Talk:Zygarde (Pokémon)

Legendary?

Isn't this a Legendary Pokémon? If so, why isn't it listed as such? --Wynd Fox 05:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Two possible reasons: either someone simply overlooked it or the staff is waiting for official confirmation of its legendary status before adding it. (Though it seems obvious that it's the Rayquaza/Giratina/Kyurem of this generation, there's always still the infinitesimal chance that Nintendo could be throwing us for a loop somehow.) Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 06:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It's just been overlooked. It's a Legendary. Ataro (talk) 06:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Dex Trivia?

Is it notable that it's last both numerically in the National Dex and alphabetically? --Wynd Fox 19:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with it. --Pokemaster97 19:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Unless they make a "Generation VII" or Expansion Pack (like in The Sims) where the grass starter or one of the early Pokémon has a name like "Zyzkrieg". Then it would not be anymore. (but i think the next game should be the Gen. III Remake in 2014, and then "Pokemon Z" in 2015, and the generation VII if it can exist properly, would be in 2016. Propably introduce hybrid Pokémon or Poké-humans or a subplot with aliens or time travel or somesuch.) --Kaiko Mikkusu (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Kaiko Mikkusu.

Maybe you should keep the crazy fan ideas in the forums. I find those "Poké-humans" very unlikely to made by Nintendo. But we'll never know. Until that happens, we should keep that idea off the encyclopedia. SeanWheeler (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Image origin

Where did this image come from, why does it not look like the usual Ken Sugimori art style, why doesn't it look like the other, front forward facing Zygarde pic I keep seeing next to Xerneas and Yveltal? Yamitora1 (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not the official artwork, only a placeholder that is used for now (at least it seems so to me). It's the Global Link artwork as stated on the file's page. Արիանո 08:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

And the image you're talking is just fanart. Ataro (talk) 09:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Physical appearance

Given its underground habits, its partial insect-like appearance and the fact it sports tail-end cerci and six tiny limbs close to its head; I'd say Zygarde's design might've been inspired by a beetle larvae/grub, a Ground Beetle larva to be precise, given its shape. Would it be alright to add that to the origin section? --Jomarori (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see it as a larva, its more or less a serpent. Although with the mention of Zygote likely having some basis for its name, I am kind of thinking sperm cell. Not saying it looks like a sperm cell, at least not a human sperm cell. Yamitora1 (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it also takes inspiration from the tsuchinoko, much like Dunsparce? It's notable for being a rather wide serpent, as well as having a notable straightforward "wiggle" rather than slithering from side to side. Also, the tsuchinoko's ability to swallow its own tail merges well with the possible basis on Jörmungandr, which could grasp its own tail even wrapped around the earth. --Eskay64 (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Zygarde's appearance was absolutely inspired by fibuli, these early medieval pins that were common throughout Scandinavia as a means of pinning tunics together. Here are a few examples, image 1 image 2. As you can see the idea of a long snakelike body is here along with a flaring head, complete with a bunch of pieces sticking out. These would have been totally normal things for upper class medieval Scandinavians to wear and thus fits Gen 6's Nordic legendary theme. I'm haven't seen this connection made anywhere else, but once I saw it in class I recognized it right a way. Perhaps following that logic we might find some other sort of medieval jewelry references in the other legendaries? - unsigned comment from Dockers (talk • contribs)

So I just read that "[Zygarde's] hexagons glow in certain patterns like a computer processing information" and I have to ask: have any of you guys actually seen a computer? There has to be a better way of describing that that doesn't insult people who know how computers work.

(also I edited Dockers' comment because that picture was huge) - unsigned comment from Grent (talk • contribs) 03:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Zygarde Etymology

Just looking at the naming trivia, I can't imagine that Garde is actually tied to the origins of its name. It's very serpent-like and clearly based on Norse mythology, so perhaps Zygote and Midgard - specifically the Midgard Serpent.

Position in Trio

Zygarde is in a Legendary trio with Xerneas an Yveltal, so it's "element" should fit with Creation and Destruction. Considering it's Pokédex entry, I think it's safe to say Xerneas = Creation, Yveltal = Destruction, and Zygarde = PRESERVATION. - unsigned comment from Conansboy (talk • contribs)

Which means that the trio is possibly based upon Hindu mythology.--Teamg9 (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Catch rate

I doubt that Zygarde's catch rate is really 0. Is this a filler till that info is found, or an error? Reywas360 (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a filler.--NOBODY (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Yggdrasil Trio

I'm finally starting to thing this, alongside Xerneas and Yveltal were based on Norse Mythology beasts in the Tree of Yggdrasil. They all represent Life, Death and Order as a whole. So should they be called the Yggdrasil Trio?--Duo2nd (talk) 02:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Its not really verified they are a trio. At least not yet anyways. As for the Norse basis, its possible they are not based on norse mythology at all, but Hindu mythology or one or more mythologies. As of now, the most popular name for them seems to be Aura Trio if they are a trio. There is a thread about their name on the forum if you're interested. The Thread kind of died but if you have anything to say, there would be the place to say it. Yamitora1 (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

They obviously are a trio. It could not be any more obvious if ot tried. And we have no clue what they are supposed to be based of other than the axes, so it could be either. Or both. As for the name, I guess we'll see how it goes.--BigBadBatter (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to throw it out there

Bulbasaur + Zygarde = Bulbagarde

Trivia???*

-KyuremTrainer (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to have to say no on that. --Pokemaster97 19:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Typing oddity

Isn't it rather peculiar how Zygarde, the "Order Pokémon", has a defensive type disadvantage against Fairy and an offensive one against Flying, which are the types of Xerneas and Yveltal, respectively?

--TheAsianIsGamin (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider that notable--BigBadBatter (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, if they are indeed a trio, isn't it somewhat notable that one of them (The "Order Pokémon", might I add) is weak to the others? --TheAsianIsGamin (talk) 04:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Defensive and offensive disadvantages are completely different things. I don't think it's as clearly intentional (and thus notable) as, for example, all of the legendary golems' weakness to Fighting. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that it most likely was intentional. Even though the fact that it is weak to Xerneas is probably not as notable, Xerneas and Yveltal are each immune to one of its types, and I think that that should be noted. (The fact that it is weak to Xerneas isn't as notable because it isn't also weak to Yveltal.) This is just my opinion, though! ^^ EpicDeino (talk) 07:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Move levels?

How do we know all the levels Zygarde knows its moves? You can't catch it below level 70... - unsigned comment from DisgruntledGoat (talk • contribs)

Most of the other legendaries had their move levels added because they're in a Japanese guidebook, and since Zygarde's were added as part of that round of edits by the same users, I think it's reasonable to assume it was in the guidebook, too, even though nobody has specifically singled it out. Thus, I'll be reinstating the levels for now. If someone with the guidebook wants to confirm whether Zygarde is in it, please speak up. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Zygarde is in the guidebook. I own the second guide book and every Pokemon officially revealed as of Febuary 2014 is in it. --AbsolX (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Zygarde Reappearances

I believe that Zygarde reappears every time you defeat the Elite Four, just like Mewtwo does. I think this should be researched and noted in the Game Locations section. - unsigned comment from NerfPlayeR135 (talk • contribs)

It does indeed respawn if fainted after you defeat the Elite Four. I've confirmed it myself just a moment ago. Shiramu Kuromu (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Zygarde is in a trio with Xerneas and Yveltal

Admit it guys, Zygarde is THE most blatantly OBVIOUS Rayquaza Expy to have ever existed. Here's a few things to note here:

• Zygarde has a Green color scheme, while Xerneas and Yveltal have a Blue and Red coloration to match the RGB Color Palette.
• Xerneas and Yveltal are both designed based on the letters X and Y, and the first letters in their names are even those same letters. Zygarde not only is shaped in the manner of a Z due to being a serpent, but also has it's name begin with Z.
• Zygarde's signature ability, Aura Break, ONLY effects Fairy Aura and Dark Aura, which are ONLY known to be available to Xerneas and Yveltal. This isn't too different from Rayquaza in how it cancels out the abilities of the other two members of the trio.
• Xerneas is the Life Pokemon, Yveltal is the Destruction Pokemon, and Zygarde is the Order Pokemon.
• It's PokeDex Entries don't make reference to the other two, but bare in mind, neither did Rayquaza, Giratina, or Kyurem had any references to the others until their versions were released.

With that in mind, I can't see how ANYBODY can believe Zygarde is not related to either of them, as it's so obvious it's painful to say the least. The fact that Zygarde is the ONLY Non-Event Legendary from Kalos other than Xerneas and Yveltal doesn't help matters, and neither Diancie nor the still unconfirmed Volcanion and Hoopa look like they'd be anywhere near related to Xerneas or Yveltal as much as Zygarde does. Shiramu Kuromu (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Zygarde is not with Xerneas and Yveltal, also, we don't talk about hidden Pokémon (except Diancie is already confirmed) so we have to wait in the future until it's confirmed to be in a trio. --Cinday123 (Talk) 10:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

For all we know, Diancie could be in the "trio" if there is one, and not Zygarde. Zygarde might even be in the trio with other hidden Pokémon. Yamitora1 (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

For God's sake, Zygarde isn't in anyway related to Diancie, Hoopa, and Volcanion.Phiraptor28 (talk) 10:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Cinday - Sometimes we don't need to wait for evidence. Things kind of things work like postulates - need no proving. What we need in these situations are simply common sense! Just an opinion. Phiraptor28 (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Now that the various formes of Zygarde have been revealed, and how it was stated to be more powerful than Xerneas and Yveltal, the other two members of it's own trio whom which it's supposed to keep in balance, it's safe to say that I was right this whole time, yes? Shiramu Kuromu (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you were right the whole time, and everyone else knew it too. It's blatantly obvious when its ability literally only affected Yveltal and Xerneas. Your arguments here can be equated to an English student trying to convince their high school teacher that sentences can start with and or but. Everyone knows it, and you're acting like you're the only who's realized. If anything, you're the one that's behind on how things work. The point is that it hasn't been officially recognized, and isn't critical information regarding Zygarde as a Pokemon, so it is unnecessary and possibly detrimental to this encyclopedia that we add irrelevant information such as this. Or at least it was. We can probably add it soon, but not before the connection is solid and integral to Zygarde as an idea/character/whatever you consider an individual Pokemon to be. There's a time and place for everything, but not now. ArtistKyurem (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

^Just wanted to point out he never said, as you said he did, that he "was the only one to realize it". He kept saying, like you, that it is obvious to everyone that they're a trio. - unsigned comment from Ratcicle Fan (talk • contribs)

I think he's talking about when he said it's safe to say that I was right this whole time, yes?, which is really arrogant.--ForceFire 03:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Source on EV yield

Do Zygarde had an EV yield confirmed, or is it unsourced? --Cinday123 (Talk) 05:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

EV yields are listed in the official guidebook. Though even if they weren't, they're something we can easily test and data that we can prove through testing is okay, too. Crystal Talian 05:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

So what is the name of the official guidebook? --Cinday123 (Talk) 05:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Pokémon X & Pokémon Y: The Official Kalos Region Pokédex & Postgame Adventure Guide: The Official Pokémon Strategy Guide. Crystal Talian 05:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

So what about catch rates, base friendship and some other information? So since the EV yields are confirmed for Kalos Pokémon according to the official guidebook, could you revert my edits please? --Cinday123 (Talk) 05:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The book just has the EV yields. The catch rate and base friendship are not included, unconfirmed, and nearly impossible to test. We can't include those on this site yet. Crystal Talian 05:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Testing catch rate is very "possible", just very involved. Testing base friendship is child's play by comparison. That, you just have to be a little smart about (...possibly a little more than a little). Tiddlywinks (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Quite obvious physical appearance once you're aware.

Zygarde's appearance is obviously based on a serpent in the shape of a Z as well as the Naga. Naga are many-headed serpents which appear in Hindu and Buddhist mythology and look like anything from cobras to dragons. Once you know the Naga, the similarity is undeniable. Naga 1 Naga 2 Naga 3

--Knockturnal (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

New Form Design Origins

I know there is already a ton of discussions about Zygarde's design in this talk section, (this topic can be merged with an already existing one if that's easier) but am I right in assuming that the 3 non-cellular forms are based on the children of Loki (with the giant Angrboða as the mother) in Norse mythology? The 10% form is like the wolf Fenrir, the 'standard' 50% form is based on the world serpent Jörmungandr and the perfect form is akin to the giant Hel.

I have no idea if the DNA cell motif is anything to do with mythology as it is to do with simply being an unknown game mechanic. I don't know anything that could possibly relate to it other then that Loki was a shape shifter (I think he transformed into 5 different forms excluding his true appearance, though this is a stretch)? ~ Evacino (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Zygarde 10% forme could've also been Garmr, Hel's dog, but Fenrir is more appropriate. And by the way, Zygarde is really apt with the concept of Hel, being the Pokémon of Balance, Hel is usually depicted with half of her body alive and half a corpse, similar to life and death. Phiraptor28 (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Perfect is nw Complete

Its not Perfect Forme, but Zygard Complete Forme. Yamitora1 (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The news has only been out an hour or so, the staff will get around to it when they're online I'm sure. ----samm :D 15:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Flatworm

With the introduction of Zygarde Core and Cell, it seems likely to me that both of them, in addition to 50% Forme, are based on planarian flatworms, specifically the well-known (well, well-known for flatworms) triangular-headed kind. Zakitano (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The Core and Cell formes may have also drawn inspiration from zygotes, cell formations.Phiraptor28 (talk) 09:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Zygarde 10% Stats

The Japanese Pokémon website has a bit more on Zygarde's 10% Forme. Height is 1.2 meters. Weight is 33.5 kilograms. And its type is Dragon/Ground.

Source: http://www.pokemon.co.jp/ex/anime-special/pokemon/ Goldchaos (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Zygarde 10% is in Pokémon Picross (via the leaked passwords). The game has the height/weight of the Pokémon in the game, but I'm not even close to were its stage is, so someone who has caught it check it out to put on the site please.TrainerX493 (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh wait, it's already there. Nevermind. TrainerX493 (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Core and Cell Zygarde

Are we sure that the core and cell versions are actual forms? Judging from the descriptions, they just sound like part of Zygarde's anatomy. Perhaps Ash and friends will be taken a trip inside the body of Zygarde? If so, I don't think we should count cell and core Zygarde as forms. Carcharodon (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

They've appeared separately from Zygarde in the anime, so I doubt they won't appear separately in the games as well, even if they're not battle capable. Even if that were to occur, they should still be considered a form. - unsigned comment from ArtistKyurem (talk • contribs)

Potential Mortality Trio Learnset Comparison

In anticipation for Zygarde's addition to the Mortality Duo, I've added onto the existing learnset comparison from the Legendary Duo page.

Lv.	Xerneas  Fairy	Yveltal  Dark  Flying	Zygarde  Dragon  Ground
Start	Heal Pulse	Hurricane	Glare
	Aromatherapy	Razor Wind	Bulldoze
	Ingrain	Taunt	Dragon Breath
	Take Down	Roost	Bite
5	Light Screen	Double Team	Safeguard
10	Aurora Beam	Air Slash	Dig
18	Gravity	Snarl	Bind
26	Geomancy	Oblivion Wing	Land's Wrath
35	Moonblast	Disable	Sandstorm
44	Megahorn	Dark Pulse	Haze
51	Night Slash	Foul Play	Crunch
55	Horn Leech	Phantom Force	Earthquake
59	Psych Up	Psychic	Camouflage
63	Misty Terrain	Dragon Rush	Dragon Pulse
72	Nature Power	Focus Blast	Dragon Dance
80	Close Combat	Sucker Punch	Coil
88	Giga Impact	Hyper Beam	Extreme Speed
93	Outrage	Sky Attack	Outrage
Moves in bold get STAB. Moves in italics do no damage.

This is only meant to be used once we receive official word of the "Mortality Trio" (or whatever it's officially called) existing. Once it is confirmed, this can be used on the trio's page. --Pacack (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Dugesia?

I guess it's obvious, but I believe Zygarde's Cell Form is based on the Dugesia (a name I didn't know until today). Shouldn't that be added to the trivia? Also, I think it could be added to the trivia that Zygarde's 10% Form resembles a dobberman. Ratcicle Fan (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Mistake with a picture caption

The "In the anime" section, the picture with the caption that says "Zygarde Cell in the anime" should be corrected to "Zygarde Core in the anime".

Also, someone should mention that Zygarde 10% made it's debut in XY094 and get a picture of it as well. Dialgafan1 (talk) 06:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Also noticed this error earlier as well. I thought I was the only one who knew about this. The error was a bit diffcult to spot, I'd have to admit. KoiFish (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Zygarde 10% form origin

I would like to add that Zygarde 10% form is based on a Doberman Pinscher on a leash. However, the page is locked. Could someone please unlock the page and add that info in (if this is necessary/accurate info)?Leafeon6954 (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Axis Trivia

I was wondering if this is a viable piece of trivia: Xerxes is a land creature and the X coordinate is the horizontal one. Yveltal can fly and the Y axis is the vertical coordinate. Zygarde can burrow and the Z coordinate represents depth. --AbsolX (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The analogy you're trying to make is flawed a couple ways. Flying and burrowing are on the same axis, not different ones; one's up the axis, the other is down it. And land is more of a plane than a single axis/dimension, really. Tiddlywinks (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Flag of Kalos?

In the origin section, there was reference to a flag of Kalos. I searched for it, and only a fanmade one seems to exist. As such, I changed the sentence to refer to the flag of France instead.

If I am mistaken, please show me evidence of the flag of Kalos and revert the edit.

ᗧ•••ᗣ Pacack

21:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Biology Section

I have made a sizeable contribution to the biology section of this page. It is lengthy, but details the appearance of all Zygarde's formes. If anyone sees an issue with this edit, grammatical or otherwise, please correct it. If you can condense the information without lessening the content of the article, please also do so.

Thanks! ᗧ•••ᗣ Pacack 00:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Zygarde Complete Forme's head

Okay not 100% sure if this is is worth putting here but I figured better safe than sorry. Anyway the article says the part of Complete Formes's body that's on top of the round part is a protrusion but I think it's actually the head. The reason is because all of the puzzles in Pokémon Picross are headshots and the on for Zygarde Complete Forme doesn't show the round portion of it's body it shows the part on top. I think that really points towards it being the head. - unsigned comment from Flain (talk • contribs)

You're right, and I'd go as far to say that the round part is definitely its chest and that the "protrusion" is definitely its head and that someone would have to be psychotic to think of it any other way. The "protrusion" is clearly a head. The arms come off of the round thing, it is clearly a chest. The protrusion has glowing white eyes, while the chest has green eye-like markings. To argue this would be like arguing that Masquerein's wings are actually its eyes. Saying that, I'm not willing to be the one to change it because my edits tend to get reverted in seconds. Me, Hurray! (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

While writing the biology section, I was unsure whether to classify the crown or the rounded section as the head because of this image:

In this, the "chest" opens and reveals that its jagged center is akin to a mouth. Because of this, and because crowns traditionally rest upon heads, I opted for more ambiguous wording. However, because I seem to be outnumbered three to one (another person edited the page already), I will change the wording to note this ability while maintaining the position that the protrusion is the head. Paᗧ•••ᗣck 02:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Using Deity/Deities derived terms when speaking generically

What is wrong with using deity/deities or derived terms when speaking generically (no gender connotations that is)?

Jdogno4 (talk) 07:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Because the the plural "gods" can also be gender-neutral.Animaltamer711:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

"The gods" is a collective term which refers to both gods and goddesses. It is a term used often, and can be seen in action here [1], here [2], and here [3].

The majority of the text from the origin section of the article is paraphrased from the wikipedia articles. You will note that wikipedia uses the term "the gods" in the Fenrir article as well [4]. Paᗧ•••ᗣck 15:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

"Because the plural "gods" can also be gender-neutral.": Deities is more technically correct in this instance.

"'The gods' is a collective term which refers to both gods and goddesses.": Once again deities is more technically correct in this instance.

Well Wikipedia is not being technically correct in all instances relating to what is a deity, what is a god and what is a goddess.

Jdogno4 (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

For all practical and/or common purposes, anywhere deity can be used, so can god, without changing anything. (The only exception is something like Wikipedia's God article, where simply using "god" can get confusing and "deity" can provide a useful distinction.)

Your apparent belief that "god" always carries a gender connotation is, very simply: wrong. In my view, this is a pretty fundamental concept—which also makes it perversely difficult to "explain". So instead, I'm just going to let you figure out a way to accept it, if you can. Tiddlywinks (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

"Your apparent belief that "god" always carries a gender connotation is, very simply: wrong.": How so?

Jdogno4 (talk) 06:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

How not?

It comes down to this: you tried to change this line before: "In Norse mythology, Fenrir is a monstrous wolf which was foretold to bring the gods great trouble and harm."

The question is: does "gods" have a gender connotation there?

And the (right) answer is simply: No.

If you want to try to explain why you're right or why I'm wrong, feel free. Tiddlywinks (talk) 06:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

""In Norse mythology, Fenrir is a monstrous wolf which was foretold to bring the gods great trouble and harm."": Where are you quoting this phrase from?

Jdogno4 (talk) 07:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

This page, where you tried to change it. Tiddlywinks (talk) 07:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

As I have stated before in terms of technical correctness Deity(singular)/Deities(plural) is more accurate.

Jdogno4 (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

You did mention something like that above, but frankly, you have completely failed to explain it in any way, whether what makes it more accurate or what about god is inaccurate. Tiddlywinks (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

"You did mention something like that above, but frankly, you have completely failed to explain it in any way, whether what makes it more accurate or what about god is inaccurate.": I have. Deity=Gender Neutral. God=Masculine. Goddess=Feminine. Does that make sense?

Jdogno4 (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

While that is an explanation, it is also wrong. "God" is not always masculine. As I said above: that is, very simply: WRONG.

In the line from above that you previously tried to change, "In Norse mythology, Fenrir is a monstrous wolf which was foretold to bring the gods great trouble and harm.", "gods" is not masculine, it is gender-neutral, just like "deities" would be. "Deities" is not better, techically or otherwise. Tiddlywinks (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

"While that is an explanation, it is also wrong.": How so?

"'God' is not always masculine.": Explain.

"In the line from above that you previously tried to change, "In Norse mythology, Fenrir is a monstrous wolf which was foretold to bring the gods great trouble and harm.", "gods" is not masculine, it is gender-neutral, just like "deities" would be.": I get that but I also think that it is not the most precise or accurate use of the term.

"'Deities' is not better, technically or otherwise.": How so?

Jdogno4 (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Jdogno4, I am not a mind reader. You cannot just ask things like "How so?" and "Explain.". I cannot guess what it is you don't understand.

Now... If you get that "gods" in that context was gender-neutral, then it's pretty clear you're just clinging hard to some contradictory notions. You plainly think deities is better because it's always gender-neutral, but that is NOT good logic. If "gods" is already gender-neutral, it does not need to be changed, it's already perfectly understandable. Tiddlywinks (talk) 10:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

"Jdogno4, I am not a mind reader. You cannot just ask things like 'How so?' and 'Explain.'. I cannot guess what it is you don't understand.": I am asking you to explain your arguments if you are capable of doing so.

"Now... If you get that "gods" in that context was gender-neutral, then it's pretty clear you're just clinging hard to some contradictory notions.": I get that it was meant to be used in a gender-neutral context but I do not believe it was correctly used. What do you mean by contradictory notions? "You plainly think deities is better because it's always gender-neutral, but that is NOT good logic.": How is that not good logic? "If 'gods' is already gender-neutral, it does not need to be changed, it's already perfectly understandable.": It does for the fact that despite being used in a gender neutral fashion it is technically male gendered. Given the fact that it is used to mean both male deities (technically correct) and all deities at the same time (technically incorrect) it is not perfectly understandable.

Jdogno4 (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Let me just check one thing, Jdogno4.

Do you think it is ever correct to use "gods" to mean all deities (gender neutrally)? Tiddlywinks (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

"Do you think it is ever correct to use "gods" to mean all deities (gender neutrally)?": No I do not.

Jdogno4 (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong.

There should be plenty of examples all around in the (English-speaking) world to show this. For starters, I might recommend checking various dictionaries (yes, more than one). You're welcome to look about for some of that and consider it by yourself. I leave you to that. It's not at all worth my time to try to change your mind on something so fundamental. Tiddlywinks (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

"You are wrong.": How so?

"There should be plenty of examples all around in the (English-speaking) world to show this.": For instance?

Jdogno4 (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Since you have made at least 20 edits since 23:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC), but none here I am assuming you have lost interest in backing up your argument.

Jdogno4 (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Just because I won't engage with you further does not mean you are correct. If it did, that would mean many, many arguments would be doomed to continue FOREVER.

You are wrong.

Many people have told you this.

If you cannot accept it or understand it, that is, frankly, your problem at this point.

Let me emphasize: no matter what, (please) DO NOT try to change "god" to "deity" anywhere. Thank you. Tiddlywinks (talk) 05:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Red Zygarde Core's Pokédex entries

I'm trying to post the Pokédex entries for Puni-chan, but I can't figure out how to change it so it says Red Zygarde Core instead of Zygarde. Here's what I have so far.

Episode Pokémon Source Entry XY094 Zygarde Ash's Pokédex No data. XY094 Zygarde Serena's Pokédex No data.

If someone can fix this, I'd really appreciate it. --PKMNAdventurer (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Cell Form and Core form height.

While watching Pokemon XY and Z on kissanime, I noticed that zygarde's cell and core form's height isn't mentioned. But examining Zygarde or Squishy, I realized that Zygarde's core form is as tall as a Dedenne. That would be 0'08. Now its height hasn't been officially reviewed, but if the anime shows that Zygarde and Dedenne are the same height, then Zygarde core is 0'08". This is more of speculation, but it looks like Zygarde's cells would be as tall as a Pikachu 1'08 Theexploringgamer (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Pokemon heights vary all the time in the anime. For example, Ash's Charizard is huge compared to its in-game Pokédex entry height, and Ash's is small for a Charizard in the anime. Basically, you can't use anime height to determine game height. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 20:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

That is true,but I think that'll itll help add them in the List of Pokémon by height and until its official I think we could propose an estimated height.

Also, may we add artwork of Blue core Zygarde

Theexploringgamer (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Either heights (or weight or any other such stats) are to be taken from official sources, or we will not list any height. We do not "estimate"—do not make up—these things. Tiddlywinks (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

No Pokémon Z version?

With the recent announcement of Sun and Moon, does that mean Zygarde's alternate forms are exclusive to the Pokémon animé? If so, we should probably take out any mention of those forms in the main article.--Pokencyclopedia (talk) 13:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Just because new forms debut in the anime does not mean they'll never be in a game, who knows they could be in Sun and Moon when more info comes.Animaltamer713:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

should it be mentioned that Zygarde 10% is Dragon type in Shuffle

Zygarde 10% was recently added to Pokemon Shuffle with the Dragon typing. should it be mention on the article in some way? Yamitora1 (talk) 10:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

never mind, i wasn't aware it was confirmed the new forms keep its dragon/ground typingYamitora1 (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Loki and Tsuchinoko?

I just edited the origin section and I couldn't find much evidence to support the idea that Zygarde Complete is based off of Loki; everything points to Hel. As such I removed the references to Loki as a possible reference. However, I would more than happily add it back in if anyone objects - just give me a couple places to source which link Zygarde to Loki in some sort of concrete way. Paᗧ•••ᗣck 02:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Likewise, I found little to no link between Zygarde Cell/Core and the Tsuchinoko, so I removed reference to it in the origin section. If anyone seriously disagrees, please explain why and give some sort of information which links the Tsuchinoko to Zygarde more concretely. :) Paᗧ•••ᗣck 03:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Well I'd like to expand on the Loki part, as Zygarde in total is able to change between multiple forms similiarly Loki is commonly known to have shapeshifted to do his trickery and the like. The part with Tsuchinoko is the core and cell's body structure being similar to it, being a larger middle portion with a thinner head and tail.Animaltamer709:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it might be based on Beast Boy from Teen Titans. Like Beast Boy, it changes shape, and is green in all of its formes. Beast Boy's body-shape in Teen Titans Go has a larger head with a smaller body, like 10% and Core formes. Furthermore, Beast Boy is an environmentalist, much like how Zygarde protects the balance of the ecosystem. Finally, both Beast Boy and Zygarde have a seldom seen "final form", with Beast Boy having a mutant werewolf form that only appeared twice, and Zygarde having 100% forme that has thusfar only appeared in dreams. Me, Hurray! (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

If you are trying to be sarcastic, I'm not sure it is helping. :/ ----NateVirus(Talk|Contributions) 20:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Sköll and Hati

Should it be noted that 10% might be a general be based on Sköll and/or Hati, most particularly Sköll who chases the sun. The cores uses photosynthesis to get energy, so there is some correlation.Yamitora1 (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Excessive origin section

Everything I have to say has been said in edit summaries, so I'll just copy-paste them here for the record:

• 09:13, May 4, 2016‎ Gymnotide (Talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,866 bytes) (-634)‎ . . (→‎Origin: Some very unnecessary details that were reaching extremely hard by someone who just wanted to show off their mythology knowledge. Trimmed it down a little bit. Also, the pattern does not resemble DNA sugars at all.)
• 10:03, May 4, 2016‎ Animaltamer7 (Talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,500 bytes) (+634)‎ . . (Undo revision 2437284 by Gymnotide (talk) the info would help for those who don't even know about those certain myths)
• 13:55, May 4, 2016‎ Pumpkinking0192 (Talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,922 bytes) (-578)‎ . . (→‎Origin: No, this is definitely way overwritten, and honestly the DNA thing is a bit ridiculous. Origin sections are (or should be) for explaining the ACTUAL likely origin of a Pokemon, not for adding in every tenuously-related detail possible.)
• 20:56, May 4, 2016‎ Animaltamer7 (Talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,500 bytes) (+578)‎ . . (Undo revision 2437344 by Pumpkinking0192 (talk) Discuss on the talkpage first so this doesn't become an edit war)

To boil it down: The DNA thing is completely out of nowhere and should be removed outright, and everything else is written in far too excessive detail. We should be breaking down the things that are most relevant to Zygarde and most likely to be what the developers had in mind, not every little tidbit somebody can claim is a minor connection.

I also find it extremely funny that Animaltamer7 is telling others to go to the talk page to avoid an edit war when they are the one repeatedly reverting in the first place. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I saw the edits in recent changes, and looking at the added content, some of those additions are a bit strange, for instance:

The patterns spread across Zygarde 50% Forme's body are similar to ribose and deoxyribose molecules.

The artwork for the 50% forme only shows hexagons. To state they are similar to those molecules is inaccurate and possibly over-speculation, because the molecule itself is 3-dimensional (the Haworth projection is a simplified 2D representation), and most (if not all) sugar molecules represented in the Haworth projection will have the hexagon present. Chenzw (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

That's because if you think about it that Zygarde represents balance between Xerneas (life) and Yveltal (death). The ribose and deoxyribose are what makes up anything that is alive or dead. Also Pumpkinking I was just making sure that once the discussion is settled the origin section can be change to how we agree on this.Animaltamer704:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I think the connection is still not immediately clear. Why can't the hexagon(s) represent carbon (cyclohexane), which is also something that makes up everything alive or dead? Also, I think the hexagons' link to ribose and deoxyribose are sufficiently strong only if it's supported by the fact that the tail indeed represents base pair codons. I question the relevance of the tail to base pair codons because there are 5 of them, while DNA has only 4 known nucleotides. Yes, I concede that it is possible for the 5th tail "protrusion" to represent uracil used in RNA, but that seems to be pushing it too far. As of now, three editors (including myself) take issue with the content in one way or another.

For future reference:

• The part about DNA was added in Oct 2013: Special:Diff/1997681
• Other content pertaining to possible mythological origins/inspirations added in Nov 2015: Special:Diff/2356983. Chenzw (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that the DNA portion is removed now. I wanted to point this out because it honestly sounds like this discussion is about trying to remove it. As it is, I think the origin portion of this page is fine. Crystal Talian 08:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Alright I'll concede with the DNA portion, but for these two statements:

"The red and blue markings on either side of Zygarde Complete Forme may represent Yveltal and Xerneas, as this Forme exceeds both of their powers."

The markings it is talking about are from the protrusions of the side of Complete Forme's arms no the chest pattern, with those being the markings that represent the two.

"...and its razor sharp teeth may be an allusion to Fenrir biting off the right hand of Týr"

10% Forme's sharp teeth has been mentioned quite a bit so it would be too far to include this.

Also the bit of the dragon/serpent that naws on the roots of Yggdrasill, should stay as Xerneas and Yveltal have a resemblance to two other creatures from the tree, which is another hint at them possibly being a trio (as quite alot of fans assume they are, myself included).Animaltamer708:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The point brought up by "The red and blue markings on either side of Zygarde Complete Forme may represent Yveltal and Xerneas, as this Forme exceeds both of their powers." has already been mentioned in the article:

• "Zygarde Complete Forme is said to exceed both Xerneas and Yveltal in power..."
• "The colors on Complete Forme's chest match the colors of the real-world flag of France... main colors of Xerneas and Yveltal"

...unless the intention is to place emphasis on "represent", which I fear will lend undue weight to the theory that Zygarde is part of the hypothesised Mortality Trio. Chenzw (talk) 04:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Alright point taken, unless the hypothesised trio is confirmed that statement won't be added. Since you didn't say anything about the razor sharp teeth info, can that be added back?Animaltamer704:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Mythology is not my strong suit, so I don't really have an opinion on this. However, based on the edit history, the consensus seems to be that there is an issue with going into too much detail. It might be better to wait and see if the reverting editors, or any passing staff member, have any opinion on this matter. Chenzw (talk) 04:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

(resent indent) Agreed, besides I'm doing a Nuzlocke and there is going to be heavy mythological references relating to the Legends such as Zygarde.Animaltamer706:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the section is fine as it is for now. I don't think we need to call anymore attention to the "razor sharp teeth". It's could just have sharp teeth because it's a dog, and that's all. People are welcome to click the wikilinks and find out the backstory that way. I don't think we need to make any more adjustments unless someone has ideas that have not already been discussed. Crystal Talian 12:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Complete Zygarde's HP

From calculations using the HP in the most recent trailers, it can be deduced that Complete Zygarde's base HP is between 180 and 227. While its exact HP remains unconfirmed and thus shouldn't be added to the article, perhaps it's worth noting that Complete Zygarde is already guaranteed to have the highest stat from all Dragon and Ground types. Jugol (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

No. 1) It can change. 2) It won't kill anyone to wait. 3) It could also turn out that something else will be introduced that beats it out anyway. Tiddlywinks (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

"Introduced in Sun and Moon"

"Zygarde Cell, Zygarde Core, Zygarde 10% Forme, and Zygarde Complete Forme were announced in the October 2015 issue of CoroCoro magazine, and will be introduced in Pokémon Sun and Moon." - This sentence makes it sound like Zygarde Cell and Core will be in Sun and Moon, but only the latter 2 are confirmed.--Yami Wheeler (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I've corrected the sentence. Thanks. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Zygarde Sun & Moon Possible Trivia

I feel the trivia or origin section of this page should include the possibility that Zygarde's perfect forme is related to not only Yveltal and Xerneas, but also to Solgaleo and Lunala. This theory being based on the fact that in the "mouth" of the perfect forme's torso, we can see that there are 5 different colored hexagons in order, purple-blue-white-orange-red, which could very well reference that there are 5 cores with at least 4 of them referencing the color of Xerneas (blue), Yveltal (red), Solgaleo (orange), and Lunala (purple). What do you think?

Bulbapedia is not the place for theories. It's far too early to say whether Zygarde's lore will be tied in with anything else in Sun/Moon. Unless it ends up explicitly related to Solgaleo/Lunala, I don't think anything like that will ever belong anywhere in the mainspace. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Abilities

Right now, they're displayed as Forme-exclusive. However, now that we know that isn't the case, since 50% Forme also has it, we don't know how Zygarde gets the Ability at all, only that it's wrong to show it as Forme-based. Could I suggest adding an "Unknown" section - just like Hidden Abilities are separated, just with the word Unknown rather than Hidden - for Swarm Change and removing the Forme headings from Abilities altogether? Just for now, at least, until we know something. It seems wrong to have them shown as Forme-based when the one thing we do know right now is that they aren't, so if an Unknown section is possible to add, I personally think that would be the best way of handling it. If not, could something be done to indicate that 50% Forme also has it, at least? I see in the page history that it can't simply be added as an alternate Ability (like Shiftry's Chlorophyll or Early Bird), and that's completely understandable since we don't know that anyway, but right now, the page is outdated, so if we could at least mention it somewhere, I think that would help a lot. EpicDeino (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Scratch that! The official site now lists it as an alternate Ability so I assume it's safe to include now. EpicDeino (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Image and Ability Order

Is there a specific reason for the order of the images and the abilities in the main infobox on this page? I can understand having Zygarde 50% forme at the top (it being the first forme to debut in the games), but underneath that, the Complete Forme is on the left and the 10% forme is on the right. It would seem to me that on an English-speaking site that is read left to right, it'd make more sense the other way around (with the lower-numbered "base" forme on the left, and the higher-numbered forme that becomes available under specific conditions on the right. The image order is repeated in the ability section, and again I think it'd make more sense with the 10% and 100% formes switched, and the height and weight fields feature a variation on that where the 10% forme is underneath the other two, rather than the 100% forme that can be achieved by either of the other two formes being on the bottom, which I think would make more sense. Am I alone in thinking a change from the current order would be preferable? --Andy^P_K^M_N (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I would second that. The current layout is somewhat awkward when reading from left to right. Ideally, I would say that 10% Forme should be on the leftmost side, and Complete Forme should be on the rightmost. Paᗧ•••ᗣck 14:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)