Talk:Dragon (type): Difference between revisions
From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to navigationJump to search
Dawnshadow (talk | contribs) (→Fully evolved Dragons: new section) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:They should be, but we're lazy and the server glitches have prevented us from doing much. '''[[User:TTEchidna|<span style="color:#FF0000">''TTE''</span>]][[User talk:TTEchidna|chidna]]''' 23:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC) | :They should be, but we're lazy and the server glitches have prevented us from doing much. '''[[User:TTEchidna|<span style="color:#FF0000">''TTE''</span>]][[User talk:TTEchidna|chidna]]''' 23:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC) | ||
::Oh. I was half-expecting you to answer "no". [[User:Ztobor|Ztobor]] 03:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC) | ::Oh. I was half-expecting you to answer "no". [[User:Ztobor|Ztobor]] 03:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC) | ||
== Fully evolved Dragons == | |||
Should we keep the small section saying that before Gen V, all fully evolved dragons had two types? Seems a bit pointless now that two of them don't. [[User:Dawnshadow|Dawnshadow]] 09:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:29, 1 October 2010
Should the new Gen.5'ers be included in this list?
Now that we know their types, should Reshiram and Zekrom be included in the list as well? Ztobor 21:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- They should be, but we're lazy and the server glitches have prevented us from doing much. TTEchidna 23:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oh. I was half-expecting you to answer "no". Ztobor 03:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Fully evolved Dragons
Should we keep the small section saying that before Gen V, all fully evolved dragons had two types? Seems a bit pointless now that two of them don't. Dawnshadow 09:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
