Talk:Zygarde (Pokémon)
Legendary?
Isn't this a Legendary Pokémon? If so, why isn't it listed as such? --Wynd Fox 05:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Two possible reasons: either someone simply overlooked it or the staff is waiting for official confirmation of its legendary status before adding it. (Though it seems obvious that it's the Rayquaza/Giratina/Kyurem of this generation, there's always still the infinitesimal chance that Nintendo could be throwing us for a loop somehow.) Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 06:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Dex Trivia?
Is it notable that it's last both numerically in the National Dex and alphabetically? --Wynd Fox 19:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't have an issue with it. --Pokemaster97 19:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Unless they make a "Generation VII" or Expansion Pack (like in The Sims) where the grass starter or one of the early Pokémon has a name like "Zyzkrieg". Then it would not be anymore. (but i think the next game should be the Gen. III Remake in 2014, and then "Pokemon Z" in 2015, and the generation VII if it can exist properly, would be in 2016. Propably introduce hybrid Pokémon or Poké-humans or a subplot with aliens or time travel or somesuch.) --Kaiko Mikkusu (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Kaiko Mikkusu.
Maybe you should keep the crazy fan ideas in the forums. I find those "Poké-humans" very unlikely to made by Nintendo. But we'll never know. Until that happens, we should keep that idea off the encyclopedia. SeanWheeler (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Image origin
Where did this image come from, why does it not look like the usual Ken Sugimori art style, why doesn't it look like the other, front forward facing Zygarde pic I keep seeing next to Xerneas and Yveltal? Yamitora1 (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's not the official artwork, only a placeholder that is used for now (at least it seems so to me). It's the Global Link artwork as stated on the file's page. Արիանո 08:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Physical appearance
Given its underground habits, its partial insect-like appearance and the fact it sports tail-end cerci and six tiny limbs close to its head; I'd say Zygarde's design might've been inspired by a beetle larvae/grub, a Ground Beetle larva to be precise, given its shape. Would it be alright to add that to the origin section? --Jomarori (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see it as a larva, its more or less a serpent. Although with the mention of Zygote likely having some basis for its name, I am kind of thinking sperm cell. Not saying it looks like a sperm cell, at least not a human sperm cell. Yamitora1 (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps it also takes inspiration from the tsuchinoko, much like Dunsparce? It's notable for being a rather wide serpent, as well as having a notable straightforward "wiggle" rather than slithering from side to side. Also, the tsuchinoko's ability to swallow its own tail merges well with the possible basis on Jörmungandr, which could grasp its own tail even wrapped around the earth. --Eskay64 (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Zygarde's appearance was absolutely inspired by fibuli, these early medieval pins that were common throughout Scandinavia as a means of pinning tunics together. Here are a few examples, image 1 image 2. As you can see the idea of a long snakelike body is here along with a flaring head, complete with a bunch of pieces sticking out. These would have been totally normal things for upper class medieval Scandinavians to wear and thus fits Gen 6's Nordic legendary theme. I'm haven't seen this connection made anywhere else, but once I saw it in class I recognized it right a way. Perhaps following that logic we might find some other sort of medieval jewelry references in the other legendaries? - unsigned comment from Dockers (talk • contribs)
- Perhaps it also takes inspiration from the tsuchinoko, much like Dunsparce? It's notable for being a rather wide serpent, as well as having a notable straightforward "wiggle" rather than slithering from side to side. Also, the tsuchinoko's ability to swallow its own tail merges well with the possible basis on Jörmungandr, which could grasp its own tail even wrapped around the earth. --Eskay64 (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
So I just read that "[Zygarde's] hexagons glow in certain patterns like a computer processing information" and I have to ask: have any of you guys actually seen a computer? There has to be a better way of describing that that doesn't insult people who know how computers work.
(also I edited Dockers' comment because that picture was huge) - unsigned comment from Grent (talk • contribs) 03:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Zygarde Etymology
Just looking at the naming trivia, I can't imagine that Garde is actually tied to the origins of its name. It's very serpent-like and clearly based on Norse mythology, so perhaps Zygote and Midgard - specifically the Midgard Serpent.
Position in Trio
Zygarde is in a Legendary trio with Xerneas an Yveltal, so it's "element" should fit with Creation and Destruction. Considering it's Pokédex entry, I think it's safe to say Xerneas = Creation, Yveltal = Destruction, and Zygarde = PRESERVATION. - unsigned comment from Conansboy (talk • contribs)
- Which means that the trio is possibly based upon Hindu mythology.--Teamg9 (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Catch rate
I doubt that Zygarde's catch rate is really 0. Is this a filler till that info is found, or an error? Reywas360 (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Yggdrasil Trio
I'm finally starting to thing this, alongside Xerneas and Yveltal were based on Norse Mythology beasts in the Tree of Yggdrasil. They all represent Life, Death and Order as a whole. So should they be called the Yggdrasil Trio?--Duo2nd (talk) 02:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Its not really verified they are a trio. At least not yet anyways. As for the Norse basis, its possible they are not based on norse mythology at all, but Hindu mythology or one or more mythologies. As of now, the most popular name for them seems to be Aura Trio if they are a trio. There is a thread about their name on the forum if you're interested. The Thread kind of died but if you have anything to say, there would be the place to say it. Yamitora1 (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- They obviously are a trio. It could not be any more obvious if ot tried. And we have no clue what they are supposed to be based of other than the axes, so it could be either. Or both. As for the name, I guess we'll see how it goes.--BigBadBatter (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to throw it out there
Bulbasaur + Zygarde = Bulbagarde
Trivia???*
-KyuremTrainer (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm going to have to say no on that. --Pokemaster97 19:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Typing oddity
Isn't it rather peculiar how Zygarde, the "Order Pokémon", has a defensive type disadvantage against Fairy and an offensive one against Flying, which are the types of Xerneas and Yveltal, respectively?
--TheAsianIsGamin (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't consider that notable--BigBadBatter (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well, if they are indeed a trio, isn't it somewhat notable that one of them (The "Order Pokémon", might I add) is weak to the others? --TheAsianIsGamin (talk) 04:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Defensive and offensive disadvantages are completely different things. I don't think it's as clearly intentional (and thus notable) as, for example, all of the legendary golems' weakness to Fighting. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think that it most likely was intentional. Even though the fact that it is weak to Xerneas is probably not as notable, Xerneas and Yveltal are each immune to one of its types, and I think that that should be noted. (The fact that it is weak to Xerneas isn't as notable because it isn't also weak to Yveltal.) This is just my opinion, though! ^^ EpicDeino (talk) 07:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Defensive and offensive disadvantages are completely different things. I don't think it's as clearly intentional (and thus notable) as, for example, all of the legendary golems' weakness to Fighting. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well, if they are indeed a trio, isn't it somewhat notable that one of them (The "Order Pokémon", might I add) is weak to the others? --TheAsianIsGamin (talk) 04:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Move levels?
How do we know all the levels Zygarde knows its moves? You can't catch it below level 70... - unsigned comment from DisgruntledGoat (talk • contribs)
- Most of the other legendaries had their move levels added because they're in a Japanese guidebook, and since Zygarde's were added as part of that round of edits by the same users, I think it's reasonable to assume it was in the guidebook, too, even though nobody has specifically singled it out. Thus, I'll be reinstating the levels for now. If someone with the guidebook wants to confirm whether Zygarde is in it, please speak up. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Zygarde is in the guidebook. I own the second guide book and every Pokemon officially revealed as of Febuary 2014 is in it. --AbsolX (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Zygarde Reappearances
I believe that Zygarde reappears every time you defeat the Elite Four, just like Mewtwo does. I think this should be researched and noted in the Game Locations section. - unsigned comment from NerfPlayeR135 (talk • contribs)
- It does indeed respawn if fainted after you defeat the Elite Four. I've confirmed it myself just a moment ago. Shiramu Kuromu (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Zygarde is in a trio with Xerneas and Yveltal
Admit it guys, Zygarde is THE most blatantly OBVIOUS Rayquaza Expy to have ever existed. Here's a few things to note here:
- Zygarde has a Green color scheme, while Xerneas and Yveltal have a Blue and Red coloration to match the RGB Color Palette.
- Xerneas and Yveltal are both designed based on the letters X and Y, and the first letters in their names are even those same letters. Zygarde not only is shaped in the manner of a Z due to being a serpent, but also has it's name begin with Z.
- Zygarde's signature ability, Aura Break, ONLY effects Fairy Aura and Dark Aura, which are ONLY known to be available to Xerneas and Yveltal. This isn't too different from Rayquaza in how it cancels out the abilities of the other two members of the trio.
- Xerneas is the Life Pokemon, Yveltal is the Destruction Pokemon, and Zygarde is the Order Pokemon.
- It's PokeDex Entries don't make reference to the other two, but bare in mind, neither did Rayquaza, Giratina, or Kyurem had any references to the others until their versions were released.
With that in mind, I can't see how ANYBODY can believe Zygarde is not related to either of them, as it's so obvious it's painful to say the least. The fact that Zygarde is the ONLY Non-Event Legendary from Kalos other than Xerneas and Yveltal doesn't help matters, and neither Diancie nor the still unconfirmed Volcanion and Hoopa look like they'd be anywhere near related to Xerneas or Yveltal as much as Zygarde does. Shiramu Kuromu (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Zygarde is not with Xerneas and Yveltal, also, we don't talk about hidden Pokémon (except Diancie is already confirmed) so we have to wait in the future until it's confirmed to be in a trio. --Cinday123 (Talk) 10:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- For all we know, Diancie could be in the "trio" if there is one, and not Zygarde. Zygarde might even be in the trio with other hidden Pokémon. Yamitora1 (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- For God's sake, Zygarde isn't in anyway related to Diancie, Hoopa, and Volcanion.Phiraptor28 (talk) 10:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Cinday - Sometimes we don't need to wait for evidence. Things kind of things work like postulates - need no proving. What we need in these situations are simply common sense! Just an opinion. Phiraptor28 (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Now that the various formes of Zygarde have been revealed, and how it was stated to be more powerful than Xerneas and Yveltal, the other two members of it's own trio whom which it's supposed to keep in balance, it's safe to say that I was right this whole time, yes? Shiramu Kuromu (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, you were right the whole time, and everyone else knew it too. It's blatantly obvious when its ability literally only affected Yveltal and Xerneas. Your arguments here can be equated to an English student trying to convince their high school teacher that sentences can start with and or but. Everyone knows it, and you're acting like you're the only who's realized. If anything, you're the one that's behind on how things work. The point is that it hasn't been officially recognized, and isn't critical information regarding Zygarde as a Pokemon, so it is unnecessary and possibly detrimental to this encyclopedia that we add irrelevant information such as this. Or at least it was. We can probably add it soon, but not before the connection is solid and integral to Zygarde as an idea/character/whatever you consider an individual Pokemon to be. There's a time and place for everything, but not now. ArtistKyurem (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- ^Just wanted to point out he never said, as you said he did, that he "was the only one to realize it". He kept saying, like you, that it is obvious to everyone that they're a trio. - unsigned comment from Ratcicle Fan (talk • contribs)
- Yes, you were right the whole time, and everyone else knew it too. It's blatantly obvious when its ability literally only affected Yveltal and Xerneas. Your arguments here can be equated to an English student trying to convince their high school teacher that sentences can start with and or but. Everyone knows it, and you're acting like you're the only who's realized. If anything, you're the one that's behind on how things work. The point is that it hasn't been officially recognized, and isn't critical information regarding Zygarde as a Pokemon, so it is unnecessary and possibly detrimental to this encyclopedia that we add irrelevant information such as this. Or at least it was. We can probably add it soon, but not before the connection is solid and integral to Zygarde as an idea/character/whatever you consider an individual Pokemon to be. There's a time and place for everything, but not now. ArtistKyurem (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Now that the various formes of Zygarde have been revealed, and how it was stated to be more powerful than Xerneas and Yveltal, the other two members of it's own trio whom which it's supposed to keep in balance, it's safe to say that I was right this whole time, yes? Shiramu Kuromu (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Cinday - Sometimes we don't need to wait for evidence. Things kind of things work like postulates - need no proving. What we need in these situations are simply common sense! Just an opinion. Phiraptor28 (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- For God's sake, Zygarde isn't in anyway related to Diancie, Hoopa, and Volcanion.Phiraptor28 (talk) 10:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- For all we know, Diancie could be in the "trio" if there is one, and not Zygarde. Zygarde might even be in the trio with other hidden Pokémon. Yamitora1 (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Source on EV yield
Do Zygarde had an EV yield confirmed, or is it unsourced? --Cinday123 (Talk) 05:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- EV yields are listed in the official guidebook. Though even if they weren't, they're something we can easily test and data that we can prove through testing is okay, too. Crystal Talian 05:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
The book just has the EV yields. The catch rate and base friendship are not included, unconfirmed, and nearly impossible to test. We can't include those on this site yet. Crystal Talian 05:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Testing catch rate is very "possible", just very involved. Testing base friendship is child's play by comparison. That, you just have to be a little smart about (...possibly a little more than a little). Tiddlywinks (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Quite obvious physical appearance once you're aware.
Zygarde's appearance is obviously based on a serpent in the shape of a Z as well as the Naga. Naga are many-headed serpents which appear in Hindu and Buddhist mythology and look like anything from cobras to dragons. Once you know the Naga, the similarity is undeniable. Naga 1 Naga 2 Naga 3
--Knockturnal (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
New Form Design Origins
I know there is already a ton of discussions about Zygarde's design in this talk section, (this topic can be merged with an already existing one if that's easier) but am I right in assuming that the 3 non-cellular forms are based on the children of Loki (with the giant Angrboða as the mother) in Norse mythology? The 10% form is like the wolf Fenrir, the 'standard' 50% form is based on the world serpent Jörmungandr and the perfect form is akin to the giant Hel.
I have no idea if the DNA cell motif is anything to do with mythology as it is to do with simply being an unknown game mechanic. I don't know anything that could possibly relate to it other then that Loki was a shape shifter (I think he transformed into 5 different forms excluding his true appearance, though this is a stretch)? ~ Evacino (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Zygarde 10% forme could've also been Garmr, Hel's dog, but Fenrir is more appropriate. And by the way, Zygarde is really apt with the concept of Hel, being the Pokémon of Balance, Hel is usually depicted with half of her body alive and half a corpse, similar to life and death. Phiraptor28 (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Perfect is nw Complete
Its not Perfect Forme, but Zygard Complete Forme. Yamitora1 (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- The news has only been out an hour or so, the staff will get around to it when they're online I'm sure. ----samm :D 15:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Flatworm
With the introduction of Zygarde Core and Cell, it seems likely to me that both of them, in addition to 50% Forme, are based on planarian flatworms, specifically the well-known (well, well-known for flatworms) triangular-headed kind. Zakitano (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. The Core and Cell formes may have also drawn inspiration from zygotes, cell formations.Phiraptor28 (talk) 09:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Zygarde 10% Stats
The Japanese Pokémon website has a bit more on Zygarde's 10% Forme. Height is 1.2 meters. Weight is 33.5 kilograms. And its type is Dragon/Ground.
Source: http://www.pokemon.co.jp/ex/anime-special/pokemon/ Goldchaos (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Zygarde 10% is in Pokémon Picross (via the leaked passwords). The game has the height/weight of the Pokémon in the game, but I'm not even close to were its stage is, so someone who has caught it check it out to put on the site please.TrainerX493 (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oh wait, it's already there. Nevermind. TrainerX493 (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Core and Cell Zygarde
Are we sure that the core and cell versions are actual forms? Judging from the descriptions, they just sound like part of Zygarde's anatomy. Perhaps Ash and friends will be taken a trip inside the body of Zygarde? If so, I don't think we should count cell and core Zygarde as forms. Carcharodon (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- They've appeared separately from Zygarde in the anime, so I doubt they won't appear separately in the games as well, even if they're not battle capable. Even if that were to occur, they should still be considered a form. - unsigned comment from ArtistKyurem (talk • contribs)
Potential Mortality Trio Learnset Comparison
In anticipation for Zygarde's addition to the Mortality Duo, I've added onto the existing learnset comparison from the Legendary Duo page.
| Lv. |  Xerneas Fairy |
 Yveltal Dark Flying |
 Zygarde Dragon Ground |
|---|---|---|---|
| Start | Heal Pulse | Hurricane | Glare |
| Aromatherapy | Razor Wind | Bulldoze | |
| Ingrain | Taunt | Dragon Breath | |
| Take Down | Roost | Bite | |
| 5 | Light Screen | Double Team | Safeguard |
| 10 | Aurora Beam | Air Slash | Dig |
| 18 | Gravity | Snarl | Bind |
| 26 | Geomancy | Oblivion Wing | Land's Wrath |
| 35 | Moonblast | Disable | Sandstorm |
| 44 | Megahorn | Dark Pulse | Haze |
| 51 | Night Slash | Foul Play | Crunch |
| 55 | Horn Leech | Phantom Force | Earthquake |
| 59 | Psych Up | Psychic | Camouflage |
| 63 | Misty Terrain | Dragon Rush | Dragon Pulse |
| 72 | Nature Power | Focus Blast | Dragon Dance |
| 80 | Close Combat | Sucker Punch | Coil |
| 88 | Giga Impact | Hyper Beam | Extreme Speed |
| 93 | Outrage | Sky Attack | Outrage |
| Moves in bold get STAB. Moves in italics do no damage. | |||
This is only meant to be used once we receive official word of the "Mortality Trio" (or whatever it's officially called) existing. Once it is confirmed, this can be used on the trio's page. --Pacack (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Dugesia?
I guess it's obvious, but I believe Zygarde's Cell Form is based on the Dugesia (a name I didn't know until today). Shouldn't that be added to the trivia? Also, I think it could be added to the trivia that Zygarde's 10% Form resembles a dobberman. Ratcicle Fan (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Mistake with a picture caption
The "In the anime" section, the picture with the caption that says "Zygarde Cell in the anime" should be corrected to "Zygarde Core in the anime".
Also, someone should mention that Zygarde 10% made it's debut in XY093 and get a picture of it as well. Dialgafan1 (talk) 06:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Also noticed this error earlier as well. I thought I was the only one who knew about this. The error was a bit diffcult to spot, I'd have to admit. KoiFish (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Zygarde 10% form origin
I would like to add that Zygarde 10% form is based on a Doberman Pinscher on a leash. However, the page is locked. Could someone please unlock the page and add that info in (if this is necessary/accurate info)?Leafeon6954 (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Axis Trivia
I was wondering if this is a viable piece of trivia: Xerxes is a land creature and the X coordinate is the horizontal one. Yveltal can fly and the Y axis is the vertical coordinate. Zygarde can burrow and the Z coordinate represents depth. --AbsolX (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- The analogy you're trying to make is flawed a couple ways. Flying and burrowing are on the same axis, not different ones; one's up the axis, the other is down it. And land is more of a plane than a single axis/dimension, really. Tiddlywinks (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Flag of Kalos?
In the origin section, there was reference to a flag of Kalos. I searched for it, and only a fanmade one seems to exist. As such, I changed the sentence to refer to the flag of France instead.
If I am mistaken, please show me evidence of the flag of Kalos and revert the edit.
21:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Biology Section
I have made a sizeable contribution to the biology section of this page. It is lengthy, but details the appearance of all Zygarde's formes. If anyone sees an issue with this edit, grammatical or otherwise, please correct it. If you can condense the information without lessening the content of the article, please also do so.
Thanks! ᗧ•••ᗣ Pacack 00:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Zygarde Complete Forme's head
Okay not 100% sure if this is is worth putting here but I figured better safe than sorry. Anyway the article says the part of Complete Formes's body that's on top of the round part is a protrusion but I think it's actually the head. The reason is because all of the puzzles in Pokémon Picross are headshots and the on for Zygarde Complete Forme doesn't show the round portion of it's body it shows the part on top. I think that really points towards it being the head. - unsigned comment from Flain (talk • contribs)
- You're right, and I'd go as far to say that the round part is definitely its chest and that the "protrusion" is definitely its head and that someone would have to be psychotic to think of it any other way. The "protrusion" is clearly a head. The arms come off of the round thing, it is clearly a chest. The protrusion has glowing white eyes, while the chest has green eye-like markings. To argue this would be like arguing that Masquerein's wings are actually its eyes. Saying that, I'm not willing to be the one to change it because my edits tend to get reverted in seconds. Me, Hurray! (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- While writing the biology section, I was unsure whether to classify the crown or the rounded section as the head because of this image:
- In this, the "chest" opens and reveals that its jagged center is akin to a mouth. Because of this, and because crowns traditionally rest upon heads, I opted for more ambiguous wording. However, because I seem to be outnumbered three to one (another person edited the page already), I will change the wording to note this ability while maintaining the position that the protrusion is the head. Paᗧ•••ᗣck 02:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Using Deity/Deities derived terms when speaking generically
What is wrong with using deity/deities or derived terms when speaking generically (no gender connotations that is)?
Jdogno4 (talk) 07:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Because the the plural "gods" can also be gender-neutral.Animaltamer711:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- "The gods" is a collective term which refers to both gods and goddesses. It is a term used often, and can be seen in action here [1], here [2], and here [3].
- The majority of the text from the origin section of the article is paraphrased from the wikipedia articles. You will note that wikipedia uses the term "the gods" in the Fenrir article as well [4]. Paᗧ•••ᗣck 15:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
"Because the plural "gods" can also be gender-neutral.": Deities is more technically correct in this instance.
"'The gods' is a collective term which refers to both gods and goddesses.": Once again deities is more technically correct in this instance.
Well Wikipedia is not being technically correct in all instances relating to what is a deity, what is a god and what is a goddess.
Jdogno4 (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- For all practical and/or common purposes, anywhere deity can be used, so can god, without changing anything. (The only exception is something like Wikipedia's God article, where simply using "god" can get confusing and "deity" can provide a useful distinction.)
- Your apparent belief that "god" always carries a gender connotation is, very simply: wrong. In my view, this is a pretty fundamental concept—which also makes it perversely difficult to "explain". So instead, I'm just going to let you figure out a way to accept it, if you can. Tiddlywinks (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- "Your apparent belief that "god" always carries a gender connotation is, very simply: wrong.": How so?
- Jdogno4 (talk) 06:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- How not?
- It comes down to this: you tried to change this line before: "In Norse mythology, Fenrir is a monstrous wolf which was foretold to bring the gods great trouble and harm."
- The question is: does "gods" have a gender connotation there?
- And the (right) answer is simply: No.
- If you want to try to explain why you're right or why I'm wrong, feel free. Tiddlywinks (talk) 06:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- ""In Norse mythology, Fenrir is a monstrous wolf which was foretold to bring the gods great trouble and harm."": Where are you quoting this phrase from?
- Jdogno4 (talk) 07:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- This page, where you tried to change it. Tiddlywinks (talk) 07:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- As I have stated before in terms of technical correctness Deity(singular)/Deities(plural) is more accurate.
- Jdogno4 (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- You did mention something like that above, but frankly, you have completely failed to explain it in any way, whether what makes it more accurate or what about god is inaccurate. Tiddlywinks (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- "You did mention something like that above, but frankly, you have completely failed to explain it in any way, whether what makes it more accurate or what about god is inaccurate.": I have. Deity=Gender Neutral. God=Masculine. Goddess=Feminine. Does that make sense?
- Jdogno4 (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- While that is an explanation, it is also wrong. "God" is not always masculine. As I said above: that is, very simply: WRONG.
- In the line from above that you previously tried to change, "In Norse mythology, Fenrir is a monstrous wolf which was foretold to bring the gods great trouble and harm.", "gods" is not masculine, it is gender-neutral, just like "deities" would be. "Deities" is not better, techically or otherwise. Tiddlywinks (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- "While that is an explanation, it is also wrong.": How so?
- "'God' is not always masculine.": Explain.
- "In the line from above that you previously tried to change, "In Norse mythology, Fenrir is a monstrous wolf which was foretold to bring the gods great trouble and harm.", "gods" is not masculine, it is gender-neutral, just like "deities" would be.": I get that but I also think that it is not the most precise or accurate use of the term.
- "'Deities' is not better, technically or otherwise.": How so?
- Jdogno4 (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Jdogno4, I am not a mind reader. You cannot just ask things like "How so?" and "Explain.". I cannot guess what it is you don't understand.
- Now... If you get that "gods" in that context was gender-neutral, then it's pretty clear you're just clinging hard to some contradictory notions. You plainly think deities is better because it's always gender-neutral, but that is NOT good logic. If "gods" is already gender-neutral, it does not need to be changed, it's already perfectly understandable. Tiddlywinks (talk) 10:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- You did mention something like that above, but frankly, you have completely failed to explain it in any way, whether what makes it more accurate or what about god is inaccurate. Tiddlywinks (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
"Jdogno4, I am not a mind reader. You cannot just ask things like 'How so?' and 'Explain.'. I cannot guess what it is you don't understand.": I am asking you to explain your arguments if you are capable of doing so.
"Now... If you get that "gods" in that context was gender-neutral, then it's pretty clear you're just clinging hard to some contradictory notions.": I get that it was meant to be used in a gender-neutral context but I do not believe it was correctly used. What do you mean by contradictory notions? "You plainly think deities is better because it's always gender-neutral, but that is NOT good logic.": How is that not good logic? "If 'gods' is already gender-neutral, it does not need to be changed, it's already perfectly understandable.": It does for the fact that despite being used in a gender neutral fashion it is technically male gendered. Given the fact that it is used to mean both male deities (technically correct) and all deities at the same time (technically incorrect) it is not perfectly understandable.
Jdogno4 (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Let me just check one thing, Jdogno4.
- Do you think it is ever correct to use "gods" to mean all deities (gender neutrally)? Tiddlywinks (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- "Do you think it is ever correct to use "gods" to mean all deities (gender neutrally)?": No I do not.
- Jdogno4 (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- You are wrong.
- There should be plenty of examples all around in the (English-speaking) world to show this. For starters, I might recommend checking various dictionaries (yes, more than one). You're welcome to look about for some of that and consider it by yourself. I leave you to that. It's not at all worth my time to try to change your mind on something so fundamental. Tiddlywinks (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
"You are wrong.": How so?
"There should be plenty of examples all around in the (English-speaking) world to show this.": For instance?
Jdogno4 (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Since you have made at least 20 edits since 23:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC), but none here I am assuming you have lost interest in backing up your argument.
Jdogno4 (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Just because I won't engage with you further does not mean you are correct. If it did, that would mean many, many arguments would be doomed to continue FOREVER.
- You are wrong.
- Many people have told you this.
- If you cannot accept it or understand it, that is, frankly, your problem at this point.
- Let me emphasize: no matter what, (please) DO NOT try to change "god" to "deity" anywhere. Thank you. Tiddlywinks (talk) 05:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Red Zygarde Core's Pokédex entries
I'm trying to post the Pokédex entries for Puni-chan, but I can't figure out how to change it so it says Red Zygarde Core instead of Zygarde. Here's what I have so far.
|
If someone can fix this, I'd really appreciate it. --PKMNAdventurer (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Cell Form and Core form height.
While watching Pokemon XY and Z on kissanime, I noticed that zygarde's cell and core form's height isn't mentioned. But examining Zygarde or Squishy, I realized that Zygarde's core form is as tall as a Dedenne. That would be 0'08. Now its height hasn't been officially reviewed, but if the anime shows that Zygarde and Dedenne are the same height, then Zygarde core is 0'08". This is more of speculation, but it looks like Zygarde's cells would be as tall as a Pikachu 1'08 Theexploringgamer (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Pokemon heights vary all the time in the anime. For example, Ash's Charizard is huge compared to its in-game Pokédex entry height, and Ash's is small for a Charizard in the anime. Basically, you can't use anime height to determine game height. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 20:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- That is true,but I think that'll itll help add them in the List of Pokémon by height and until its official I think we could propose an estimated height.
- Also, may we add artwork of Blue core Zygarde
- Theexploringgamer (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Either heights (or weight or any other such stats) are to be taken from official sources, or we will not list any height. We do not "estimate"—do not make up—these things. Tiddlywinks (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
No Pokémon Z version?
With the recent announcement of Sun and Moon, does that mean Zygarde's alternate forms are exclusive to the Pokémon animé? If so, we should probably take out any mention of those forms in the main article.--Pokencyclopedia (talk) 13:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Just because new forms debut in the anime does not mean they'll never be in a game, who knows they could be in Sun and Moon when more info comes.Animaltamer713:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
should it be mentioned that Zygarde 10% is Dragon type in Shuffle
Zygarde 10% was recently added to Pokemon Shuffle with the Dragon typing. should it be mention on the article in some way? Yamitora1 (talk) 10:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- never mind, i wasn't aware it was confirmed the new forms keep its dragon/ground typingYamitora1 (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Loki?
I just edited the origin section and I couldn't find much evidence to support the idea that Zygarde Complete is based off of Loki; everything points to Hel. As such I removed the references to Loki as a possible reference. However, I would more than happily add it back in if anyone objects - just give me a couple places to source which link Zygarde to Loki in some sort of concrete way. Paᗧ•••ᗣck 02:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
