Talk:Eon duo: Difference between revisions
ArcToraphim (talk | contribs) m (→Move) |
(→Move) |
||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
Considering the general gist is that almost all "titles" we stick the legendaries under are fanon, Lati@s is highly appropriate. The fact it doesn't look nice or symmetrical with the rest should not be a factor, simple because these names are what '''people call them''' on a daily basis. No one calls them the "legendary eons", and "Eon duo" is grossly less used than Lati@s (1,600 google returns vs 7,000,000+). They are Lati@s to the fandom. I do not approve of a move simply to sate a more "official look". [[User:ArcToraphim|Luna Tiger]] * [[User talk:ArcToraphim|the Arc Toraph]] 12:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC) | Considering the general gist is that almost all "titles" we stick the legendaries under are fanon, Lati@s is highly appropriate. The fact it doesn't look nice or symmetrical with the rest should not be a factor, simple because these names are what '''people call them''' on a daily basis. No one calls them the "legendary eons", and "Eon duo" is grossly less used than Lati@s (1,600 google returns vs 7,000,000+). They are Lati@s to the fandom. I do not approve of a move simply to sate a more "official look". [[User:ArcToraphim|Luna Tiger]] * [[User talk:ArcToraphim|the Arc Toraph]] 12:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC) | ||
: The [[Legendary duo]] page lists them as the Eon Duo. And by your logic, why do we use Legendary Beasts (~2,800,000 Google results) when Legendary Dogs has far more results (~12,000,000). We've moved these sorts of pages based on what makes more sense before (such as with the horribly named "Raijin Trio") and I don't see why we couldn't do so here as well. --[[User:AndyPKMN|Andy<sup>P</sup><sub>K</sub><sup>M</sup><sub>N</sub>]] [[User talk:AndyPKMN|(talk)]] 17:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:29, 5 May 2011
Lati@s is a popular fanon term
Fanon is an unconfirmed belief held by fans of a series.
How can such a term be fanon? - Jshadias 04:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
>Erm, because the game never revers to them as Lati@s? That's what I assumed, anyways. It's a name made for them by the fans. - Zeta
If it's a term made up by fans, how is it an "unconfirmed belief"? - Jshadias 05:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
>My point is that it's a fan creation, something that is usually associated fanon. And I guess you could say that it's "unconfirmed" because it's not official terminology. I don't know how you'd define it as a belief though. - Zeta
Move
I agree with SnorlaxMoster. Move it to Eon duo, its more formal and looks better than Lati@s. Anyone agree? Disagree? Opinions? ~たかはりい 09:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- I prefer something like "Legendary eons" really. I never really liked using trio, etc. for the legendaries. tc²₆tc26 10:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Legendary eons" just sounds weird; they're not "eons", they're the eon Pokémon. In some cases I agree that Trio, Duo, etc. don't work too well (such as with the Musketeer Trio/Quartet), but in this case I think Eon Duo would be an appropriate page title. Lati@s ought to just be a trivia note. --AndyPKMN (talk) 11:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Considering the general gist is that almost all "titles" we stick the legendaries under are fanon, Lati@s is highly appropriate. The fact it doesn't look nice or symmetrical with the rest should not be a factor, simple because these names are what people call them on a daily basis. No one calls them the "legendary eons", and "Eon duo" is grossly less used than Lati@s (1,600 google returns vs 7,000,000+). They are Lati@s to the fandom. I do not approve of a move simply to sate a more "official look". Luna Tiger * the Arc Toraph 12:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- The Legendary duo page lists them as the Eon Duo. And by your logic, why do we use Legendary Beasts (~2,800,000 Google results) when Legendary Dogs has far more results (~12,000,000). We've moved these sorts of pages based on what makes more sense before (such as with the horribly named "Raijin Trio") and I don't see why we couldn't do so here as well. --AndyPKMN (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)