Talk:Zekrom (Pokémon)

This talkpage is only for discussion of the article itself! As the subject of this article is recently released, information on the page may change rapidly. Please make absolutely sure that the information that you wish to add to the article is able to be confirmed independently by yourself or another Bulbapedia user or administrator. Please take any other discussion or questions regarding the subject of the article to the Bulbagarden Forums, where you can discuss it freely with other members of the Bulbagarden community. An admin can remove this template at his or her discretion.

Finally!

Yes, it finally got created. So no Pokémon Sunday? Pokemonemerfan1954 00:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No, there wasn't any new information on Pokémon Sunday. —♥ Jello 00:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Dragon-type?

How do you guys know they're Dragon-types? None of the information I read specifically said so. - Nick15 00:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It has been confrmed on Pokémon Daisuki Club as being atleast a Dragon-type. All this information was made sure to be confirmed before being added, so don't worry. —♥ Jello 00:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

OK just making sure it's not all speculation; I mean, just because it's in the article doesn't mean it was researched, or that someone didn't just throw in their piece of speculation. ;) - Nick15 00:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Have they been confirmed as being solely Dragon-type, though? If not, it seems a bit misleading to put that there, in my opinion. --Bdoing 01:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That we aren't sure of though. It could be purely a Dragon-type or a dual type, for which the second type is clearly unknown as of yet. But for the type that we do know, I don't see any harm in it being there until more information is revealed. —♥ Jello 01:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

imo it's not 100% confirmed that they are dragon-types - Daisuki Club said that they are dragons, not that they are definitely dragon-type. But that's just how I see it I guess :V 梅子^❀_✿ 01:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with the Dragon thing. They may of said they were "Dragons" but that's not a 100% sure thing that they are really Dragon types. If you look at past Pokémon, there are some that are considered dragons but don't have the Dragon type. Charizard, Aerodactyl, Gyarados, Sceptile etc. - Ninterror 02:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Taking "Legendary Dragon Pokemon" to mean that they're dragon-type, despite that not being confirmed, seems to me like jumping the gun. That, and it seems very misleading to treat them as a pure-type just because you don't know its other type. Even a Dragon/??? type would be clearer than that. Plasma 09:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well now they are confirmed that they are Dragon types, so yea... Ninterror 11:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

But it has never been said they are dual types, even though they might. For now, this is all we have.--KurowaSan 12:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Part of being a Pokémon encyclopedia is reporting what we know. We know that they're Dragon-type. We don't know anything else about their types. That's why it says Dragon and nothing else (not even a ???). —darklordtrom 12:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Not counting Daisuke Club, where was it confirmed? Forgive me if I'm slow. Mudkipchan 06:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Dragon/Electric type!

Ok, so the host of Pokemon Sunday accidentally posted on her blog that Zekrom was Dragon/Electric, and then shortly after she deleted it because of obvious reasons. Here is the proof.. . I Don't know if you need more proof, but that really is proof in itself really. --S2daam 10:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Can someone translate for those of us that don't know Japanese please?--Pokélova! 10:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow. My guesses of Dragon/Dark and Dragon/Steel were way off. - unsigned comment from Missingno. Master (talk • contribs) 11:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep the forum chat in the forums thanks. Japanese translation is welcome here, but comments along the lines of the one directly above mine shouldn't be here. —darklordtrom 11:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Did she identify Zekrom as a Dragon/Electric? If she didn't, it might as well be Electric/Dragon instead. The order of the types is important for the page. - Taylor 12:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I see is a pun with "Here is the proof" and linking to a picture of Proof. I'm not seeing any mention of Zekrom, but I might just be half asleep and not noticing anything. ▫▫ティナ^♫★ 14:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't see Zekrom's name either, but I wasn't sure. I guess it's not about Zekrom after all.--Pokélova! 15:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't jump the gun yet though, as there is the possibility of the "electric" thing being a mistake on the writers part or even a mistranslation (though I highly doubt). Ninterror 15:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that the screenshot is of the page after she edited it. Regardless, from what translations I've seen of it, she only says it's "related to electric type pokemon", which does not guarantee it's an Electric type. Lugia is related to the water type, yet it's Psychic/Flying.--RegiRuler 16:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

In before "OMFG IT'S A HINT FOR THE LIGHT TYPE BLARGH". But honestly though, I really hope nobody spits that out due to that "related to electric type" statement because that would be really annoying. Ninterror 16:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say this puts a dent in the Light Type possibilities if Zekrom isn't Dark. ;-) But, yeah, while this is very interesting we can't state it as fact under the current circumstances. Some mention of the blog entry might fit under Trivia. --FabuVinny ^{|Talk Page|} 17:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That picture up there, it isn't really proof, since all I see in the Japanese text is "Bibiddo Bubble(?)""Koiru; Coil(Magnemite),""Magnet," etc. Someone that can read better than me may be some help.--ShedinjaFtw 00:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow this trolling. She's just gushing over the illustration directly above the text ("vivid purple!!1!" "magnemite"! "magnets"!)—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 23:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

How does this have anything to do with Zekrom? I don't see "Zekuromu"... all I see are stuff about illustration... even at the top, it says clearly: "Tēma: Irasuto", which is basically "Theme: Illustration." Sorry if it's just me and my bad eyes, but that up there has nothing to do with Zekrom. --ShedinjaFtw 01:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The image posted is the blog after the comment was removed, here is the screencap from before the edit. Trainer-c 03:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I suppose that much checks out...we should definitely hold off on making that a part of the article, though.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 05:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Any mention of the electric type should stay away from the bulk of the article but I still say it counts as trivia. --FabuVinny ^{|Talk Page|} 14:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The thought of that part of the blog being removed instead of changed leads me to believe that it was a leak instead of an error, as the error would most likely be fixed instead. Also, is it really better to count it soley as a dragon and not a Dragon/Unconfirmed, since ??? is considered a type?--Jmassacre 13:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It's only been officially announced as Dragon so we can only mention the one type for now. Interesting as that blog entry is, claiming that Zekrom has a second type at all is still too close to rumour and speculation at this point. The type effectiveness section probably isn't accurate, though. --FabuVinny ^{|Talk Page|} 19:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sprite

I know one of the screenshots from Black and White had a sprite of Zekrom in it. I've never uploaded an image before, so maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any reasons why the sprite isn't here. If authenticity is a concern, we can just put the "THIS SPRITE IS FAKE" mouse-over on it. --Element03 04:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue is actually quality, rather than whether it is real or not. The screenshots we have are of relatively low quality, so any sprites pulled from them will be as well. Werdnae (talk) 04:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The sprites will only be put on if they are needed for a template. The spritebox will not be implemented until the games release, so the sprites are only needed for the evobox. So far, we will only put in a evobox if we know it evolves to something else or evolves from something else (Zorua and Zoroark), or if we know it will evolve (starters). --SnorlaxMonster 05:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I can wait, but would like to point that a pretty clear shot is at http://archives.bulbagarden.net/wiki/File:BW_Prerelease_Zekrom_battle.png. I checked to make sure it matches up with current sprites, which it does, but I noticed that Zekrom is 94x90 pixels. Interesting to note, this is much larger than any previous sprite.--Element03 01:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Last?

The article shows Bulbasaur as the next Pokémon. This used to be the case with Arceus, due to it ending the Pokédex. However, a version mascot has never ended the Pokédex, so why is Zekrom listed at the end? It is the last Pokémon known, but probably should not be listed as the last Pokémon. Digletdude 20:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

We don't know what the last Pokemon is, though. It's listed there because it's... like you said, the last Pokemon known right now. It's only temporary until the game comes out. ▫▫ティナ^♫★ 20:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

However, other Generation V Pokémon have been shown with "???" as next and previous. We do know other Pokémon are Next and Previous, but we don't know how many may or may not be in between. Although there Pokédex numbers are missing, some, such as the starters can be ordered. This means, if Zekrom is ordered as last, others can be temporairly ordered.