of Y is just localization and doesn't affect pronunciation (it's no more different - in fact, less so - than Lucario being "Rukario" in Japanese). However, the article says six legendary Pokemon changed names (the other five, of course, being Articuno, Zapdos, Moltres, Mesprit, and Azelf.) --HeroicJay 09:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Uxie shouldn't count.--Pokélova! 09:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Except Lucario's Japanese name is Lucario, it's just spelled as Rukario in katakana. Yuxie>Uxie isn't any less of a change than Dodorio>Dodrio, Donfan>Donphan, or Chicorita>Chikorita. If anything, Houou>Ho-oh and Crecelia>Cresselia should be counted as well. --User:Goldenpelt 01:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I gotta agree there... TTEchidna 04:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the Lucario comparison. Uxie's Katakana name is Yukushii, not Yuxie, so it's not the same thing. But it does seem a bit silly to say that they are different names if they are pronounced the same. When they design the official romanji names they aren't thinking about the English audience, so of course it makes sense to change the spelling if they think it helps people of that audience pronounce it correctly. It's still the same name. --CrimsonChin 17:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Victini

Shouldn't this little creature be added? Id add it, but alas, I am not allowed *cries*. Or are we awaiting more information on it? --S2daam 11:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been added... I just improved some things. TTEchidna 20:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Mewtwo and Mew's "Unique Battle Music"

I really don't think this point should be in the trivia section; isn't that same re-mixed Kanto music used for the birds and, in FR/LG, for the beasts as well? The music for the weather trio and the elemental Regis is more unique than that.Starscream 16:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

They're different remixes. Mewtwo's remix I think is used for Ho-Oh and Lugia in FRLG, in that event no one got anywhere. Mew's is a completely different remix. The legendary birds also have a different remix. TTEchidna 05:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Uniqueness in the games

In the trivia section it says "In the games, there appears to only be one of every legendary Pokémon", however that's not entirely true. There's only one you can catch, but I've seen a Zapdos and a Heatran in the Battle Hall in Platinum. --CrimsonChin 17:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

Add {{-}} before every generation header. →ΑΧΧΟΝΝ_fire 22:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not having any issues, and I'm using a standard monitor. —darklordtrom 07:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization

• A recent page on Pokémon.com mentions it as "Legendary Pokémon," not "legendary Pokémon" (with a capital L). I haven't looked yet, but do other things (games, manga, cards, sites, etc.) mention the term as such? ^tc²₆tc₂₆ 11:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Takuto

I think it's important to include an exmaple Takuto has two legendary Pokemon under the "anime" section, and no ramifications were apparent as a result of him possessing legendary Pokemon. - unsigned comment from Datonyp1 (talk • contribs)

Split?

With Gen V being released very soon, don't you think this entry might get a bit too big? Perhaps we should split it by Generation. Although it might be somewhat of a shame though... PDL 03:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"Deer" (and where in the world is Victini?)

I think "deer" is a poor group name for that trio, seeing as the closest animals they resemble are the gazelle, the wildebeest, and the oryx*, all bovids. "Musketeers", while not as descriptive, is a lot less inaccurate, as it groups them by their running theme, and doesn't alienate Keldeo.
On a different subject, shouldn't Victini have a paragraph in somewhere? --Kaoz 01:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

"Raijin" Trio

"Borutorosu, Torunerosu, and Randorosu are a trio of Pokémon based on Japanese Raijin, gods of thunder and lightning" Torunerosu is most likely based on Fuujin, god of wind - unsigned comment from Vienna Waltz (talk • contribs)

Instead of Raijin, which only applies to Boltros, why not Djinn Trio? They look the part.--Kaoz 19:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There's also Cloud Trio, seeing that's what they got for a lower half. Luna Tiger * the Arc Toraph 19:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Trios are more often named after their overall appearance rather than a common feature. Speaking of which, I did some research and the djinns seem to take visual cues from oni (Japanese ogre-demons), more notably their facial features and horns. So that'd leave us with the Djinn and Oni alternatives.--Kaoz 22:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"More often" doesn't mean "we should consider that first." Obviously the weather trio, lunar duo, Lake Guardians, tower duo all take what they're known for and uses those names. If they aren't djinn or demons in general, why refer to them as such (considering they're based on gods and nothing Middle Eastern)? Birds are birds, beasts are beasts, and Musketeers are French (otherwise, they might have been the Righteous Quartet). Call them the Kami trio, and you're way more accurate than Djinn. Luna Tiger * the Arc Toraph 23:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fair, but how descriptive is the word Kami? Not saying Oni was a better suggestion, in fact it suffers from the same problem of neither being widespread in use nor part of the game lore. Names like birds and beasts are simple and descriptive at the same time, because everyone knows what a bird is. Even the golem has been integrated into the general culture pool. Terms like Kami and Oni are known among the Otaku subculture, but once you step out of it, few people will look at the name and think of them. I don't know if Djinn has overcome the limits of the gaming subculture, but if that weren't the case, I'd be all for a name that did, such as ogre or genie.--Kaoz 02:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Kami itself is a broad term that encompasses "gods" with religious connotations. It's general enough that it's likely to have extended itself beyond Otakuism, and if not, one punch into Google gives the Wiki article on Kami as the first result. They're not based on genies or demons. They're based on Raijin, Fuujin, and Inari...which are Shinto gods. Kami. Luna Tiger * the Arc Toraph 13:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

If we were to go for a specific god, wouldn't it make more sense to use Fuujin, as they're all part Flying-type? --Gοldenpelt 23:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't be a specific god, only because they aren't all based around that god. The flying-type is because, yeah, they're gods and they fly. It's not specifically relative to Fuujin that they can. Luna Tiger * the Arc Toraph 13:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

So now there's a page entitled Raijin trio. Is that really what we'll be calling them from now on? I thought the argument for calling them the Kami trio was the most convincing. --Andy^P_K^M_N 18:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This is why I liked the wiki when it was locked. We could come to a consensus on sensitive stuff like legendary trio names before someone made the articles, such as the case with the trio of Reshiram, Zekrom, and Kyurem. TTEchidna 19:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

They, btw, could be the Tao Dragons. Yin, Yang, Wu? That's Taoism. Luna Tiger * the Arc Toraph 21:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Toa/Dao Dragons is a good idea. Yeah, I think Kami Trio (Or possibly a Nature Trio) is much better than singling out the first in the Pokedex as the name. vik0z0z 18:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

About Energy Dragon Trio

I can't edit talk page there so I make here, I found something on the name ReshiRAM, ZekROM, KyuREM (RAM-ROM-REM)Arceus Vs Dragon Trio 11:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Right...but what does 'RAM-ROM-REM' mean? Or is the "interesting" bit that all their names end it a consonent made of an R and M with a vowel in between> :-/ Bttsstewart 03:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

RAM is random-access memory, REM is rapid eye movement and ROM is read-only memory?--Pokélova! 03:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"REM, a keyword for an inline comment in some computer languages", so yeah Vienna Waltz 12:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think he's just pointing out the name similarities. --Andy^P_K^M_N 13:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Stat Averages

Would it be reasonable if someone added statistical averages like how each of the typings have? Just so we can get a good idea on what the average Legendary seems to have for stats? If anybody sees this as a good idea then how do I add it into the article? Shiramu Kuromu 21:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. Add up each stat, divide by the number of legendaries and put them in {{BaseStatNoCat}}. —darklordtrom 21:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I'll add that when I get time to sometime tommorow. Shiramu Kuromu 23:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Just posting the averages I got figured out here until I have all of them calculated (Note: Includes Alt Formes and Phione).

HP: 92.89

Attack: 86.11

Defense: 85.28

Special Attack: 124.45

Special Defense: 90.65

Speed: 99.72

So far I'm predicting high average Special based stats. Once I get everything else calculated I'll get the averages posted on the article, though while you posted the template for it I have absolutely no clue how to set it up. x-x Edit: Looks like I'm right about the Special part. Shiramu Kuromu 19:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind about how to use them, used the Dragon Type page as a reference for these. Is it working correctly? Do I need to round them to whole numbers (The fully evolved averages for types displayed them like this though)?

Statistical averages*

Stat
HP: 92.89
Attack: 86.11
Defense: 85.28
Sp.Atk: 124.45
Sp.Def: 90.65
Speed: 99.72
Total: 0

Shiramu Kuromu 20:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking good. Feel free to incorporate that into the page when you're ready. —darklordtrom 21:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you get the bars to align to the right so that they are affecting in length by the numbers to the left of them? felinoel 00:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't know how to set it up like that. Though I do have to redo the totals since Phione is know confirmed not to be a legendary, so I'll figure out how to do that when I get he chance. Shiramu Kuromu 17:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I see, maybe you could move the bars all the way to the right? felinoel 20:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article

The article "Legendary Pokémon" has been a featured article for a while now. Doesn't anyone think it should give another article a chance? Pokedex493 18:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there are plenty other articles out there? felinoel 19:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Does anybody else agree? Pokedex493 19:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to nominated one. There is no limit to how many featured articles Bulbapedia can have. As long as this one is still high quality, it will stay featured and we will add more to the list. (Which reminds me, I need to close the current nominations.) —darklordtrom 09:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Mythical Pokémon

With the commercials for Victini airing now, as well as the Celebi Distribution's page on the HeartGold and SoulSilver website, would it be a good guess to assume that TPCi considers Mythical Pokémon to be the translated term of "Illusory Pokémon"?--Purimpopoie 00:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, Mythical Pokémon is now used to refer to any legendary. See here. I think a page moving might be in order. - unsigned comment from Missingno. Master (talk • contribs) 21:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense since in the anime Dratini was specifically stated to be legendary so they gotta rename legendaries... xD felinoel 22:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Remember the Japanese games do actually use several different terms for 'legendary Pokémon'. It looks like the English translations are finally going to recognise that and do the same. Werdnae (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree on the move. If this is going to be standard, then we should change to reflect this. --Jonouchi 23:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

At most I think there should be a redirect that leads here... >.> felinoel 23:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Should be split. Reshizek are still legendary. The legendary Pokémon template should be divided, so it's one template, but maybe it should look like this:

     |Legendary: Reshiram - Zekrom
Unova|
     |Mythical: Victini - Other Stuff

TorchicBlaziken ^{(talk•edits)} 00:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I... guess? Just as long as Victini and the others are not even once called legendary officially... felinoel 03:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe Mythical Pokémon is now the official translation for 幻のポケモン, as Celebi, Victini, Arceus and many others are all official called 幻のポケモン by the official Japanese website, and Reshiram and Zekrom and many others are called 伝説のポケモン. Now Mythical Pokémon and Legendary Pokémon is different.--Swampert 13:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well... seeing as how Bulbapedia is for fluff and unconfirmed info, I guess we might as well do this? By for I mean when told that something is fluff and unconfirmed people get called an idiot for not believing it to be true regardless of there being no proof of it whatsoever. felinoel 22:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Victini was called a Mythical Pokémon, while Raikou, Entei, Suicune, Reshiram and Zekrom are still being called Legendary Pokémon. Probably, they finally split the classification, like in Japanese: Legendary Pokémon (伝説のポケモン densetsu no Pokémon) and Mythical Pokémon (幻のポケモン maboroshi no Pokémon). - Taylor 23:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I feel at this point in time it is time to restate what Dratini was called, 伝説のポケモン, Legendary Pokémon. felinoel 23:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I for one vote that event Pokémon should be moved to Mythical Pokémon due to TCPi using a new term for the Pokémon that is given out by event.Anyone agree on this ? LucarioWolf 23:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems that's it. Event Legendaries were called maboroshi in Japanese and now they got their own classification in English... because Celebi and Arceus are being called Mythical, too. - Taylor 23:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah so then are we moving Dratini to Legendary Pokemon status? Since that is what it is called? felinoel 00:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Once, in the anime, ages ago. I'm talking about the recent, official use. - Taylor 00:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

More like twice if you count Dragonite, but when it was called that does not change the fact it was called that. Also, how is the anime unofficial? felinoel 01:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Was the Dratini line ever actually called "legendary" or such using the Japanese terms? Frugali 01:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well... not Dragonair specifically... felinoel 01:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay this is driving me crazy, do we have any real confirmation that the new term is Mythical Pokemon or that the two will be used seperately? Why can't we wait 'till the games come out and if all of the 'legendaries' are called Mythical Pokémon, then I'm going to have to kill someone we can move it. If only some of them are called Mythical and some of them are Legendary, then we will have to rethink our classification of Legendary and Mythical Pokémon (what makes one legendary and the other mythical. Hopefully, they'll all stay as legendaries and we can move on with our lives. :P --Landfish7 02:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Considering the current events... Raikou, Entei, Suicune, Reshiram and Zekrom were deemed Legendary; Victini, Celebi and Arceus were deemed Mythical. Pretty simple to me: normal gameplay ones are Legendaries, event-exclusive ones are Mythical. Just like Japanese densetsu and maboroshi. - Taylor 02:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

By that logic, Dratini and Dragonite were deemed Legendary, just saying. felinoel 10:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, like it or not Dratini and Dragonite are not legendary. Dragonite is Pseudo-legendary but that's as close as they get. On the other note, I'd say wait 'till the games come out in a week or two before making any bold descisions. --Landfish7 01:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh hey I agree, thank you for understanding my point, Dratini and Dragonite are not legendary just because they were called that, exactly why just because someone calls a couple pokemon mythical instead of legendary does not automatically make them not legendary but a new subtype of legendary called mythical. felinoel 02:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Victini, Celebi, and Arceus

• I've been to the mall tour and in the "Introduction to Unova" that they show before entering the "Video Game Experience" area, the Narrator says, "Wow! It's the Mythical Pokémon Victini! They say it has the power to bring victory." as Victini appears on the screen. And on the 13th page of the Tour Book given out during the mall tour about the distribution of the Liberty Pass, it identifies Victini as the Mythical Pokémon Victini twice.

• Celebi is referred to as the Mythical Pokémon Celebi on Pokémon.com, linking to a page about Celebi's distribution at the mall tours and at Game Stop. On that page it refers to Celebi as the Mythical Celebi. At the bottom of the same page, upon click the '6', it refers to the Celebi that the player receives from the deliveryman after it is distributed, as the Mythical Pokémon, rather than just 'Celebi'.

• In an announcement about Arceus and the Jewel of Life going on DVD, it refers to Arceus as the Mythical Pokémon Arceus.

Mythical Pokémon are most likely Pokémon that can only legitimately be obtained through distributions since this is true for Victini, Celebi, and Arceus, alike.

If my assumption turns out to be correct, all of the following Pokémon are those who I believe will likely be considered Mythical Pokémon:

• Mew
• Celebi
• Jirachi
• Deoxys
• Phione -- The fact that it can only be legitimately obtained by breeding a Ditto and a Manaphy, which the latter of can only legitimately be obtained through distributions, is enough for me to believe that Phione would be a Mythical Pokémon, in this case.
• Manaphy
• Darkrai
• Shaymin
• Arceus
• Victini
• Zorua -- Requires a fateful encounter Pokémon. Seems like good enough a reason to me.
• Zoroark -- Evolved form of an assumed-to-be Mythical Pokémon and requires fateful encounter Pokémon. Again, seems like good enough a reason.
• Keldeo -- Assumed to be available in the future via a distribution. Similar to Shaymin, Darkrai, and Arceus being kept secret at first.
• Meloetta -- Assumed to be available in the future via a distribution. Similar to Shaymin, Darkrai, and Arceus being kept secret at first.
• Genesect -- Assumed to be available in the future via a distribution. Similar to Shaymin, Darkrai, and Arceus being kept secret at first.

-- Landfish7 01:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like to disagree in a single point: I think Mythical Pokémon are Legendary Pokémon that can't be legitimately obtained in normal gameplay. So I disagree on Phione, Zorua and Zoroark, but definitely agree on the rest. - Taylor 01:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

What about Victini? has Victini ever been officially called Legendary anywhere? --Landfish7 02:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like to chime in here, and state that Dratini's Red, Blue, Yellow, and LeafGreen Pokedex entries state that it is considered a "mythical Pokémon". _Blake ^Talk·Edits 21:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, the whole Dratini ordeal was a joke. It's by no means Legendary. It hasn't had a movie. (Yes I know this is an arguable point) It's part of an evolutionary stage. There's way more than just one of them. It probably won't be considered Mythical since it is not Legendary, and it isn't event-exclusive. --Landfish7 21:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

So, now that the block is over. What are we gonna do with the whole mythical Pokémon thing? --Landfish7 21:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

"Unique" Legendaries in the Anime.

All right, I tolerated it when it was present, but after the addition of creatures that obviously weren't considered unique in the Anime (e.g., the Beast Trio from Johto), I think there needs to be a purging in regards to what's counted as unique and what's not.

First off, in regards to uniques, the only one explicitly confirmed to be Unique is Mewtwo. Most of the others are either unconfirmed or explicitly shown to be non-unique and thus should not be listed as such. Also, don't claim that they had some sort of important role in creating something (like creation of the Universe, for example) as a reason to state that they should be unique, because I will remind everyone that the Anime doesn't even care whether the creatures had an important role in creation. For example, Kyogre and Rayquaza was the one who created the Seas as well as the ruler of the skies/mitigator between Groudon and Kyogre's fight, respectively. However, that never stopped them from gaining multiple species, as evidenced with Kyogre reappearing in Movie 9 even though by the time of the movie, the Kyogre they encountered had already went back into slumber at the bottom of the basin, and if Kyogre has multiples, there's a fine bet that Groudon would have multiples as well. Rayquaza has also been shown to reappear three times, with one actually being captured by Team Rocket. Even if all three were the same entity, the mere fact that Kyogre and Groudon (explicitly shown and by proxy, respectively) had multiples meant that Rayquaza would have multiples as well. I mean, no sense in having one have multiples while others in the same trio not have the same multiples, either. Because of this, we can't use the whole "but they helped create Isshu/the Universe" belief as the reason why they are unique. Unless they have explicitly shown that they are unique, they can not be labelled as such, especially not under assumptions. If you have any evidence that suggests that the Legendaries encountered in the Anime are the same (e.g., the legendary in question actually recognizing Ash and co. from a previous encounter), then please add it in with the proper citation. Weedle Mchairybug 20:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Zekrom and Reshiram: "Constant Conflict?" No.

Their paragraph states that the two are in constant conflict with one another. This is not true--not only are they sealed away in Stones for many years prior to Black and White, but in Opelucid City, Iris also states that the two "get along so well." I've changed it to be more accurate. Grei 06:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Heatran and Regigigas

Why are these two listed in the wrong order? Shiramu Kuromu 22:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Mew under unique

I've added Mew to the list with Mewtwo, Arceus etc because as we've only seen one Mew and it is the original Pokemon. - unsigned comment from Genemaxwell4 (talk • contribs)

Movies 1 & 8 are separate Mew--SandmanDP 02:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Source? Where does it say this? Because from what I saw there was no distinction made. That is another assumption. Unless a source says otherwise the two are one in the same ergo Mew is unique. Genemaxwell4 05:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Come to think of it... both movies only show 1 Mew. However the History of the Pokemon world states Mew may have been plentiful at one time. However since there has been no appearance of 2 Mews at one time, I would say that Mew is indeed unique. Frozen Fennec 05:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The Mew from movie 8 was shown to be bound to stay near the Tree of Beginning while the one in the first movie was shown to travel.--MisterE13 05:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it stated that it's permantly bound to the Tree? In the movie it shows Mew outside of the tree several times. Who's to say that Mew can't come and go? In the movie Mew's only there because the tree is threatened. It's more likely that Mew is ONE pokemon, as stated by many other sources, and goes where it's needed. Genemaxwell4 09:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Caption

The art at the top of the page is captioned, "An artist's interpretation of Entei, a legendary Pokémon in the anime.". Shouldn't there be a comma after "Pokémon"? (Otherwise, it sounds like Entei is only legendary in the anime.) Tk3141 13:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed it. ZMT123 18:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization of the word "Ability".

I've seen a few areas where the word "Ability" has been capitalized, like in the sentence below:

"Unlike previous event legendary Pokémon with its straight-100 base stats, however, Shaymin has the Ability to change forms, between Land Forme and Sky Forme."

Shouldn't the word "Ability" be only capitalized when referring to actual Pokémon Abilities, such as Blaze, Air Lock, or Torrent? In the above example, Shaymin doesn't explicitly possess a Pokémon Ability that permits it to change Forme; it can only heal status ailments upon being switched out (Natural Cure) or promote added effects (Serene Grace). The word "ability" seems to be used in a more 'general' sense, being synonymous with words like "capability", "talent", or "skill", rather than implying an actual Pokémon Ability. Fenyx4 16:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Number of Legendaries

For Gen IV, 3+3+2+2+1+1+1+1 does not equal 13, but it equals 14. - unsigned comment from Harrichan (talk • contribs)

Phione's legendary status is disputed. So I think someone did that to note it.--ForceFire 06:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Names

In the Trivia, at the part with the Junichi Masuda interview, we might need to add something. I'm pretty sure the Musketeer quartet have different names outside Japan, don't they? --Pringles 23:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Mythical Pokémon again

The Pokémon Power Bracket descriptions have pretty much told us which Pokémon are Legendary and which are Mythical. I think we should split this page, and mention on this page that the term used to incorporate Mythical Pokémon as well before they became their own category in Generation V. --SnorlaxMonster 06:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's a clear indication that they're not legendary by being mythic. ZMT123 (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The term is used in place of legendary, and I've seen them grouped as "Legendary Pokémon and Mythical Pokémon", indicating that mythical Pokémon are not legendary Pokémon. The Conquest website does this, but I don't really want to put too much trust into it since it has all the game characters quoted saying "legendary Pokémon" in the section titled "Mythical Pokémon", and referring to a Zekrom, which is not a mythical Pokémon.

Also, for anyone who's wondering, "mythical Pokémon" is lowercase like "legendary Pokémon". While pretty much everything else capitalizes them, the in-game dialogue doesn't (for in-game usage of "mythical Pokémon", see post-defeat quote of the first Grunt in Liberty Garden). --SnorlaxMonster 13:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how this factors into the discussion, but Nintendo has recently uploaded a commercial for Black 2 and White 2 that utilizes the term "Mythical Pokémon" over "Legendary Pokémon" when describing Genesect near the end. As for my own two cents, I haven't seen "Mythical Pokémon" used much in media except in reference to a scant few Unova-native Legendary Pokémon...I'm not sure whether the term "Mythical Pokémon" is intended to be recognized as a sub-category of Legendary Pokémon, or if the term will supplant "Legendary Pokémon" outright. I personally haven't seen any classification displayed that distinguishes/divides "Legendary Pokémon" from "Mythical Pokémon", only that "mythical" has been preferred/used over "legendary" in recent Pokémon promotions. Fenyx4 (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding to my previous post, it seems that the official YouTube channels for Nintendo and Pokémon (North America) have uploaded 3 similar commercials, all advertising Black 2/White 2 (all of which advertise Genesect as a 'mythical Pokémon'). This video from the Pokémon side of things is specifically titled "September Legendaries Trailer" (to distinguish it from the other 2 uploads), yet Genesect is still referred to as a "Mythical Pokémon" at the end of the video. Seeing as the "Legendaries" term is still in use, I'm still inclined to believe that "Mythical Pokémon" is more of a sub-category for "Legendary Pokémon", although I'll wait to see other users' takes on the matter. Fenyx4 (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

"Like all Mythical Pokémon, you can't encounter Keldeo during normal gameplay." It seems that mythical Pokémon are legendary Pokémon that can only be obtained via events. Mikuri (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Mythic vs Mirage Pokemon

Where is the phrase Mirage Pokemon used? Also, Pokemon.com has referred to Keldeo and Genesect as Mythic Legendaries, so perhaps Mythic == Event? RB Golbat (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Statistical Averages

Shouldn't we put two sets of averages up, one without Phione, and one with Phione, or at least put an * with the number at the bottom, or something? Some consider Phione a legendary, and I have seen sources list it as such. Also, No source proves, without a doubt, one way or the other, so I say we put both for now.--Chris Broach (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It's fine. I really don't think anybody will care whether or not it includes Phione. --Abcboy (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Mythical Pokémon.

The term has been pretty often, and it refers to event Pokémon it seems. Heck, Champions Tournament has this: "You may not have duplicate Pokémon or duplicate held items. The item Soul Dew and the move Sky Drop are banned. Legendary or mythical Pokémon may not participate, either. For these battles, all Pokémon will be set to Level 50." - and I am sure it refers to more than Sinnoh legendaries (Keldeo and Genesect, at least on Nintendo's YouTube channel, so idk actually D:). Marked +-+-+ (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Mythical Pokemon are the same as Event-Only Pokemon (Mew, Celebi, Jirachi, Deoxys, Phione, Manaphy, Darkrai, Shaymin, Arceus, Victini, Keldeo, Meloetta, Genesect) Perhaps a new article is made about that? Or we just change the Event Pokémon to Mythic Pokemon? RB Golbat (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hovertext

The hovertext in the trivia I added isn't working for some reason... Or is it just me? TorchicBlaziken ^{(talk•edits)} 16:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

" breaks {{tt}}. Either use ", ', or <nowiki></nowiki>. --SnorlaxMonster 16:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Are any Pokémon in the anime truly unique?

Because it has been confirmed that more than one Mewtwo (a Pokémon that was long thought to have been unique) exists in the anime, I now think it's speculative to say that any Pokémon is actually unique. After all, unless it is explicitly stated and proven that only one kind of a particular Pokémon exists, how do we know for sure whether or not Arceus, Reshiram, Zekrom, and other legendaries are truly the only ones of their kind? And when we assume these Pokémon are unique, the show's writers may introduce another individual of the Pokémon we thought was special in this regard. This is particularly true in Mewtwo's case, where we all thought it was a unique Pokémon for a long time prior to the sixteenth film. Wrap it all up, I feel this is speculation and we shouldn't assume what Pokémon are unique and which ones aren't. Anyone else agree? He's here! The one and only...Uncle Edit! (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. If people really think it's necessary, we could say that for certain species (Arceus, etc), only one individual has ever been seen, but I think it's better to leave it out entirely and just note in individual entries for things like Mewtwo or Lugia that multiple individuals exist. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction pages

The Pokémon Mansion page states: 'Amongst the rubble and wreckage is information that the scientists who once worked there obtained a Mew and impregnated it with the genetically altered Mewtwo, who destroyed the Mansion in its escape.' The Legendary Pokémon page states: 'In the games, Mewtwo is revealed to have been cloned from Mew in the Pokémon Mansion journals. Mewtwo was too powerful, however, and it escapes from the Pokémon Mansion, destroying it in the process. Mewtwo then makes its home in Cerulean Cave, where all kinds of powerful Pokémon live.' This contradicts, go fix it my fellow Bulbapedia editers! Nickvang (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? At least specify what the contradiction is. Is it the cloning and impregnation thing? Because that's how actual cloning is performed. Ataro (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's that thing. And as far as I know, cloning is performed by taking a stem cell of a being, and artificially grow it into a being. If what you said is true, then all normal kinds of reproduction would be cloning. Nickvang (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Cloning is frequently performed by "growing it into a being", as you call it, within a surrogate mother animal's womb, rather than an artificial womb. For example, see Dolly the sheep. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I start to understand you, yet, is it sure Mewtwo is a clone just because it is altered/created by scientists. Couldnd't Mewtwo just be created by some variation of Gene therapy? Nickvang (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, now I see what you're saying. I think it's heavily implied that game-Mewtwo is a clone, but you're right that it's not explicitly stated. Thus, I've changed the article to say it was "genetically modified" from Mew, which is the exact wording used in its Pokédex entries. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Gen-II hint

Because the location of a legendary pokemon changes when the player moves between routes and towns, and because it moves along usually sequentially, head towards the sign (trainer tips) at the top of Route 36, directly above this is route 37. Change between these two routes to cause the pokemon to move. They can be made to come to you using this method. Charlieb000 (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Bulbapedia is an encyclopedia, not a strategy guide. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

@Charlieb000: You could try adding this to one of the Gold, Silver, and/or Crystal walkthroughs. --NOBODY (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Typo

Under the Lake Trio's section, the episode title "Pruning a Passel of Pals" is missing an exclamation mark. Can I get an admin to fix this please? —★たかはりい^talk 09:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Three More Pokémon?

While browsing around a forum, I came across this link showing pictures of the three presumed legendary Pokémon that have not yet been released. Is this enough (I know the page says "rumor" on it, but think that these would be released in the next games most likely) to allow us to create pages on them? I looked for Hoopa (Pokémon) to see that it still does not exist. We don't have screenshots of their Dex entries, unfortunately, but Serebii did have these up at one point, albeit briefly. I think we can safely create pages on the three - even though Nintendo hasn't announced them - and put what unconfirmed information we do have, but keep the pages locked down so they cannot be freely edited. The intro to the page would say an unconfirmed Pokémon noting we are only collecting what's been posted elsewhere so far and noting that it's speculation. Thoughts?

It also includes something on Mega Latios and Mega Latias, but we do not know if this is something they decided to cut from the game (they look identical). I'm not comfortable adding those to the related pages yet. CycloneGU (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

There's already a discussion about this going on here. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Duly noted, I have commented. CycloneGU (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is Zygarde apart of the "Morality" Duo?

It clearly represents order between them. It looks like a Z, and it's name also begins with one (Xerneas, Yveltal, Zygarde). Also, it even shares the same battle them with them.- unsigned comment from Maxdoss (talk • contribs)

I imagine it's because it's not confirmed to be part of the trio, even though it's blatantly obvious.--BigBadBatter (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

So Gen IV they refused to accept Giratina as part of the Trio. Gen V they accepted Kyurem. And now, in Gen VI, they aren't accepting Zygarde. Can somebody make up their mind? --Shadowater (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Xerneas, Yveltal and Zygarde are not part of the trio yet so you have to wait in the future. Cinday123 (Talk) 00:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

wha... not confi... of course freakin' bulbapedia.. Tditdatdwt (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

There isn't any direct evidence- in game or in the anime (or the manga even)- to support Zygarde being part of a trio. Until there is evidence that point to it being part of the trio, then we'll move it. It's basically the same case with Giratina and Kyurem befor eit.--ForceFire 03:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Would you just stop those and start thinking widely?! Be open to ideas. First of all, as I' ll repeat, it's OBVIOUS. Secondly, these things work like postulates, need not to be proven. Why are we waiting for confirmation? What if Nintendo doesn't release anything that would help us consider Zygarde a part or apart of the trio? Hell, most of the legendary trios, duos or quartets' names are fanmade. If this does happen, Zygarde will spend its entire life not known and feeling lonely because its other trio members get all the fame. Want evidence? Here you go (though I know that you already know this.):

• Zygarde has a similar color scheme, yes, even the shiny form, with Xerneas and Yveltal.
• Zygarde has the same battle theme with Xerneas and Yveltal.
• Zygarde completes the trio of mythical animals from the tree of Yggdrasil. Xerneas being the deer, Yveltal being the avian predator, and Zygarde being the serpent. Did Bulbapedia have Zygarde's Origin section COINCINDENTALLY similar to the origins of Xerneas and Yveltal? Yep.
• Zygarde totally has involvement with the equilibrium of mortality (not morality) being the neutralizer or the being of balance.
• Zygarde's ability, Aura Break, would only be triggered if either one of the XY legends is brought out to be an opponent.
• Want more? Here:

• The x-axis is usually depicted in blue, and represents horizontal. Horizon is associated or maybe is land. Xerneas is blue, resides on land, and has "X" in it's name.
• The y-axis, on the other hand, is red, and represents vertical, into the sky. Yveltal is red, is aerial, and has "Y" as its initial letter.
• The z-axis is hued with green, and represents depth. Depth makes sense as Zygarde resides underground, deep in the earth. It is green and has "Z" as it's initial letter.

• The axis theory is referenced on an interview with Ken Sugimori. Sugimori was asked about the version mascots, and said that they were based on this. Though the two were the only ones involved with this speech, all of these ideas are perfectly applicable to Zygarde.

Disclaimer: This is a personal perspective. An opinion. But true." Signing off, your trusted user,Phiraptor28 (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not saying that it is not true, it is very obvious that Zygarde is related to Xerneas and Yveltal. What we need is the game to confirm it for us, directly. Meaning the game must say that the three are related, not just by color scheme or what not. It's the same reason Kyurem was not considered part of the Tao trio until B2/W2 were released. It's the same reason why Giratina was not considered part of the Dragon trio until Platinum was released. So have some patience.--ForceFire 13:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

As stated elsewhere, Pokemon Rumble World adds legitimacy to the trio by giving achievements for catching each Legendary Mascot Trio in its entirety. The achievement Aura Traveller is gotten by catching Xerneas, Yveltal, and Zygarde, and since it is an official game, albeit not a main one, it does lend some credence Shadowater (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The Legendary Pokemon of the Kalos Region, 716-718

it obvious those three Pokemon are relative to even though it doesn't explicitly stated within the story. Pokemon Wiki was able deduce that the 3 are related to each other, calling them the Yggdrasil trio by fans. Zygarde's Pokedex entries and ability gives a clear hint they its related to the duo. Xerneas, Yveltal, and Zygarde, all three have a role in the ecosystem. Xerneas involves life and creating forests. Yveltal brings destruction, meaning the end of a life of an living being. While Zygarde role in the echo system is balance, determine how long a living being is to live and eventually die. These pokemon roles involves the environment and gender chromosomes(Mostly for Xerneas and Yveltal). I Strongly believe that Zygarde should be add to the duo, making a trio. After this is simialr to the Kyurem and Giratina issue. I leave this topic out for anyone to dicuss this.--Jacob Kogan (talk) 00:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Xerneas and Yveltal are part of the duo for now until Zygarde gets a version. Cinday123 (Talk) 00:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless Zygarde is mentioned to be related to Xerneas and Yveltal in the games (and to an extent, the anime), we will not be adding itwith Xerneas and Yveltal.--ForceFire 03:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

National Pokédex and Phione

In Generation VI, is Phione needed to complete the National Pokédex since its legendary status is disputed. --Cinday123 (Talk) 03:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

All Pokémon except event Pokémon are needed to complete the national dex.Yamitora1 (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

So this includes Phione which is needed to complete the National Pokémon. --Cinday123 (Talk) 06:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes that is correct Yamitora1 (talk) 06:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Origins

I don't think origins should be included, Xerneas, Yveltal and Zygarde's origins can be easily be seen in their own pages. --Cinday123 (Talk) 00:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering if those should be there as well. I did however add to the Yveltal section when I first saw that added, maybe I should have removed instead of adding. Oh well, the info on this page will continue evolving and changing, especially as the generation goes on and we're exposed to more of these new legendaries and their mythos. Yamitora1 (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Entei and Groudon

The trivia section states that Ho-Oh is the only Legendary Pokémon from Generation II not to appear in a movie. It also states that the Groudon from M06 doesn't count because it's a fake one. But doesn't that mean that Entei from M03 shouldn't count either? It is just an illusion after all... ShadowLugiaEx (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Entei also appeared in the Zoroark movie, along with the other two Legendary beasts. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Definition

"No Legendary Pokémon is known to evolve."

"Diancie is born from a Carbink that undergoes a mutation."

Should we change/rework the definition of Legendary Pokémon? I mean, its one thing to be a genetic modified clone of a legendary Pokémon, its another to mutate/evolve into one. Yamitora1 (talk) 00:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

There's no reason to change the definition. Carbink doesn't evolve into Diancie, and most likely cannot even turn into Diancie in-game in any way.--電禅Den Zen 00:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention that Diancie definitely doesn't evolve into anything.--電禅Den Zen 00:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Should Arcanine, Lucario, Zoroark and Rotom be included in Unown's bullet point in the trivia?

Arcanine has the species name "Legendary Pokémon" and its Pokédex entries refer to it as such. Rotom has legendary encounter music playing when it is battled in the Old Chateau and is even explicitly referred to as a Legendary in Pokémon adventures. Even though neither one are legendaries in the context of Game Canon, I feel like they should be included in the trivia section in the bullet point about Unown being a legendary in the Third Movie. Also, Lucario and Zoroark should also be mentioned since they were both able to stand toe-to-toe with legendaries in their respective movies and were both thought to be as such by some fans before the games and movies themselves confirmed otherwise. They share that trait with Unown.- unsigned comment from BlackButterfree (talk • contribs)

Why not add this to the article yourself? Blueapple128 (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Everytime I add something to a page, even if its just fixing grammar mistakes, it gets erased, so I'm guessing only staff members can do so. --BlackButterfree (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

There shouldn't be anything preventing you from making edits; I'm not a staff member and can make edits fine. Blueapple128 (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, game canon over anime canon/manga canon. Secondly, Lucario and Zoroark weren't considered legendary in their respective movies, unlike Unown which was. Thirdly, Rotom is not a legendary, end of story. Fourthly, being the Legendary Pokémon does not make Arcanine a legitimate Legendary Pokémon.--ForceFire 00:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

No one's saying that they ought to be legendary. That doesn't mean that those bits can't be put under Trivia; that's what a trivia section is for. On a page titled "Legendary Pokémon", what's wrong with a bullet point stating something like "Arcanine's species name is 'Legendary Pokémon', but it is not considered a Legendary Pokémon"? What's wrong with stating that "Although Rotom is not considered a Legendary Pokémon, its battle encounter music is shared with Legendary Pokémon; it is the only non-Legendary Pokémon to do so"? Blueapple128 (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The Rotom piece is already on Rotom's page. And that is where it should be. The Arcanine piece is not notable, because species name do not dictate anything.--ForceFire 01:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Then by your argument, Unown being mentioned isn't notable since as game > anime, the anime's statement that Unown is legendary doesn't mean anything either. Nothing states that a trivia fact can't be placed on two different pages. Blueapple128 (talk) 01:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The Rotom piece goes on the Rotom page only because it is only about Rotom. Not about its apparent legendary status. As for Unown, we can give some leeway to things that are said in the anime such as Lugia being the master of the legendary birds. Unown was referred to as being legendary even though it isn't.--ForceFire 01:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

What about Arcanine though? Its been known for ages that it was initially going to be where Moltres is in its trio until Nintendo (I Think) said they thought two birds and a landwalker would be confusing, surely that makes it notable for a trivia point?--Ditto51/Tom (My Talk Page) 11:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

No. That was just fan speculation based on the photo from episode two. Game Frk hasn't even said anything about Arcanine being part of a trio.--ForceFire 11:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Green Dragon

I just finished pokemon white 2 and shiny dragonite is green and super rare (before white 2) and has been around since the first games perhaps this is the final version of the green dragon? is this notable in the trivia? (I am tlaking about that last piece of trivia that mentions the green dragon and mew) Pokemonisawesome2 (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't been since first games. There are no Shinies in Gen 1. Also, it's not super rare. It has the same chances as any other Shiny (which can be boosted in G2 and G4 onwards). Eridanus (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

oh yeah thats right failure on my part forgot that shinies arent in gen 1 plus I meant its super rare as in 1/8192 because its shiny shines are super rare but yeah i forgot shinies arent gen 1. I still think its an odd coincidence. - unsigned comment from Pokemonisawesome2 (talk • contribs)

Awesome News about Legendary Pokemon were obtainable

I'm have a excellent news. The non-event Legendary Pokemon were obtainable in Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire. According to Serebii, non-event Legendary Pokémon are found on islands that can only be found through areas on the sky and is said to make it so all non-event Legendary Pokémon will be obtainable in Generation VI. You access the sky through the Eon Flute item. --Samueljoo (talk) 11:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

This information is correct, but do note that Serebii is not a source that Bulbapedia uses. This information was provided in CoroCoro, with information from the translations able to be found on Bulbanews. --SnorlaxMonster 01:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, I'm getting it now. --Samueljoo (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Gen VI has a legendary trio

The current article states that Gen VI did not introduce a legendary trio. However, while Xerneas, Yveltal, and Zygarde never feature in the story together, Zygarde's ability is clearly meant to interact with the two others (indeed, it ONLY interacts with those two), and in addition Zygarde follows the established theme of X-Y-Z, both in name and body type. Thus, while story-wise it does not interact with the other two (though if the pattern holds and we get Pokemon Z, it will), it makes sense logically to categorize the three of them together. /// I fight for the caaaans (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Canopenerdude. Xerneas, Yveltal, and Zygarde are as much a trio as the weather trio or the Tao trio, having two equal-but-opposite members (Groudon/Kyogre and Reshiram/Zekrom) and an internal trio master (Rayquaza and [sort of] Kyurem). They especially draw parallels with the weather trio, as the two equal members are constantly fighting and the third member exists to provide balance. ShermTank7272 (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I should add that, while I don't have an official source on this, someone pointed out on tumblr that Xerneas, Yveltal and Zygarde match, both thematically and in terms of appearance, Yggdrasil, Hraesvelgr and Niddhog from Norse mythology. -Alarielle- (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Please read previous discussions on this matter. We will wait until the game or anime explicitly states that they are related. This is the same thing we did with Giratina and Kyurem and their respective trios.--ForceFire 04:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed split

Due to the publicity claim that Generation VI as a whole contains all Legendary Pokémon, there was a debate as to whether this page should be moved to "Legendary and Mythical Pokémon" to satisfy this claim. The war has since been stopped by a move protection, but there is indeed a valid argument that mythicals aren't legendaries. I am personally against a split, as we also have sources that place mythicals as a subset of legendaries, but I am still starting the discussion in case Bulbapedia as a whole feels otherwise. Bwburke94 (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I do support this. I initially was the one who moved the page; it was then moved back to because it should be split instead, but it was never split or moved back, and now the fact that it was moved back, not split, AND prevented from being moved again means that the page title provides actual false information on the contents of the article, which are not only about Legendary Pokémon, but the separate group Mythical Pokémon. False information was kind of what I was trying to avoid by changing the article in the first place... I remain neutral on whether it should be split or moved, but I do still think that something has to be done (and I really don't think it makes sense for it to be moved back to something incorrect simply because another course of action that isn't even being taken would be superior...). EpicDeino (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I strongly oppose a split. The ORAS website has a page about Mythical Pokémon in its Legendary Pokémon section, so it's officially considered a subcategory, not its own category. This means that all Mythical Pokémon are Legendary as well. It's like how a square is a rectangle. Pikachu Bros. (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a categorization issue rather than saying that Mythical Pokémon are Legendary Pokémon (prose should be given precedence over sitemaps). We already have evidence that demonstrates they are separate categories. Most notably, this page makes it clear that Mythical Pokémon are not Legendary Pokémon with the statement "With Pokémon X, Pokémon Y, Pokémon Omega Ruby, and Pokémon Alpha Sapphire, every Legendary Pokémon discovered to date can be obtained!" Additionally, there are official sources that specify "Legendary and Mythical Pokémon", meaning that Mythical Pokémon are not Legendary Pokémon.

While this is a discussion about the English term, in Japanese material the term 「伝説・幻のポケモン」 Legendary • Mythical Pokémon is quite common. Additionally, on the ORAS Pokémon page, despite there being a "Legendary Pokémon" category, the Mythical Pokémon Deoxys is categorized under 「その他」 other. --SnorlaxMonster 02:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not a massive piece of evidence towards it, though I should point out that Smash 3DS and Wii U were the most recent games to refer to the group as "Mythical and Legendary" Pokémon in the Tips, as well as the PAL description of the Master Ball. The PAL trophies for Mew, Keldeo and Shaymin also refer to the three of them as Mythical. The US version calls them Legendary, though it seems to not refer to Mythical Pokémon in general and also says "Onyx", so... - Blazios _talk 04:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that North American SSB Wii U counts mythicals as legendaries shouldn't be ignored because of a single typo. It is still an English-language source released after the start of Generation V, making it valid to the discussion. Bwburke94 (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

In the event that we do determine Mythical Pokémon to officially be a completely separate category, would a page move be required? Bulbapedia has used fan terms over official ones before, such as the whole effort values thing. Bwburke94 (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Mythical and Legendary classification with sources

#		Pokémon	Classification	English source	Japanese source
144		Articuno	Legendary	[2]
145		Zapdos	Legendary	[3]
146		Moltres	Legendary	[4]
150		Mewtwo	Legendary	[5]	[6]
151		Mew	Mythical	[7]
243		Raikou	Legendary	[8]	[9]
244		Entei	Legendary	[10]	[11]
245		Suicune	Legendary	[12]	[13]
249		Lugia	Legendary	[14]
250		Ho-Oh	Legendary	[15]
251		Celebi	Mythical	[16]	[17]
377		Regirock	Legendary	[18]
378		Regice	Legendary	[19]
379		Registeel	Legendary	[20]
380		Latias	Legendary	[21]
381		Latios	Legendary	[22]
382		Kyogre	Legendary	[23]	[24]
383		Groudon	Legendary	[25]	[26]
384		Rayquaza	Legendary	[27]	[28]
385		Jirachi	Mythical	[29]	[30]
386		Deoxys	Mythical	[31]
480		Uxie	Legendary	[32]	[33]
481		Mesprit	Legendary	[34]	[35]
482		Azelf	Legendary	[36]	[37]
483		Dialga	Legendary	[38]	[39]
484		Palkia	Legendary	[40]	[41]
485		Heatran	Legendary	[42]	[43]
486		Regigigas	Legendary	[44]	[45]
487		Giratina	Legendary	[46]	[47]
488		Cresselia	Legendary	[48]	[49]
489		Phione	Mythical*
490		Manaphy	Mythical	[50]
491		Darkrai	Mythical	[51]
492		Shaymin	Mythical	[52]	[53]
493		Arceus	Mythical	[54]
494		Victini	Mythical	[55]	[56]
638		Cobalion	Legendary	[57]	[58]
639		Terrakion	Legendary	[59]	[60]
640		Virizion	Legendary	[61]	[62]
641		Tornadus	Legendary	[63]	[64]
642		Thundurus	Legendary	[65]	[66]
643		Reshiram	Legendary	[67]	[68]
644		Zekrom	Legendary	[69]	[70]
645		Landorus	Legendary	[71]	[72]
646		Kyurem	Legendary	[73]	[74]
647		Keldeo	Mythical	[75]	[76]
648		Meloetta	Mythical	[77]
649		Genesect	Mythical	[78]	[79]
716		Xerneas	Legendary	[80]	[81]
717		Yveltal	Legendary	[82]	[83]
718		Zygarde	Legendary	[84]	[85]
719		Diancie	Mythical	[86]	[87]
720		Hoopa	Mythical	[88]	[89]

--SnorlaxMonster 18:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The Deoxys one may be slightly outdated, as the term Mythical refers to all event-only Pokémon and Deoxys isn't event-only any more. Since that source is from before it lost its status as event-only, it may not be accurate. Do you happen to know of any more recent sources mentioning Deoxys? ^^ EpicDeino (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Recent sources I checked never said Deoxys was either Legendary or Mythical. I do not believe it is possible to change categories, so I'm skeptical of the claim that Deoxys did (in the same way Lugia/Ho-Oh weren't Mythical Pokémon in Generation III). However, if there is a more recent source, it would be ideal to use that one. --SnorlaxMonster 22:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Scroll down. The announcement for Plasma Deoxys (BW2) called it Mythical. It might not be considered "recent" anymore, though. Pikachu Bros. (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have defined what I meant when I said recent. I meant anything since Deoxys was announced to be available in ORAS. I had seen that B2W2 one. --SnorlaxMonster 16:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

We could have it listed as both Mythical and Legendary, with a template:tt note. I personally can't read this due to my school blocking it, but this page might say something. The URL seems to say that it's legendary, although that by itself should be taken with a grain of salt. Pikachu Bros. (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The tab right above it says "Change Two Mythical Pokémon!", so it certainly doesn't rule it out from being Mythical. I don't think we have confirmation that it is no longer Mythical though, so I would suggest continuing to label it as we know it at least used to be. --SnorlaxMonster 16:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The "change two mythical Pokémon" section is about Keldeo's Resolute Forme and Shaymin's Sky Forme. Pikachu Bros. (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The point is that the section about Keldeo and Shaymin is listed under the Legendary Pokémon section, meaning it's impossible to conclude that Deoxys is Legendary from where its section is placed on the site.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that because of its placement on the Japanese ORAS site away from all the other Legendaries, it should be left as Mythical until we get some sort of evidence one way or the other for it. I highly doubt that we won't get more distributions for it in the future that will clarify this.- Blazios _talk 04:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

In "Pikachu What's This Key?", Meowth refers to Manphy as Mythical, at least in the dub. Just bringing it up so that it can be used for English proof. Yamitora1 (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Simple list/Count

Hi! I´m new. I just wanted to say that reading through all the page just to know every Pokémon classified as Legendary, can be a bit tedious. So I wanted to suggest that we should place a list of every Legendary and Mythical Pokémon somewhere near the beginning of the page, something that lists all of this Pokémon before explaining each one. Also, I wanted to know if someone could verify the amount of Legendaries, because I count 54 (with Phione), and the page says 53. PokéMaster234 (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a list is necessary. The page already has the info about the Legendary's, just grouped together. Also, Phione isn't counted as a legendary, neither on this wiki or officially.--ForceFire 04:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

My point is that is wrong, saying that they are 52 (Without Phione), while there are 53. PokéMaster234 (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I counted 53 (without Phione).--ForceFire 03:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

Can I suggest that "Many of the stories regarding the legendaries were slightly chnged, or given a new perspective in the Remakes of Generation III, Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire. Also 5 of them received new forms." Be edited to Many of the stories regarding the legendaries were slightly changed, or given a new perspective in the Remakes of Generation III, Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire, and 5 of them received new forms. LucasOne (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Location of Legendaries in the Pokedex

Should it not be said that most (if not all) Regional Pokedexes end with legendary Pokemon, and generally don't have any anywhere else? Flanl (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Is Hoopa from Kalos or Hoenn?

On this article, it says that Hoopa is from Kalos. Is this necessarily the case, considering that Hoopa seems to have more to do with OR/AS than it does X/Y (such as the different form)? Litwick96 (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hoopa is not in the Hoenn regional Pokédex, but is in the Kalos regional Pokédex. --Abcboy (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This is superficially similar to the pre-Emerald Deoxys situation, which is exactly why we usually group Pokémon by generation rather than by region. Bwburke94 (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hoopa should be categorized with the Kalos legendaries. With information from the upcoming movie, The Archdjinn of Rings, Hoopa, which is set in the Kalos Region, this makes sense. But being included in the Kalos Pokédex in Pokémon X and Y is not necessary. X and Y just contained Hoopa and Volcanion for compatibility, for a reason that every Gen. VI Pokémon game should have every Gen. VI Pokémon. Phiraptor28 (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Movies don't count towards anything. The ORAS Volcanion event suggests it can be found in Kanto, Johto, and Sinnoh, so it's not like being introduced in a region means it can only be found in that region. Ataro (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Redefining Mythical Pokémon?

In a discussion about Deoxys over at Talk:Delta Episode, we came across the difficulty of defining Deoxys according to Bulbapedia's current definition of a "Mythical Pokémon". It seems that the official Pokémon team has not released any sort of information about Deoxys' reclassification as "Legendary" instead of "Mythical", but it is now a Pokémon integral to in-game progress due to the Delta Episode. Considering they may never officially reclassify Deoxys as "Legendary", what is the best option for Bulbapedia in terms of dealing with Deoxys, or even the definition of "Mythical"? C.Wallace (Talk|Contribs) 13:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Separation

There should really be another page about mythical Pokémon, right? Flanl (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Mythical Pokémon are still Legendary Pokémon. Phiraptor28 (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, usage of "Legendary and Mythical Pokémon" indicates the opposite. --SnorlaxMonster 08:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Then what about Forbidden Legendary Pokémon? We have been slowly transitioning to a split between Legendary and Mythical, but there is a third split in the classification. --Super goku (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

"Forbidden" just means that it is "forbidden" from being used in battle facilities. It's also just a subset of Legendary Pokémon, as shown by the parentheses. --Abcboy (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: 伝説のポケモン and 幻のポケモン show how the Japanese wiki does it in the same way as I mentioned. --Abcboy (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

So, it is not an official classification I take it? (Or at least one that we do not need a separate page for?) --Super goku (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Legendary are Mythical Pokemon are part of the same group. but there Pokemon are different two separate classes. Both classification are official. Both the anime, official Pokemon website, and video games have acowledge certain "Legendary Pokemon" as being Mythical, like Meloletta in the back and white anime arc for example and Deoxys in Omega Ruby and AlphaSapphire (Even though is now classified as a Legendary). Even Pokemon Wiki has notice the difference between these groups of Pokemon. That is why they have both a Legendary and Mythical page. Also Mythical are event Pokemon, with the exception of Deoxys. Legendary Pokemon on the other hand can be encounter without using any events at. I believe we should have a page for Mythical Pokemon. It will be easier to find the group if done this way and that way if someone is looking for Mythical Pokemon, they will not be redirected to the Legendary Pokemon.--Jacob Kogan (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. The term was always present in Japanese media, and recently became official in their western ones. No reason to not have separate pages anymore. I'm trying to lay the groundwork of the page here. I'm thinking a (relatively) short description of the Pokémon from a canonical perspective first, and then information on its revelation and where/when it featured. Feel free to edit the page with Celebi, Deoxys and co. or suggest an alternate layout. Ash Pokemaster (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

First off, even your proposed article states that Mythical Pokémon are a subset of Legendary Pokémon. All mythicals are legendaries, but not all legendaries are mythicals. Second, what is the point of splitting the page when it would result in the "Legendary Pokémon" article not containing info on all legendaries? Bwburke94 (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Zygarde and Rumble World

Given that Pokémon Rumble World officially lists Zygarde as part of a trio with Xerneas and Yveltal, listing it along with them (whether under the name "Mortality trio" or another name) is a possibility. I'd advise waiting until the upcoming May 21 announcement to officially do this, because we may get new Zygarde-related info on that date that would make any prior edits inaccurate. Bwburke94 (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)