Please remember to follow the manual of style and code of conduct at all times.
Check BNN and Bulbanews for up-to-date Pokémon news and discuss it on the forums or in our IRC channel #bulbagarden on

Difference between revisions of "Talk:Volcarona (Pokémon)"

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
(Ulgamoth = Volcarona, official.)
Line 62: Line 62:
I don't think that the admins will move this without proof. Could you possibly take a picture of the review? (I really need to start reading it again...) [[User:Blazios|Blazios]] 17:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that the admins will move this without proof. Could you possibly take a picture of the review? (I really need to start reading it again...) [[User:Blazios|Blazios]] 17:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Of course. [[User:Exterminieren|Exterminieren]] 18:22 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:24, 14 February 2011

Ulgamoth based on Mothra

I know that if someone adds to the origin that Ulgamoth may have been inspired by Mothra, it will get taken done because it is apparently just an opinion. However, the two share similarities in appearence, color scheme and the ability to use its shedding scales as weapons. I don't think this is just an "opinion", and may be a legitimate origin.

Your thoughts? - 050294 09:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I've seen that origin removed several times, and while I'm no expert on Mothra, the similarities listed seem to be quite convincing. Not to mention our current origins listed are quite unconvincing; it hardly resembles the Atlas moth, and the phrase "like a moth to a flame" doesn't seem relevant enough to be the primary origin. --AndyPKMN 12:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
It is almost certainly not "like a moth to a flame". That is an English expression, so unless a Japanese equivelent exists then Mothra is almost certainly unrelated. However, Mothra is well know popular culture in Japan, so it is a likely origin. --SnorlaxMonster 13:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

To say this Pokémon is based on something in popular culture is an opinion. Regardless of how much it sounds like it's based on it, you can't say it's based on Mothra because it's an opinion. -Sketch 19:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Just like how you imagine a hydra with wings despite only Ghidorah havings wings out of the two. Pop culture references happen all the time, what makes you so sure Pokémon does not have any WHEN YOU ARE NOT GAME FREAK?! Shiramu Kuromu 19:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
You aren't GameFreak either. Unless you can prove it, with physical evidence that says the Pokémon is based on this monster, it cannot be said, period. Learn the difference between fact and an opinion. -Sketch 01:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Unless you can prove, with physical evidence, that says the Pokémon is not based on this monster, it cannot removed either, as it is also opinion. It is a quite plausible origin and many Pokémon origins on Bulbapedia are not fact, as the majority of them have not been officially stated by Gamefreak. Almost all of them are opinionated but still plausible. Not to be rude, but you're acting a bit hypocritical. - 050294 02:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
doesnt work that way around here. you show us hardcore proof that it IS based on it, and then we add it. -- MAGNEDETH 02:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Just a question, but why allow other opinionated origins but not this? Almost every origin on Bulbapedia is opinionated so I didn't think it was that bad to add Mothra to the origins, honestly, because they are so alike it's not even funny. - 050294 02:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, just adding this: I could list the extreme similarities and references, in both appearance and pokedex data, to Mothra for evidence if you'd like. I could also do the same thing with Sazandora. - 050294 02:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

first, any origin we add is backed up with evidence in some way. find one that isnt backed-up.
second, sure, list them. -- MAGNEDETH 02:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Alrighty then... The first thing to note is color scheme and physical appearence.
MOSURA.jpg 637.png
Now, as seen in the above images, their physical appearances are very similar. They both share the white fur/fuzz on their bodies. (And yes, I've checked, no moth or butterfly that I've seen has white face fuzz like that, or silk, or whatever it is) They both have reddish/orange, "firery", colored wings. They both are based off of moths and possibly butterflies. Also, they both have the same bright blue eyes, one of Mothra's noted qualities, as they are so bright.
Now for characteristics. For starters, Mothra draws many parallels to the Phoenix, the legendary firebird, and also can use its scales as weapons. As stated in Ulgamoth's pokedex entry: "If it becomes involved in a fight, it scatters flaming scales from its 6 wings all over the surrounding surfaces to make a sea of fire", Ulgamoth also shares the ability to use its shedding scales as weapons. While Ulgamoth may not have been directly influenced by the phoenix, it's second pokedex entry: "It is said that when the ground becomes pitch black with volcanic ash, Ulgamoth's fire takes the place of the sun." is a possible reference to them, as Phoenixes also have this trait, making it more similar to Mothra as Mothra makes subtle references to the mythological bird.
Is this enough info? If not I will gladly add more, as there are tons more similarities between the two. - 050294 02:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
i would like to see more. -- MAGNEDETH 03:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I gotta side with him, the Mothra similarities are very strong here Ataro 03:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Her ;P - 050294 03:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


The two's cries are also similar, as seen in these videos, though Mothra's cry is closer to the middle of its video.
( <- Mothra - Ulgamoth->

They both are also revered in a way. In the part of the ancient castle where you encounter Ulgamoth, as seen in the image above, a painting, or picture, of its image sits behind it and it appears to have been revered, important, or even worshipped by whoever made the castle. As for Mothra, she is a revered monster who protects all that is good and is one of the few purely heroic kaiju monsters. The people who are protected by it and its reincarnated babies (Like I said earlier, it is very similar to phoenixes) worship her and consider her a god, or perhaps a savior.

Do you need more? - 050294 03:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that while there's very good circumstantial evidence, references to pop-culture characters need to be explicit. References to animals (even, broadly, mythical ones like centaurs or hydras) do not--that's pretty well-understood. So I think Sketch is right in asserting that without actual textual evidence from the game (a joke or a comment) or a comment from a game designer in an interview, we're speculating to say it's based on Mothra. Or, for that matter, any other pop-culture character; if Looker got himself out of trouble with trinkets, we couldn't definitively call him MacGyver. -- evkl (need to talk?) 19:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
So then the origin of both Onokus and Tyranitar are wrong, as they're both apparently based on Destoroyah and Godzilla, respectively. Same thing with Rotom being based on Pulseman, as that is not stated by Nintendo and is only assumed. - 050294 22:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
All those references need to go... except Pulseman... because GameFreak made Pulseman. Hell, the Pulseman reference is obvious. Volt Tackle was Pulseman's signature move. See List of references to Pulseman. Pulseman is the one thing that is connected to Pokemon. Godzilla isn't. Sorry. -Sketch 22:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
So what if it was made by Gamefreak? It was NEVER officially stated by Gamefreak to be based on it. - 050294 22:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
This is very different. Pulseman's signature move is Volt Tackle, and then there's a Pokemon attack of the same name? That's not a coincidence. There are references to Pulseman in Pokemon. Sorry, now, this decision is final. -Sketch 23:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The Mothra references are also pretty obvious. Tolstak 23:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
It's an opinion. No. -Sketch 23:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Watch out, guize, Sketch's opinions are facts! Tolstak 23:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Let's try to remain civil, no? Especially when talking to admins. Bikini Miltank 23:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Real mature guys. Let's remove that piece of trivia even though Evkl explained that those 2 are exceptions to this rule BECAUSE they are in someway related to GameFreak. Jellotalk 23:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
So Pulseman is okay because it's OBVIOUS, but other pop culture references are not okay because GameFreak hasn't explicitly stated them? Even though Gen 5 is FILLED with pop culture references? Tolstak 23:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Pretty much. I wasn't aware it was a sin for GameFreak to reference their own games. Jellotalk 00:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't aware it was a sin for GameFreak to reference Japanese culture. Tolstak 00:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Can we just end this already? Ataro 00:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd love to. Tolstak 00:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


Except for smergle Is ulgamoth only non-legendary pokemon that learn move on level 100?Meearaimeng 10:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Its pre-evolution also learn Flare Blitz on lvl 100 (which seems more interesting). Aside from that I couldn't find any other pokemon with this trait. But I don't think it's notable. --ЫъГЬ 12:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Shaymin and Seed Flare is one of a few I can't think of right now. But learning a move at level 100 isn't that unique. --ケンジガール 04:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Mewtwo, Arceus are also examples, but he was talking about non-legendary. --ЫъГЬ 09:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Then it is ulgamoth and its evolution line are only non-legenddary pokemon how learn move at level 100?Meearaimeng 03:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Ulgamoth = Volcarona, official.

The review in the latest Official Nintendo Magazine, those who previously revealed the names of Tympole, Timburr, Chili, Cress, Striaton City and Nacrene City specifically mentions Volcarona by name. Can somebody change the page title?

I don't think that the admins will move this without proof. Could you possibly take a picture of the review? (I really need to start reading it again...) Blazios 17:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course. Exterminieren 18:22 (UTC)