Talk:Togetic (Pokémon): Difference between revisions
Bepstein111 (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
-[[User:Bepstein111|Bepstein111]] ([[User talk:Bepstein111|talk]]) 20:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC) | -[[User:Bepstein111|Bepstein111]] ([[User talk:Bepstein111|talk]]) 20:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC) | ||
:That was just an error. It has now been corrected. Thanks for pointing it out. --[[User:SnorlaxMonster|<span style="color:#A70000">'''Snorlax'''</span>]][[User talk:SnorlaxMonster|<span style="color:#0000A7">'''Monster'''</span>]] 10:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 10:50, 30 June 2021
As in Chicken
Based on a chicken? japanese name comes from 'chicken'? Seems to me to be based on a Chick, a baby chicken. Because it actually looks like that, and nothing like a chicken. I could almost see Togekiss based on a chicken though. But Togetic seems a lot more chick like. And since none of it's pokedex entries reference chickens, what's the justification for being based on a chicken? [[Derian]] 19:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Couldn't it just be "chick" in general? "Chick" is the general term for a baby bird. Besides, Togekiss is a dove.—Loveはドコ? (talk • contribs) 20:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Cherub/Putto/Cupid basis?
Basically, fat, winged young boys, with Cupid obviously being a god of love. The egg motif encompasses both youth and girth, and it has wings and spreads happiness. I'm not sure, though, because Pokémon doesn't usually draw from Abrahamic sources, and the love that Cupid/Eros is associated with is more sexual than romantic. --Dry Paratroopa 22:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'd say it leans more to the Putto, since Cherubim are monstrous looking angels and Cupid, while normally depicted to resemble a Putto, is a god of sexual love.Animaltamer7 (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
question about moves
Under learnset, "by breeding", why is Peck italicized while Aerial Ace is bolded? They're both flying type moves, so shouldn't they both be bold because they're STAB with Togetic? I tried to change it but obviously there's some script that's responsible for doing that formatting because there's none of it in the source.
-Bepstein111 (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Dope! sorry, didn't mean to get on anyone's case or anything, just noticed an inconsistency! thanks for checking it.
-Bepstein111 (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- That was just an error. It has now been corrected. Thanks for pointing it out. --SnorlaxMonster 10:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)