Talk:Legendary Pokémon

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive #1
Archive #2

Separating Mythical and Legendary Pokémon

The matter of separating the articles of Legendary and Mythical Pokémon is in discussion because of Generation VI's newly introduced disambiguation of the term Mythical Pokémon. I have started a short draft that anyone should feel free to expand. Meanwhile, in response to Bwburke94 (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC):

A better phrasing might be "a related group of Pokémon related to Legendary Pokémon", but I'm being conservative for the time being. I haven't found evidence supporting that Mythical Pokémon are indeed Legendary (as far as Japanese media are concerned), and the fact that recent text refers to all of them collectively as "Legendary and Mythical Pokémon" makes me think they aren't. Mythical Pokémon as an English term may be relatively recent, but 幻のポケモン has always been a thing -- it has been in use on and off since 1998 (potentially even earlier, in Mew ads from 1996). It started catching on (that is to say, being used more commonly) around 2007 or 2008. Prior to that, reference to Mythical Pokémon has been generally informal, with several other terms like 特別なポケモン (Tokubetsuna Pokémon, probably a parallel to Event Pokémon) seen in official media. Ever since Gen 5, it has been in use unambiguously. You can even find a formal definition of 幻のポケモン in Pokescrap's page.
As of today (arguably since Gen 5) the same holds for Mythical, as there is no reference of Mythical Pokémon being Legendary anywhere, as far as I know. Even cases like Deoxys, where 幻のポケモン was originally mistranslated as Legendary Pokémon, are now properly classified. The assumption that Mythical Pokémon are Legendary is natural, and the western community especially is accustomed to the convention for most of the franchise's life, with the proper term coined years after its Japanese counterpart (granted, the term Rare Pokémon was once being used in places like Pokémon Ranger and announcements), but I have to ask: what's the point of including Mythical Pokémon in the Legendary Pokémon page when they aren't officially referred to as Legendary Pokémon? Saving clicks? Is an encyclopedia's mission to pander to the community's fondness of obsolete terminology, or is it to be accurate and in-line with the series' current conventions and lore? Ash Pokemaster (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Bulbapedia's mission is not necessarily to be official, it's to be an informative English-language Pokémon encyclopedia, which happens to be a mission that involves official sources. Since we're just going in circles again, let me just point out that when the community searches for "Legendary Pokémon", they expect to find info on Mew, Celebi, Jirachi, et cetera in addition to those normally obtainable within their debut generation. Splitting the page would also have the effect of splitting Mew and Keldeo from their respective legendary "families", to the detriment of the wiki. In addition, my position since the start of English-language Gen V has been that mythicals are a subset of legendaries, and as I pointed out last time we talked about this, North American Super Smash Bros. for Wii U backs me up, while you have not cited an English-language source in your argument. Bwburke94 (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I suppose that we principally disagree on whether Bulbapedia's coverage should be based strictly on canonical sources (which exclude contradicting English-language sources which commonly include mistranslations, although this may also be a matter of argument) or be more in-line with fans' expectations. I will admit I have no source that downright states "Mythical Pokémon are not a subset of Legendary Pokémon", but what's the point of the "Legendary and Mythical Pokémon" statement if the latter aren't a separate group? It would be a redundancy. Your NA Smash Bros. argument only augments my point, if only because the difference between the European and the NA version simply proves that there's an existing ambiguity that the more careful sources (ie. the ones that don't spell Onix as "Onyx") take under consideration. Besides, why should it be taken under consideration over the European translation? What makes it inherently more valid?
I will agree that this is most likely going to go in circles. It would be better to let other people weigh in. --Ash Pokemaster (talk) 07:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
People expecting to find Mythical Pokémon when coming to this page can be solved with a hatnote and in-article prose. However, we should be using official definitions whereever possible. --SnorlaxMonster 09:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
SnorlaxMonster and Ash Pokemaster, I get what you're implying, and I see your reasoning, but do you actually have a source that directly states mythicals are not legendaries? Bwburke94 (talk) 11:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there is an official source that explicitly shows they're separate groups that don't overlap: Corocoro. In either October or November 2014 - can't remember which - Corocoro promised that every Legendary Pokémon would be available for capture in ORAS. Come the games' release, we saw that this didn't include Mythical Pokémon. EpicDeino (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Corocoro is a Japanese source, and the debate is over the English terminology. However, both the US and UK official ORAS sites made the same claim, albeit with different wording, stating that "between XYORAS, all Legendary Pokémon will be obtainable". Bwburke94 (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
No, the debate is not on the English terminology, but on the group to which it refers. They're still called Legendary and Mythical whether Bulbapedia says Mythical is a subset or a separate group. In fact, the page has actually called Mythical by the same name under both circumstances in the past. that isn't being debated right now. What is being debated is whether Mythical Pokémon, a group which exists in other languages as well and is NOT exclusive to the English language, is separate from Legendary. This has absolutely nothing to do with the name of the group when the group itself is the same in the other languages - the idea of things having different names in different languages applies to basically everything else in Pokémon as well, and doesn't prevent foreign language sources from being used as evidence when the subject itself remains identical. EpicDeino (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
The debate is on the group to which it refers in English, so this is indeed over English terminology. Bwburke94 (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but... I don't understand what you mean? As I JUST explained, the group exists in every language. The group, which is consistent throughout every language, is referred to in English as Mythical, but still exists, albeit by various other names, in other languages - like everything else in the series, actually. I even provided a link to the French encyclopædia Pokémonis as proof of the group's existence in other languages. The name has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about. By your logic, no Japanese source could be used for anything that has a different name in English. To reiterate from my previous post: we aren't debating the name of the group. We're debating whether or not said group, which exists in every language, albeit with a different name because it is translated like everything else in the series, is separate from Legendary, another group which exists in every language, again with different names because it is translated like everything else in the series. Please, explain why having a different name would prevent a group that is otherwise completely consistent between languages from being considered the same thing when everything else in the series is in the same situation. EpicDeino (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Mythical Pokémon = Events?

I know for a fact that the only difference I have found from Legendary and Mythical Pokémon is that most Mythical Pokémon are usually event exclusive with even stats all over (most of the time) and that Legendary Pokémon are usually found towards the ends of games and commonly have higher stats than Mythical Pokémon (not counting Mega Diancie). BowserBrowser (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It's actually even simpler than that. Legendaries are available in-game. Mythical are unavailable in-game. Nothing else you mentioned is related. It has nothing to do with high stats versus low, or being near the end of the game, or "usually" being event-exclusive (even Deoxys, formerly Mythical, has been listed as "other" in the Japanese promotional material and simply hasn't been referenced as either Legendary or Mythical in English promotions since ORAS made it available as far as I know - being event-only is not "usually" a trait shared, but always the case), or whether stats are balanced or specialized. There is a clear-cut distinction between them. (Also, just as a side note, the definition was already on the article before you said this, so I'm not really sure what your point was? XD) EpicDeino (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah. BowserBrowser (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


To avoid edit warring, I'm not changing the page right now (I already had changed Deoxys to say it isn't Mythical and that was reverted, so I'm pretty sure doing so again wouldn't be allowed), but I just wanted to explain the argument against Deoxys being Mythical. In the Pokémon Scrap event, where you had to collect those clippings to earn Shaymin, Keldeo and Victini, the page on the official site explicitly stated something along the lines of "Shaymin, Keldeo and Victini, like other Mythical Pokémon, cannot be normally obtained in Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire." This is an official statement that Mythical does always mean event-only, so Deoxys isn't an exception - it's just not Mythical any more. It was before, but it has officially lost the status. EpicDeino (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed this ambiguity until now. You're quite right, it wasn't referred to as a Mythical Pokémon during the ORAS promotion. Granted, it isn't referred to as a Legendary either -- just "Pokémon Deoxys". I think it ought to be classified as a Mythical for the time being, if only because otherwise we might end up revisioning multiple Pokémon way too often (for all we know special "Episodes" that feature Mythical Pokémon might become a regular thing). However, a footnote for its special status is definitely needed, and we have to revisit its situation by the time the ORAS era is over and a new Deoxys event (or game inclusion) makes appearance.
Which Pokescrap page are you referring to, by the way? The definition used in the (now archived) page simply says that Mythical Pokémon aren't available during normal play of the games. It would be interesting if it was indeed explicitly mentioned somewhere that "no Mythical Pokémon are available in ORAS" as far as Deoxys's status is concerned. --Ash Pokemaster (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah, sorry; I was actually wrong (I couldn't find the page, so I was going from memory) - it doesn't explicitly state "in ORAS." Still, the promotion was for ORAS, and Deoxys has not been called Mythical since, so it should still be valid evidence, right?
Also, I'm not sure it'd be as hard as you say to fix it. I mean, if the official classification changes, we should fix it here, right? We add hundreds of pages whenever a new game comes out, so changing one Pokémon's classification wouldn't be unfeasible under the same circumstances (and even if it's mentioned in a lot of places, if we miss a page when altering it, anyone who comes across it can fix it - this isn't a one-person project or anything!). That said, we don't know what Deoxys IS considered right now, so I would be okay with holding off on changing it until we do. We should just definitely fix it as soon as we do know. XD EpicDeino (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
It seems you've assumed that Deoxys is no longer even a "Legendary", in addition to not being Mythical either. It seems to me pretty intuitive that Deoxys must be Legendary or Mythical (and definitely not neither), but in the meantime, Deoxys's inclusion under the Legendary Pokemon section of the official ORAS site should be proof enough that it is at least Legendary. Tiddlywinks (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
"Intuitive" is not the same as "fact," and, in fact, we even have a word. "counterintuitive," to illustrate the possibility of that difference. Assuming based on logic that Deoxys is Legendary is speculation, which, as far as I'm aware, isn't allowed here. This discussion shows that the Japanese site explicitly lists Deoxys as "other" and refers to it as neither Legendary nor Mythical. The "Legendary" Pokémon list is already wrong, with this page pointing out that all Legendary Pokémon can be obtained in-game, on the same site that has a page in the Legendary Pokémon section on the Mythical Pokémon Keldeo and Shaymin. I would personally say that what they actually say about it should take precedence over where they put it on the site. That said, I'm happy to discuss further, since there is conflicting information, as you have pointed out, and a lot of it is up in the air. (I wonder if Deoxys is going to become the new Phione in regards to debate. XD) EpicDeino (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I would say, though, that if it flies so in the face of logic, you need pretty strong evidence to say something like Deoxys is neither Legendary nor Mythical (preferably more than just one little thing). As it happens, though, you have perhaps made a bad assumption about SnorlaxMonster's comment. While it is true that the Japanese ORAS site has a section for "Legendardy Pokemon" (伝説のポケモン), the fact that Deoxys is located under "Other" (その他) very much does not mean that Deoxys is neither Legendary nor Mythical, not when Mythical (幻の) is mentioned nowhere. I believe SnorlaxMonster in fact meant to say that since it's not listed under Legendary, they must consider Deoxys Mythical. In fact, if you look at that page now, you will see that Hoopa is also listed with Deoxys under "Other", so either they consider both of them Mythical or, as you assume, neither Mythical nor Legendary...despite the fact that Hoopa fits the supposed definition of Mythical to a tee. Tiddlywinks (talk) 06:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I might be able to help with what I meant by my own comment. I wasn't trying to say that because Deoxys is intentionally not listed as a Legendary Pokémon that it is necessarily a Mythical Pokémon; I was simply saying that it heavily indicated that Deoxys is not a Legendary Pokémon. To my knowledge, no official material has referred to Deoxys as Mythical since the release of ORAS, but we also do not have any evidence that it has had its Mythical status revoked, so we should continue to list it as such. I didn't notice Hoopa was listed in the "Other" section too, but that certainly is interesting; however, the section is merely "Other", so it simply means that they do not fit into the other sections on the page, not that they are both Mythical or both not Mythical. --SnorlaxMonster 06:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
This survey strongly implies Deoxys is not a Mythical Pokémon. The question says "Which of these are your favorite Mythical Pokémon? (Choose your top 3.)", and includes every Mythical Pokémon, but not Phione or Deoxys.--SnorlaxMonster 11:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Just to state it plainly, it is still possible Deoxys is Legendary even though it does not appear anywhere else in the survey either, since there are other reliably "Legendary" Pokemon also missing (Mewtwo, Heatran, Kyurem, and Zygarde). Tiddlywinks (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I completely did misunderstand that comment. I'm sorry. >.< I genuinely thought it said Deoxys was neither Mythical nor Legendary; it wasn't so much an assumption as completely misreading. XD That said, shouldn't that site saying it's not Legendary (even if it doesn't mention being Mythical) and the aforementioned PokéScrap site saying it's not Mythical count as proof, even if they were separate? The PokéScrap site IS proof that the Mythical status was revoked, because it specifically says ALL Mythical Pokémon are unavailable, and Deoxys was available. EpicDeino (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not proof Deoxys is neither. For my money, the Pokemon Company(/whatever) just doesn't really have its mind made up or doesn't want to make up/make known its mind on Deoxys's status, and/or there may also be some disconnect between English and Japanese branches or something. They need to paint a consistent and/or unambiguous picture, and until they do, IMO we need to avoid drawing conclusions from little, inconclusive hints. (And in the meantime, we should either consider Deoxys to provisionally have its previous status or to at least have the status that it logically deserves.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Just checked the survey you cited. It asked to pick your favorite Mythical Pokémon, and ALL Mythical Pokémon were listed. However, the Legendary Pokémon section was specifically for grouped Legendary Pokémon - it specifically says "pick your favorite pair" and "pick your favorite grouping." It never says that's every Legendary, and, in fact, it clearly says it's only counting ones that are pairs or groups. As such, the survey is reliable (although it doesn't prove Deoxys isn't Legendary - just that it's not Mythical). In contrast, it did say it was listing every Mythical Pokémon, so Deoxys (and, unrelatedly, Phione) are not counted. Can you provide any proof that it IS Mythical? Because right now, that's what we're calling it, yet even your own argument points only towards it either being Legendary if it is either, and its placement in "other" indicates that it's not Legendary. Please stop saying it deserves the status and therefore speculatively claiming it is "logically" Mythical. Speculation isn't permitted in the mainspace as far as I am aware.
I'm also aware it being "other" and not Legendary and it being available and not Mythical aren't conclusive individually. That's why I gave them both. Together, they DO prove that it is neither, because each proves that it can't be one of the two.
Also, they do seem to have made up their minds. I'm pretty sure you're just looking for an excuse to call it Mythical when it clearly isn't any more. EpicDeino (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I never said that logically it is Mythical. I tried to say that it is not really logical that Deoxys would be classified as neither Legendary nor Mythical. (And beyond that, I don't really care which way Deoxys is classified, but there should be good proof behind whatever decision gets made.)
And that's the difference between you and I. You don't want to assume anything like that, and I think it is the height of folly to presume Deoxys wouldn't be counted either Legendary or Mythical. So when you see one place that implies Deoxys isn't Mythical and one that implies Deoxys isn't Legendary, you say, then it must be neither. Meanwhile, I see the same thing and just see contradicting implications and think everyone's not on the same page who should be (if they even know which page they want to be on, that is). And since all we have are implications, neither of us actually has anything approaching proof that Deoxys is X or Y or none of the above. For both of us, it makes sense, and there's nothing starkly clear enough to decide for us who is right.
That's why I said we need a clear statement from an official source. Until then, all our arguing about our interpretations of measly hints will get us precisely nowhere. Tiddlywinks (talk) 02:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Addendum: we've also forgotten the official ORAS English site I mentioned above. On the one hand, we have the official Japanese site that has a section for "Legendaries" but elects to include Deoxys under "Other" (implying Deoxys is not "Legendary"), while on the other, we have the official English site where Deoxys is included in the Legendary Pokemon section. If that's not a strong indication that someones somewhere are not on the same page, about one thing or another, I don't know what is. Tiddlywinks (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
The Japanese information is not contradictory. If we're explicitly told that it's not Legendary and then explicitly told that it's not Mythical, that doesn't mean "one of them must be wrong," which is speculation, but that, given what we have, it is not Legendary or Mythical.
The English site's categorization can't be taken into account because it is already wrong (as I explained, Keldeo and Shaymin prove that it's already not accurate considering other statements also on the English site), but that's the only one we can prove is wrong. There is, therefore, not hinting but confirmation from the only sources we can't prove are wrong, that Deoxys is neither, and only information from a source I have proven is wrong to indicate that it might be one of them.
Even so, since, clearly, it IS still debatable, I would honestly suggest doing it like Phione, because the situation is exactly the same, with official sources seemingly contradicting one another; we could list points like "it used to be Mythical and no Pokémon has been demoted before," "even if it is no longer event-only, it should transition to Legendary instead of being normal" and "the English site lists it as Legendary" and whatever else you can think of for pro-Legendary or Mythical status and "the Japanese site has stated in an Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire promotion that only event-only Pokémon are Mythical, a requirement which Deoxys no longer meets," "the Japanese site has listed it as non-Legendary, indicating that it is neither Mythical nor Legendary," and "the reliability of its placement on the English site is questionable due to the already-contradictory information in it, with Shaymin and Keldeo being classified as Legendary despite another statement on the site claiming that all Legendary Pokémon are obtainable in Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire" for against. This would be completely true - it IS under debate - and it's the only way to accurately represent both sides in the article. Sound like an adequate compromise? EpicDeino (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

(resetting indent)I think you're being needlessly uptight about Keldeo/Shaymin and the statement that "all Legendary Pokémon can be obtained in-game". (I say this realizing that the same could perhaps be said about my conviction that Deoxys must be either Legendary or Mythical. =P ) There are reasonable explanations why they're included in the Legendary Pokemon section. They could easily consider Mythical and Legendary Pokemon similar enough, and/or consider it too much of a hassle to make a whole separate Mythical section, that including them under Legendary is good enough for most users (perhaps not for at least one, plainly =P ). In any case, the Legendary section is still plainly the section for Legendary or Mythical Pokemon. You're taking it too far when you try to dismiss it entirely as any sort of evidence about Deoxys' status.

"One source must be wrong" is no more speculation than "Deoxys is neither Legendary nor Mythical". Both fly in the face of plain facts (plain "statements" by different sources vs all of Deoxys's Legendary- or Mythical-like characteristics). They are in fact both reasonable conclusions, that simply differ as a result of placing different value on different pieces of evidence.

I am loath to say Deoxys should be treated anything like Phione. (But I wouldn't stop it if people think it should be.) Someone else can comment on that. Tiddlywinks (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

If I would say, I'd say that make a conclusion based on 2 sources with different languages (wait, is the survey available in other language, too?) is not what we should always do, because of the localization or something (I don't know why, but the survey even says Dialga, Palkia and Giratina are a pair).
About the Shaymin/Keldeo page, it clearly says "Change Two Mythical Pokémon!" and "The Mythical Pokémon Shaymin and Keldeo can change their appearance...", so I agree that it weird when you said about all Legendary can be obtain in ORAS (also, "between XY and ORAS", not "in ORAS"). And after all, maybe it's not so unreliable like you said, maybe it just whoever at TPC categorize the site thinks that "Mythical" is a subset category of "Legendary" (like what I always thought before last week).
And about treating Deoxys like Phione, I think we should just write the debates in the trivia sections (at both this page and Deoxys's page) as normal. I think it's not worth making things as serious as Phione. We should ask more people about this. --Yen01 (talk) 04:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
If other Pokémon that we know aren't Legendary are in the section, it can't be used as evidence that something else in it is Legendary, regardless of what you speculate they may have been thinking - they made an error in a nearly identical situation, and without verification, we can't be sure that Deoxys' placement isn't another, and we certainly can't use it as proof of anything. I'm not being "uptight" about it; it's an error and the source can't be used for proof if it contains other false information. We can put a trivia point saying "Deoxys was called Legendary on the ORAS website" like how we mention the errors in spelling Jessie's name by different sources. That said, again, it is debated, with conflicting official sources. Which really is the same as Phione, minus the fact that Deoxys has fan-designated traits associated with Legendary Pokémon and Phione has fan-designated traits associated with non-Mythical Pokémon. Deoxys' status is debated and there is conflict between official sources. You've said so yourself. Phione's status is also debated and there is conflict between official sources. Why is Deoxys' situation different from Phione's and why should they be treated differently?
Yen01, I did mean between XY and ORAS. Didn't realize I only mentioned ORAS in that retelling of the information. Sorry! Also, I'm not using sources from different languages. Both of the sources I presented were Japanese; other people were bringing up the survey and the English site, but I've been using a consistent language when bringing up new points, and going only by the sources from one language, I have explained why Deoxys is not Legendary and not Mythical. EpicDeino (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't try to downplay the commonalities among Legendary and/or Mythical Pokemon by calling them "fan-designated". They are not, as that implies, made up by fans. It doesn't matter if no official source has explicitly defined those characteristics in writing; they don't need to. They have manifestly created those "Legendary" and "Mythical" Pokemon and/or the games such that those Pokemon have common characteristics that are readily identifiable by anyone moderately familiar with the games. That is not "fan-designated", that's just being observant. Tiddlywinks (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
All pseudo-Legendaries were dual-typed and that was considered not only an observation, but a rule. Then Goodra came. Pseudo-Legendary is referred to not only as a fan term but a flexible one despite being a pattern of Pokémon specifically designed to have common characteristics readily identifiable by most fans. "Being observant" and using basic logic to solve something like this is speculation and assumption, which, no matter how obvious it is, can't be put on Bulbapedia. This is a site that still doesn't consider Zygarde a member of the Mortality Trio because it's not confirmed. Deoxys' status as Legendary or Mythical is, as of ORAS, just as inconclusive as Phione's, and no amount of your opinion on what makes a Pokémon "deserve" the status can change that. EpicDeino (talk) 06:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the English site including Deoxys and Mythical Pokémon under "Legendary Pokémon" can just be marked down to an error; we have ample evidence that Legendary and Mythical Pokémon are mutually-exclusive groups from both English and Japanese sources.
"pseudo-Legendary" is a fan term to describe a pattern in Pokémon. I had always argued that "dual-typed" was merely a coincidence and not a critical part of the pattern. Regardless, they were never officially defined as a group, so their parameters were always fan-designated, whereas "Mythical Pokémon" has been officially defined. The two are not comparable.
I think it's entirely reasonable to handle Deoxys like Phione at present. Both are permitted in the upcoming "Circle of Legends" tournament, which only permits Legendary and Mythical Pokémon, despite us having conflicting evidence about their status as Mythical Pokémon. --SnorlaxMonster 08:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
You are as wrong as it is possible to be that I am speculating, EpicDeino. I am indeed assuming, but so are you and so is anyone who won't just shrug and say "I don't know". Lacking an explicit and unambiguous statement one way or another, that's all it is possible to do, in the end; look at all your evidence, weigh it, and draw your own, personal conclusion/opinion. You're no more special than I in that regard. Tiddlywinks (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Snorlax, I meant in regards to Legendary Pokémon. I know Mythical has fixed criteria. Sorry; it wasn't clear in that post, but when I said "fan-designated traits associated with non-Mythical Pokémon," I meant things like breedability that weren't official criteria and people were just assuming. I have mentioned the official distinction between Mythical and normal previously, and was trying (albeit very vaguely) to illustrate the point that any requirements that are fan-designated (that is, anything else) aren't actually relevant.
I am also aware that pseudo-Legendary is a fan group, and I was comparing the fact that fans claim that pattern is deliberate on Game Freak's part and entirely consistent to the fact that they also claim that the traits shared by Legendary Pokémon (which are, unlike Mythical Pokémon, really only bound by official statement of their status - there is no official statement of the traits that "make" a Legendary) are deliberate on Game Freak's part and entirely consistent, the latter of which was being used to say that Deoxys "deserved" the status more than Phione and being used as an argument against treating them similarly.
Tiddlywinks, may I ask why you claim I'm acting as if I'm "special?" You have cited fan-designated "rules" for Legendaries - and I've explained why fan-designated "rules" have changed in the past for other patterns that fans picked up on by being "observant" - and said "it deserves the status" and that it seems "intuitive" that it would be one of them, both of which are blatantly opinionated, along with citing exactly one source. You've also repeatedly disregarded the statements that I've made, saying that they are "contradictory" when they go hand in hand with one another and are from a consistent and accurate source, and that they prove nothing simply because they prove the two halves of the point separately rather than simultaneously... which means absolutely nothing about their validity. You've also said I'm being "needlessly uptight" about a factual error that conclusively proves a source's unreliability, then provided yet more speculation in the form of your idea of why the error might have happened, as if that makes it any less of an error. Common mistake ≠ not a mistake. Understandable mistake ≠ not a mistake. In contrast to all of your speculation, assumptions and allegedly "logical" statements that contradict facts, I've exclusively cited actual evidence and used no opinionated statements as reasoning, and I have proven - repeatedly - that the only source of real evidence you have brought up is unreliable. Despite this, I'm still trying to settle for the lesser option of acknowledging the debate on the page and treating it like Phione instead of trying to press my own stance, which seems to be what the majority of official evidence points towards, and having the page flat-out state that it's not Legendary or Mythical as I originally desired. There is still no proof that it is Legendary or Mythical, except for one categorization in a list that is already erroneous and therefore unreliable, while there is conclusive proof from a separate source that does not actively contradict itself. I still fail to see why you think your argument holds as much weight as mine, let alone that I must see myself as "special" - a case of ad hominem that has nothing to do with the argument, which is often frowned upon in the average debate almost as much as saying that the fact that it's not Legendary and the fact that it's not Mythical don't prove that it isn't Legendary or Mythical (how can something not be Legendary or Mythical, but... still be one of those things?) - for not being totally sold on the opinions, factually invalid "logic," patterns and invalid sources you've used to present your case. Just saying. EpicDeino (talk) 10:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
You're misunderstanding me greatly if you think I want to treat Deoxys unfairly. I never said that Doexys and Phione should not be treated similarly. I only said that I am (very much personally/selfishly) loath to endorse treating Deoxys like Phione. I very explicitly meant to leave open the possibility that it was/is the right thing to do; however, *I* simply did not want to be the one to validate that. The sole reason for that sentiment is that I would much rather have a solid answer than endorse another "Well, gee, we're not really sure, so let us show you a bunch of bits and pieces of info, and just have a think on it yourself..." in the mainspace. But, as I said, if it is the right thing to do, then I have no intention of gainsaying that; of insisting that Deoxys be treated "unfairly".
My quandry comes down to this... I don't think it should be radical to say that it would be a drastic action to officially strip a Legendary or Mythical Pokemon of those titles. (I really don't care if you think this is "just" opinion.) Given that, I think it is unconscionable to claim that this is what happened without a very explicit and unambiguous statement that that is exactly the case. We do not have that.
There did used to be a Mailbag. Is there no way to ask someone officially now whether Deoxys is officially a Legendary, or a Mythical, or perhaps neither?
Also, FWIW, "You're no more special than I", i.e., "You and I are basically equals" is not ad hominem. I just wrote it that way for a bit of (I feel) poetic flair or something. I think if you read it consistently with my statement there, it should come off as just saying "Hey, we both have opinions, and it's natural for you to think you're right, but please don't try to say I'm being wildly unreasonable (i.e., speculating)." I don't care if you think I am unreasonable (i.e., reasoning wrong), because I certainly think you are in places, but I think that to label my reasoning speculation is, itself, unreasonable. =P
(I could also try to state more clearly now why I'm reasonable—to answer your questions above of why I'm seeming to be "illogical"—but I really don't like long talk page posts and it really isn't sounding like I'm going to convince you of the merits of my arguments, or even that my logic is "logical" and not just opinion or speculation, so I kind of think it's pointless.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh yeah, as SnorlaxMonster mentioned above: "Both [Deoxys and Phione] are permitted in the upcoming "Circle of Legends" tournament, which only permits Legendary and Mythical Pokémon". Is that good enough for you? Tiddlywinks (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
"Phione is a usable Pokémon in the recently announced Rotation Battle tournament Circle of Legends where only Legendary and Mythical Pokémon are allowed." That's already mentioned on Phione's page - in the "evidence for" section, which, along with the "evidence against" section, still exists in Trivia in spite of this evidence. Bulbapedia has clearly deemed it insufficient proof for Phione, so it's insufficient proof for Deoxys. The "other" section of Phione's page also points out "Originally, Phione was not needed in order to complete the National Pokédex, as with other Mythical Pokémon. However, beginning with Pokémon X and Y, it is needed to qualify for the diploma." This is the same as Deoxys. It also mentions the mailbag, which not only changed its answer and therefore wasn't even included to favor a specific side, but nothing like which currently exists as far as I know. Not an option right now. From the survey and the Pokédex, we know it's not Mythical, so that just leaves the dispute between Legendary and neither. You've cited the Circle of Legends tournament - which is still being listed on the page as part of the dispute and not conclusive evidence in Phione's case - against the Japanese official site - which has not been proven unreliable, either, and should be considered equal. Two conflicting sources. Notice, also, that most of Phione's evidence is from different games. Deoxys has only had one game since the conflict started, so it makes sense that there would be less evidence, but an official source outside of games (the guide in Phione's case and the Japanese site in Deoxys') and the Circle of Legends tournament (for both) contradict each other in the same way. So, Deoxys is not Mythical - we even have in-game proof - and we have conflicting evidence from official sources that contradict each other on whether or not they were Legendary. Still in the same scenario as Phione. If you don't want to "be the one to endorse" that they should be treated the same, why? There's equal evidence for both sides. The scenario is the same - you're just saying that you personally don't want them to be treated the same regardless, simply because you'd rather have a clear official statement - which we don't have right now and can't get. When and if we get official confirmation of exactly what Deoxys is, we can change the page to say so. But Phione hasn't gotten that after eight years of being around, so that's utterly absurd - we cannot wait until something that may never happen before we address the fact that a Pokémon now listed as Mythical is NOT Mythical (that much, at least, hasn't been argued against once in this entire debate, and that is what the page currently falsely states), is either Legendary or normal and that there is conflicting evidence between official sources as to which of the two possibilities it is. This is no different from Phione. And while Deoxys may have less evidence, it has less for both sides, because the dispute hasn't existed for as long.
Side note: Yes, "you're no more special than I" does mean "you and I are equals." It also, unlike the presented alternative, contains many implications that are not only rude but, in this scenario, false (unless you care to explain why they're true, which the bottom of your post suggests you don't plan on doing) - "you're no more special than I" clearly states that the other person thinks he or she is more special carries the implication that they're acting in a biased (which more accurately describes some of your arguments, such as "it deserves the status"), entitled, or otherwise narcissistic or selfish manner. They have the same meaning, but "you're no more special than I" has much harsher (and, yes, insulting) connotations. It's not "poetic;" it's rude.
Last thing: how is it unreasonable for me to call your speculation what it is? I'll gladly admit I'm wrong if you explain why I am.
There's no valid reason not to simply treat it like Phione when the only proof you have is shared by Phione and the alternative you've requested isn't possible right now. EpicDeino (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
You are having considerable trouble understanding me, when I thought I was being very clear. Read this and take it to heart, please: I am NOT trying to push that Deoxys should not be treated like Phione. I do not claim that there is conclusive evidence of anything for Deoxys. Please stop writing as if I am. I will ignore anything else from you for now until I believe you understand me on this. Thank you. Tiddlywinks (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
You explicitly stated that despite not being against the idea, you refused to endorse it in favor of waiting for an official statement. I explained in my post why that's probably not an option.
Second, "Oh yeah, as SnorlaxMonster mentioned above: "Both [Deoxys and Phione] are permitted in the upcoming "Circle of Legends" tournament, which only permits Legendary and Mythical Pokémon". Is that good enough for you?" Considering that this was in the same post that you said you wanted to deal with the issue when we got an official statement, this sounded an awful lot like an attempt at proving it was conclusively Legendary, particularly the last sentence. I only reacted to exactly what you said here.
Third, you're now using "I'm going to ignore you" as a way to avoid the other part of my post: you still haven't explained how the majority of your argument was anything but speculation, with your statements of "it deserves it," "it has common traits of Legendaries" and the like being absolutely opinionated and your previous insistence that people weren't on the same page and the evidence I presented was void when two pieces of evidence that didn't contradict one another supported the opposite side simply because you thought it must be an error for Deoxys not to be Legendary or Mythical after defending a source I criticized for already being wrong about something. You can't say I'm the one being biased and acting entitled or "special" when you have previously - in this same debate - tried to ignore perfectly valid evidence because it contradicted what you wanted at that point in the argument. EpicDeino (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
1)You seem to believe here that it is critical that you convince me of this, as if I am somehow stopping you or anyone else. Let me repeat myself: I take no part in that decision, in any way. (If you think I have, you mistake me.) Decide it with others (or yourself).
2) I'm sorry if it sounded like I thought it was a conclusive, official statement. That's not really the case. What I meant was, you had denounced the other things I had attempted to give you as valid evidence that Deoxys was Legendary or Mythical (either you think I'm speculating or you think it's unreliable); so, would you consider the tournament a valid piece of evidence that Deoxys is Legendary or Mythical? (I don't ask you to be convinced that Deoxys is Legendary or Mythical. I'm only asking that you recognize it as validly contradicting the conclusion you've held so far (when you've so far claimed that nothing I've brought up can), that Deoxys is neither Legendary nor Mythical; a smidgen of reasonable doubt, in short.)
3) Understand that "It has common traits of Legendaries" (Deoxys and indisputably Legendary Pokemon share certain traits that other Pokemon (not counting Mythicals) do not have) is not opinion, it is fact. What you mean is, you do not accept that there are any traits (short of officially being given the title) that define a Legendary Pokemon. Which is fine. But it does not mean Deoxys does not have those traits. Those commonalities cannot be wished away; the only point where you have choice (opinion) is in the conclusion you make from them. (FWIW, you also throw out a quote of me of "It deserves it" like it's something separate, but that's actually squarely based on Deoxys' Legendary traits. ...The rest, I can't really bring anything new to. I have explained and you've rejected; I'm comfortable with it being a simple difference of opinion.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

(Resetting indent.) 1) Okay. I just figured I might as well explain it anyway, since the purpose of this discussion is to get a consensus and you said you would prefer an official statement even though that's not an option. 2) Ah, sorry for misunderstanding. Then yes, that is a valid point that should definitely be brought up somewhere (after all, it is with Phione). 3) My dispute with that quote was more or less that I interpreted what you were saying as making it off as some kind of "rule" when other patterns that fans claimed were deliberate and consistent later changed. But considering your last post, I do understand your stance and... basically don't think there's anything to argue with you about any more? I apologize for misunderstanding some of your statements and probably coming off as rude in how I reacted to them (especially given that I was wrong in the first place). Thank you for the clarification! EpicDeino (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. =) Tiddlywinks (talk) 06:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm adding a little thing to this discussion: ORAS take place in another dimension/universe/whatever, right? Well, in that dimension Deoxys is Legendary, while in the previous one it's Mythical. This is only a possible explanation of the vague classification we have now from Game Freak/TPC, it should by no means be included in any page, but I thought it could be interesting to add to your conversation. In this way, there is no "change of classification" from Mythical to Legendary (or "other"): it simply is another world with its own classification. Shepeedy (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I all but laughed out loud when I happened to notice this... It turns out that Deoxys is actually explicitly called a "Mythical Pokemon" in-game. I'm not sure if there are any Youtube videos that explicitly show this, but if you return to the second floor of the Mossdeep Space Center after clearing the Delta Episode, there's a small dialogue event where it happens. If you look up the text dump, you can see it there, or of course you can test it yourself directly in-game.
IMO, if they've said it explicitly in-game (perhaps especially if it's in-game), then Deoxys is Mythical, even if the supposed definition of "Mythical" seems to contradict that classification. (I kind of think that in order to contradict this, TPC/whatever might have to either explicitly state that Deoxys is "not a Mythical Pokemon" or they'll have to explicitly say/show that Deoxys is Legendary (or common) with some consistency.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
This is the quote for future reference:
"Extrapolating from the energy readings we observed seems to show evidence of the Mythical Pokémon that lives in space: Deoxys."
And in the Japanese version:
「われわれの かんそくした エネルギーは から すいそく するに それは うちゅうに せいそく すると いわれる まぼろしの ポケモン―――デオキシス」
The only other times the word Mythical is used in ORAS is during the Diancie Pokémon Center event and in the Volcanion TV specials. Legendary is only used in ORAS to refer to Kyogre, Groudon, Rayquaza, someone's wife, when you have more than three in your party for a competition, and in the Pokédex entries for the birds, tao trio, and Yveltal. --Abcboy (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Pfft, wow. I cannot believe I didn't know about that.
Well, I'm kind of embarrassed right now. XD I can't exactly argue with the game itself explicitly stating that it's Mythical, so... Yeah, I guess it is. :'D EpicDeino (talk) 02:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Deoxys is not allowed to join player's team in the next year as the world tournament, so I think the answer is obvious. E9310103838 (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If I remember right not long before/after Diancie was officially revealed there was a tournament that let you use any Pokémon except Diancie. I think the reason for that is obvious: it was officially revealed but was not yet distributed but people still had it through hacking. My point with that is that they can ban Pokémon from tournaments for practically any reason. So it's not impossible that it's banned because it used to be a Mythical Pokémon. I'm just trying to make a point and am actually neutral on the situation. And either way I consider Mythical Pokémon to be a type of Legendary Pokémon so to me it wouldn't be part of completely separate group either way.Flain (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


Is there some logic that with some legendary pokemon there are more than one in anime(for example: Latios, Lugia), and with some only one (Mew, Tornados)? Lokki (talk), 19:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

No legendary is unique. Think about it. If it were unique, if one dies, the species goes extinct. That should have happened a long time ago if they were unique. We haven't seen ALL of Dialga's or Palkia's dimensions, either. Same goes for Giratina and Arceus. We have only seen small sections of them. For all we know, these dimensions could have thousands or even MILLIONS of their respective species. And of course, there are multiple Mews: One flies throughout the world, while another is at the Tree of Beginning. For Mewtwo, both fly around the world. One has a more woman-like voice, and that one can Mega Evolve. I could go on all day, naming all the legendaries and saying why we know there is multiple, but I'm getting bored of typing this. TheRealArceus (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
This discussion is more suited for the forums, so please take it over there.--ForceFire 23:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Is Zygarde a Member of the Mortality Duo?(Therefore making it the Mortality Trio)

Look at it this way. Kyurem was the final member of the Tao trio. Giratina was the final member of the Creation Trio and Rayquaza was the trump card in the Weather Trio. If Game Freak has taught me anything its that the same formula works most of the time.PastureGaiPokemon12 (talk) 23:04:18 7 August,2015(UTC)

There's nothing that actually calls it a member of the Mortality Duo, therefore it is not listed as such. Litwick96 20:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
It most definitely is, considering the clues and patterns seen before, so it's pretty blatantly obvious that Zygarde is most definitely in a trio with Xerneas and Yveltal. I will say that it definitely fits the pattern with Rayquaza, Giratina, and Kyurem, and there are a few clues with Zygarde being related to Xerneas and Yveltal. That being said, even though the clues make it obvious that Zygarde is related to Xerneas and Yveltal, it's not explicitly stated in X and Y and is therefore unconfirmed, which is why it is not listed as being in a trio with Xerneas and Yveltal. So in short, wait until we get an announcement of the inevitable Pokemon Z before we do anything with listing Zygarde as being in a trio with Xerneas and Yveltal. ScraftyIsTheBest (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Zygarde is known as the Order Pokemon while Xerneas and Yveltal are Peace and Chaos respectively (I think), Its like Rayquaza all over again. Balance is needed so we have Zygarde.(talk)

Unless it is explicitly stated, Zygarde is not part of any trio. Yes, it's quite obvious, but we have no official confirmation (from the game or the anime) that it is part of a trio. Giratina was not considered part of a trio until Platinum was released, Kyurem was not considered part of a trio until Black2/White2 were released. So it's the same situation here, we will have to wait for a game to be released that will confirm its relation with Xerneas/Yveltal.--ForceFire 03:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
There does seem to be some official evidence pointing towards them being a trio. Specifically:
  • I haven't played Rumble World in a while, so this is from someone else, but apparently you need to get all three of them to unlock a Title, in exactly the same manner as every other Legendary Trio. (For reference, this Title is "Aura Traveler"). This is the strongest piece of evidence in that an actual game, albeit a side game, explicitly considers them a trio. and, in doing so, affects actual gameplay. Other trios (Super-Ancient Pokémon, Creation Trio, and Tao Trio at the very least) are treated exactly the same as this trio.
  • CoroCoro explicitly compares Zygarde to Xerneas and Yveltal in the latest issue. Although it is only in terms of power, they singled out those two even though plenty of other Legendaries have exactly the same stat total. This is fairly tenuous, but they explicitly compared it to the very two Pokémon already considered a trio in Rumble World.
  • All three have Aura-based Abilities, and Zygarde's directly interacts with those of Xerneas and Yveltal.
Not sure how much of a difference this makes, but considering actual in-game ties between exclusively Zygarde and Xerneas or Yveltal (their Abilities), comparisons between this trio and only this trio in CoroCoro, and an actual game considers them a trio, I think that it's been officially confirmed and not being made up by fans. EpicDeino (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello? I don't even care if the answer is yes or no, but there needs to be an answer. Bulbapedia's policy is that we're not allowed to change the page until discussion, and apparently even the fact that nobody is presenting a counterargument isn't enough, so people need to discuss whether they agree or not or nothing is ever going to get done. So... BUMPing this? (Is that the right term here?) EpicDeino (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
ForceFire's response above still applies. In short: just wait. Tiddlywinks (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
It is pretty obvious, besides it will likely be confirmed by early or late next year.Animaltamer707:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
ForceFire's response said to wait until we have proof. Rumble World recognizes them as a trio. How is that not proof
Again, I'm fine if that's not good enough, but at least respond to the evidence instead of saying a post from before there was any whatsoever that said to wait until there was any whatsoever still applies. Right now, evidence for consists of a side game and evidence against consists of "there is no evidence for," which is currently no longer true, although admittedly Rumble World IS relatively minor even if it is in-game proof. EpicDeino (talk) 09:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
From what you wrote above, it sounds like Rumble World only implies they're a trio. If Rumble World's treatment of trios is not something that they have plainly said, "This is something we will only do for trios", it does not amount to proof, it is only supportive evidence. We need something explicit (clear, unarguable, unopinionated). Tiddlywinks (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

(reset indent)As Tiddly said it only implies, until something from CoroCoro or any official source has confirmation that they are a trio (which again is obvious) it should be left unchanged.Animaltamer711:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

"a set or group of three people or things."
How does grouping them and only them together for an achievement only "imply" that they are a group? We can always take it off if there's any counterevidence, but we legitimately have them as a group in a game. EpicDeino (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Just be patient.Animaltamer704:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
We're not talking about just "groups". A "group" does not a "trio" make (not all by itself). Trios are a special relationship, and nothing so far has plainly testified to such a relationship.
You missed a very important point in my previous response: "If Rumble World's treatment of trios is not something that they have plainly said, 'This is something we will only do for trios', it does not amount to proof". Right now, you are ASSUMING that because they are grouped, that means they must be a Legendary Trio. But in truth, you have not shown that being in that group MUST mean they are a Legendary trio; you have only shown that it is reasonable. That is not sufficient. Tiddlywinks (talk) 05:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
First: I just gave the actual definition of trio. If they are a group of exactly three, they are a trio, and Rumble World makes it clear that they are a group of three.
Second: Have the others even been called Legendary Trios? We say it's "reasonable" to group Dialga, Palkia and Giratina because they're all Sinnoh mascots. But are they officially called Legendary Trios? Last I checked, that's not even an official term.
So I honestly don't know why having identical treatment to every other thing we group as a Legendary Trio is insufficient. Nor why people keep saying "be patient" as if I'm just saying "it's logical, why don't you idiots see it" without providing in-game proof that they are a group. (And yes, I've seen people say that and people have responded in exactly the same way. You're missing the fact that YES, I'm providing PROOF that EXPLICITLY considers them a trio. A trio that is made of Legendaries. How does that "not a Legendary trio make?") EpicDeino (talk) 05:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
All I feel capable of saying anymore is...just wait. Staff fairly plainly don't intend to acknowledge it yet. (Plainly enough, they're waiting for "Pokemon Z", or, as ForceFire said, something in the anime.) So. If there is any chance anyone can persuade you anymore, I imagine it will have to be staff. Sorry I wasn't able to shed enough light on things. Tiddlywinks (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

(resetting indent) Just to intervene. Rumble does group them, but that's all it does. It doesn't shed light on how they're related. The Aura based abilities is really the only concrete thing so far. Currently, and hopefully, the new anime series will probably connect the three or a new game will be revealed in the upcoming months. So, be patient. If you can wait for ORAS to be released, then you can wait for them to release whatever comes next.--ForceFire 06:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Pokemon Center Deoxys

According to the Pokèmon Center website, Deoxys is a legendary Pokèmon, not a mythical one. source: The legendary Pokèmon list includes Mewtwo, Lugia, Regirock, Latias, Latios, Kyogre, Groudon, Rayquaza, Deoxys, Xerneas, and Yveltal. The mythical Pokèmon list includes Mew, Jirachi, Darkrai, Shaymin, Arceus, Victini, and Diancie. Note that the image for mythical Pokèmon also shows Genesect.

Because in-game text in ORAS refers to Deoxys as mythical, should we include this as a contradiction, or perhaps as an error?

ᗧ•••ᗣ Pacack

01:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I've noted this in the trivia section, just as it was added to Deoxys' page. If anyone objects to this, please let me know.

ᗧ•••ᗣ Pacack

16:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Wait, What Happened To The Movie Trivia?

It had been there forever. I don't remember the exact wording and stuff, but the general gist went like this. And I updated it to match what we've seen as of XY&Z, as well as M18.

  • Ho-Oh is the only Johto Legendary to not be featured in the movies or an anime arc outside of cameos. Lugia was in "The Power Of One", Entei was in "Spell Of The Unown" and Celebi and Suicune were in "Pokémon 4Ever". Raikou was featured in both "The Legend Of Thunder", as well as "Zoroark: Master Of Illusions" alongside Entei, Suicune and Celebi.
    • Cresselia and Phione are the only Sinnoh Legendaries to not be featured in the movies or anime arcs. Mesprit, Azelf and Uxie were prominent in the Diamond & Pearl anime, Dialga and Palkia starred alongside Darkrai in "The Rise Of Darkrai", Manaphy starred in "Pokémon Ranger and the Temple of the Sea", Arceus and Heatran starred in "Arceus and the Jewel of Life" and Shaymin and Giratina starred alongside Regigigas in "Giratina and the Sky Warrior". However, Cresselia did have a cameo in "Giratina And The Sky Warrior", and both Legendaries have had standalone anime episodes.
    • Volcanion is the only Kalos Legendary to not be featured in a movie or the anime, though it will be in the upcoming 19th movie. Xerneas, Yveltal and Diancie starred in "Diancie and the Cocoon of Destruction", Hoopa starred in "Hoopa and the Clash of Ages", and Zygarde is the focus of the "XY&Z" anime.
    • All Kanto, Hoenn and Unova legendaries have had prominent roles in movies or anime arcs.

--BlackButterfree (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The user who removed it did so because Groudon appeared in M18, though that applied to Groudon's point not the whole trivia. I've only added back Ho-oh since the time taken makes it notable, Gen IV still has five Pokémon left rather than just one while Gen V is still recent.--ForceFire 04:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Separating Article

Is there a reason we have not separated this article into two separate articles on Legendary and Mythical Pokémon? There has been a clear distinction made at this point, and I see little reason not to make the split. The only potential disagreement I can forsee is on Deoxys, but we could include a footnote in this article and solve that relatively easily.

I can begin drafting the Mythical Pokémon article if there are no objections and if no one else has already. Paᗧ•••ck 17:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I have created a draft of the Mythical Pokémon page on my userpage. Please look at it and offer criticisms and feel free to edit. I had some trouble with the images, but I believe the current layout is as aesthetically appealing as it can be without breaking anything.
Note that much of the information is repeated from this article, as it would be in the split itself. If you see any grammatical errors or missing information, please correct it in this article as well, as this was my source. Paᗧ•••ck 18:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I honestly consider Mythical Pokémon to be a type of legendary Pokémon. So I don't see much reason too.Flain (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
We have confirmation against that, though. It has been stated by multiple sources that every Legendary Pokémon would be available between ORAS and X and Y, and yet no Mythical Pokémon were available. If Mythical Pokémon were indeed a subset, then that would not have been the case. Paᗧ•••ck 02:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I think it's better to keep the page as it is, most fans would collectively call both groups as Legendary pokemon.Animaltamer703:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
That doesn't mean these fans are correct, though. The Mythical term has been consistently used for a very long time at this point, and we are meant to follow official sources, not just the majority. Paᗧ•••ck 22:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I see no reason to split them up. Mythical Pokémon are in fact legendary Pokémon, just extremely rare legendary Pokémon. No one could possibly argue that Arceus is not in fact a legend despite being a myth, for example. --BlackButterfree (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Note that this page defines Mythical Pokémon as "a related but separate group of Pokémon" from Legendary Pokémon. Mythical Pokémon are not a subset of Legendary Pokémon, but rather a related group.
Also note that the capitalization is important in "Legendary Pokémon" and "Mythical Pokémon." Legendary Pokémon can be featured in myths as well as legends, and Mythical Pokémon are sometimes the subject of legends (Arceus included). In that sense, "Legendary" Pokémon can be "mythical" and "Mythical" Pokémon can be "legendary." What ultimately defines a Pokémon as Mythical has to do with said Pokémon's exposure during regular gameplay, whether or not they are revealed with the rest of their generation, and whether they are necessary to complete the Pokédex.
If you'd like to know more, I'm currently working with another user to complete a draft for the Mythical Pokémon article [1], which we'll present to senior members of the wiki for approval along with a new Legendary Pokémon article. Paᗧ•••ck 21:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I will continue to cite North American Super Smash Bros. for Wii U in order to oppose any splitting efforts, despite probably being in the minority on this issue. Bwburke94 (talk) 04:52, 11 February 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) 06:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay I feel this something that needs to be asked, do you even know what a deity is?Flain (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Legendary v. Mythical: A Solution for Everyone?

I noticed that the page has been split in two, and after reviewing the Legendary and Mythical Pokemon debate, I thought of a solution that might make everyone happy. Some people, including me, come to this page to seek information on both Legendary and Mythical Pokemon. But there is a notable difference, so that poses a counter argument. I propose that we re-combine the two pages, but rename the page to "Legendary and Mythical Pokemon", while noting the difference between Legendary and Mythical, as well as stating which ones are Legendary and which ones are Mythical in their respective summaries. This would also solve the issue of Legendary Families being split (i.e. Mew Duo, Swords of Justice). Any links to the Legendary or Mythical pages would have to redirect here. If we can all agree on this, I can start recombining them, although I'm new to editing Wikis. TheRubberGuy (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think recombining them is a good idea since the Pokemon Company itself now treats them as separate groups. Given a choice between precision and convenience, I really think we need to prioritize precision, or else we risk implying (or worse, actively providing) false information. Anyway, we already give a link to Mythical Pokémon in the very second sentence, along with an explanation of why the groups are now treated as separate, so it ought to be plenty clear to readers. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Changes to legendary definition

Since Sun and Moon came out, which included a legendary Pokémon which evolves (Cosmog -> Cosmoem -> Solgaleo/Lunala), shouldn't we edit that in that legendaries can evolve now? Also, with this change of definition, will Type:Null and Silvally be considered legendary?

Would the Ultra Beasts also be considered legendary, even though some of them you can get more than one?

If these changes happen, I propose a new definition: "A Legendary Pokémon is a Pokémon that is only available in limited amounts in normal gameplay and cannot breed to create more of the same species." ----Celadonkey (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Type:Null and Silvally are more of a case of artificial pokemon like porygon, where it is possible to make more of them. The Ultra Beasts are kinda mysterious at the moment, making it hard to define whether they belong as legendaries or pokemon from another dimension like unown.Animaltamer713:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I think we should be thinking about it from a gameplay standpoint, not from a lore one. The fact is there is only one Type:Null available in the game, only one Nihilegos, two Buzzwoles, four Pheromosas, etc. And if you do want to think about it from a lore standpoint - Mewtwo is both artificial and Legendary, and Giratina is a Pokémon that is both legendary and from a different dimension.
I'm not going to state my personal opinion on the matter but I would like input and/or discussion from mods. ----Celadonkey (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't have my game on hand right now so I can't cite the exact colors, but if you look in the Alola Pokedex, the Legendaries (Cosmog's evolutionary line, Necrozma, and Zygarde) appear with one background color; the ordinary Pokemon appear with another; and there's a third background color for the Ultra Beasts, Type:Null, Silvally, and the Tapus. I think it's clear that the developers have intended to create a separate group for these that is not Legendary, but until we have an official name for it we probably can't really implement it. In any case, it's amply clear that the developers do not intend these as Legendaries.
Gameplay vs. lore should not, in my opinion, be a discussion that even comes into play when Word Of God trumps both. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I noticed it too but always thought both were legendaries. Would this potentially retcon the legendary status of older Pokémon, like Uxie, Tornadus, or Registeel? ----Celadonkey (talk) 14:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Impossible to know unless Pokemon Bank provides some similar visual indication when it's updated in January, since there's no National Dex and those Pokemon don't appear in the Alola Dex. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
That would be ridiculous if they did. Personally I think blue means non-legendary, green(?) is a legendary, and rainbow is a special legendary (the box legends and Mythicals). If a green page means non-legendary too, that would mean the Tapus would not be legendary, which I don't think is up for debate. But it's really the mods' decision. ----Celadonkey (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
How are the Tapus Legendary, much less not even up for debate? Game Freak has conspicuously avoided using the term "Legendary" for them, and now they have a different Pokedex color scheme. If Game Freak's going out of its way to avoid grouping them in as Legendaries, we shouldn't make that assumption even though the rest of fandom is. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, that was kind of rude of me. I'm sorry. But the general assumption right is that the Tapus are legendary. But you're right, we shouldn't assume things until the fanbase has a verdict that is agreed upon or until sufficient evidence is brought up. ----Celadonkey (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

For now, why don't we use "Guardian deity" and "Ultra Beast" as unique, Legendary-like types of Pokémon? So have Nihilego listed as a Rock/Poison-type Ultra Beast, Tapu Koko as an Electric/Fairy-type Guardian deity, etc. We know that they are unique instances from normal Pokémon, so this is a way we can show that without assuming their Legendary status.

It is worth noting, though, that Cosmog's evolutionary line are Ultra Beasts, too. Nutter Butter (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I do like this option. Keeping it vague is really the only way to please everyone. ----Celadonkey (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Here's my two cents. The easiest way to determine "Legendary"/"Mythical" is whether or not they're banned in certain game modes, in the case of Sun and Moon this would be the Battle Royal and Battle Tree. In Gen VII, Cosmog, Cosmoem, Solgaleo, Lunala, and Necrozma are banned. The Ultra Beasts are not. And I haven't tested, but it seems the Guardian deities are not. This seems to suggest that the deities and UBs are not legends, but some other classification. I don't even give a Schif (TalkContribs) 22:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The Legendary Beasts, Golems, Eon Duo, Pixies, and the like are not banned. I really think it should be up to the fans to decide, as most (cough cough) things are done here. ----Celadonkey (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
We only "decide" if there's nothing canonical to go by. If canon exists, we can't and won't override it with something uncanonical. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
But the "canon" is debatable. The only reasons you've given that they are not legendary are an assumption about PokeDex colors and the lack of official material calling them legendary.
It is undeniable that they belong to a unique and special group. Let's leave it at that, and preferably go with my idea :P, until there's official word. Nutter Butter (talk) 06:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with your idea; I wasn't rebutting you, I was rebutting Celadonkey. Given the situation, not committing one way or the other on their Legendary status until Game Freak classifies them more specifically is probably best. Or at least, not committing one way or the other until Bulba staff make an executive decision on the matter. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 06:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
This article states that no Legendary or Mythical Pokémon are legal in VGC 2017. The tapu and Ultra Beasts are both legal, whereas Cosmog and its evolutions as well as Zygarde are not. --SnorlaxMonster 09:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, it says "Mythical and some Legendary Pokémon are not allowed," so that still doesn't really give evidence as to the Legendary status of any Pokémon that's allowed, at least as far as I can tell... Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Good catch! This is an issue that will require some thinking. We should probably wait a bit but that probably means there are some legendaries that are allowed. Probably. ----Celadonkey (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh, they actually updated that article. When I saw it, it read "No Mythical or Legendary Pokémon are allowed". I archived the Google Cache as proof. --SnorlaxMonster 18:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Also a good catch! I thought it said that too but wasn't sure. Wonder what this means. ----Celadonkey (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
My gut instinct is that this indicates Nintendo itself (or at least, NOA) isn't sure which Pokémon Game Freak did and didn't intend to be Legendary. If they're still hashing that out among the corporate entities, then caution certainly seems to be the best course of action for us at the moment. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Until anything else comes up, we leave everything vague. ----Celadonkey (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
It's worth noting that the GTS in Sun and Moon has the option to filter out requests for "Mythical and Legendary Pokémon". I don't have the Pokémon in my Pokédex to check myself, but I'm told that enabling this option also excludes Ultra Beasts, the tapus, and Type: Null/Silvally. --SnorlaxMonster 01:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Interesting. So, what will the verdict be? Personally, I think we should wait a bit but I would like to see some of these Pokémon as legendary. Just my opinion though. ----Celadonkey (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

So does this mean we now have new Pokemon class and groups just like the Legendary and Mythical? It sounds like those Pokemon are in their own group.--Jacob Kogan (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

That especially I'd hold off until. It's kind of out of the blue to create a new group like that and I wouldn't unless, or maybe even, the Pokémon in question are very out of the ordinary. And even so, it's up to the mods. ----Celadonkey (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, we should wait until official sources have directly accepted the UBs & Tapus as Legendaries or not.Animaltamer703:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thats Pokemon for you, so many mystery and theories that Nintendo loves to give us.--Jacob Kogan (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, yet site like Serebii and Pokemon Wiki classified them as Legendaries. I wonder why?--Jacob Kogan (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Those are fan sites. It's very easy for them to be wrong. You shouldn't take what they say as truth unless there's proof. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

In the datamine, the Tapus and Ultra Beasts were listed as being Legendaries, albeit placed in the same listings as the Legendaries that are allowed to be used in battle facilities. I believe they were referred to in the code as being sublegends? Either way, SciresM has pictures of both lists up on his Twitter. Azureprism (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Interesting now that I think about it, some Legendary are allowed in battle facilities, same goes for Snivally. Hmm some maple are Hearten, , Regigigas, and Cresselia for example. a friend of ym optioned out in his own words "It's been like that since Gen 3. Pokemon with stats of 600 or higher are always banned from a battle facility, unless the 600 stats are from Psudo-Legendaries like Dragonite." There some exception to it. And the fact you can only encounter one in the wild (Even thought some Ultra Beats come in groups of 4), there is a possibility they are indeed and without a doubt Legendaries or Sub-Legendaries as Azureprism pointed out. Well, anything can happen, but I will leave up to you guys on your take of this.--Jacob Kogan (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Could you link that? I don't believe you're wrong but I wouldn't like to see. ----Celadonkey (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
The Pokémon that are banned from battle facilities are Special Pokémon and Mythical Pokémon (whether Mythical Pokémon are Special Pokémon seems to be unclear). While only Legendary (and possibly Mythical) Pokémon can be Special Pokémon, not being a Special Pokémon has no bearing on whether a Pokémon is a Legendary Pokémon. --SnorlaxMonster 01:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

And yet some tournament allowed the sue of Special and Mythical?--Jacob Kogan (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Some special online competitions have allowed Mythical Pokémon (and Special Pokémon), and some official tournaments and VGC formats allow Special Pokémon. I'm not sure what your point is. --SnorlaxMonster 02:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah sorry about that, Any Those Pokemon, Ultra Beats, Tapy, and the Stythetic Pokemon are the only Pokemon tha that the special abckgorudn and glitter thing in their Pokedex number like Zyagrd for example. Anyway. And if what Azureprism said is true, should they be counted as Legendaries or another class of Legendary Pokemon like the Myhtical (Ultra Beats, Tapu, Type: Null and Snilvally?

That's what this discussion was about in the first place. TechSkylander1518 (talk) 02:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, hmm one I notice that they share with Legendaries is most of them you can only get one per save file, they were mention in legends in the past (The exception being the Synthetic Pokémon), extremely rare and powerful, unique powers. they have roles in Alola Region Lore and affecting it as seen with he Totem Pokemon, the some of them are protectors like the Swords of Justice, the Synthetic Pokémon was created just like Mewtwo and Gensect to be the Ultimate Weapon (For Ultra Beats) and the fact it was based on different types of Pokemon (Including Arecus), all of them can't breed and ar win the Undiscovered Egg Group as the other Legendaries, they are not easy to catch. My point is hopefully to help understand that these Poekmona re indeed Legendaries and they share many trait and heights common or associated with Legendaries and may possibly be in their own unique class. I hope this help the discussion. This my best way to help explain heir status as Legendaries or not. Hope you guys understand.--Jacob Kogan (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

TechSkylander1518: It's worth noting that there are three different Pokédex backgrounds: The one used by Legendary and Mythical Pokémon; the one used by Ultra Beasts, the tapus, and Type: Null/Silvally; and the one used by everything else. If anything, I would say that the Pokédex indicates they aren't Legendary (but I think the GTS indicating that they are takes priority). --SnorlaxMonster 03:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Jacob Kogan: With legendaries, you can only catch one per save file. You can obtain more by transferring Pokemon or by receiving a Mystery Gift. Furthermore, the reason you can only catch one is generally because there's supposed to only be one in the world-the Ultra Beasts and Synthetic Pokemon have all clearly shown there are more than one. (except, perhaps, Guzzlord) And you can catch more than one of UBs 2-4 per save file. And there are some Pokemon that you can only get one of in a game without breeding-would you consider fossil Pokemon, starters, or Snorlax to be legendaries? The Ultra Beasts are not mentioned in legends. I'm puzzled by your wording on "the exception being the Synthetic Pokemon". You tend to use that term to refer to Silvally and Type: Null, but they're not confirmed to be legendaries, you can't say they're the exception if we don't even know that rules relates to them. It is true that Mewtwo and Genesect were not mentioned in legends, however. Porygon can also change its type, and was created by human beings. That doesn't make it a legendary. A low catch rate and an Undiscovered Egg Group does not make a Pokemon a legendary. The Synthetic Pokemon aren't even caught, they're a gift. Again, not bringing this up to prove that they are or aren't legendaries, just to show--Jacob Kogan (talk) 05:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC) that it's not something that will be solved through debate; we need official information. (I had written this up before I saw SnorlaxMonster's reply-it becomes irrelevant pretty fast, I'm sorry)
SnorlaxMonster: I have noticed the different background, I've currently been taking that to mean that they are in a different class that might or might not be somehow related to Legendaries, but if the GTS calls them Legendaries, that definitely makes things a lot easier, both with wondering whether or not they are and with the possibility of a new classification. (I'm told I don't always get my point across clearly, so I'd like to clarify just in case-I'm not trying to act like I should be the one with the final say on their status, I'm just trying to say that I understand and agree with the GTS proving they are Legendaries) TechSkylander1518 (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

So does this mean we finally solve it with the Ultra Beasts, Tapus, Type: Null and Silvally?--Jacob Kogan (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe it does-we have official evidence, and SnorlaxMonster is a staff member, so they have enough authority to decide. (I'd add it in myself, but I'm not certain of everything necessary to make the changes-obviously there's the link to the Legendary Pokemon page on their pages, but I'm sure there's a lot more needed) TechSkylander1518 (talk) 05:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree Tech, at last this debate has finally been settled--Jacob Kogan (talk) 05:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The staff have decided that since the games don't explicitly refer to these Pokémon as Legendary, they should not be referred to as Legendary until and if an official source explicitly describes them as such. --Abcboy (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Since SnorlaxMonster brought up the GTS, I'd like to share my two cents! He said that he can't confirm with certainty, but that he had been told that the tapu, Type: Null, Silvally and the Ultra Beasts were counted. After testing it, I can confirm this; there were many requests for them when I checked in-game with Legendaries and Mythicals included, and none remained when I said to exclude them. I can also confirm that it wasn't simply a matter of their having been traded already, as they reappeared when I set it to include them again. Again: confirming that the game explicitly includes them as Legendary or Mythical Pokémon for that purpose! Make of that what you will; I'm not going to say any more regardless, as it's been made clear that this is the staff's decision and I will contribute facts but not say what to do with them. XP EpicDeino (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
It's interesting that canon is being considered here given the large amounts of evidence that do exist in the canon for something like, say, Zygarde's very obvious trio status, end up being ignored in favour of conjecture. BeforeJam (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


The Tapu have unique battle themes, are fought late in the game, can only be encountered once, are pivotal to the story, are high leveled, are difficult-ish to catch, and have BSTs that are in the same general range as most legendaries. Wouldn't they qualify as legendary? - unsigned comment from ChampionBlue (talkcontribs)

That's a debate that was just finished right above this section. TechSkylander1518 (talk) 05:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much TechSkylnader --Jacob Kogan (talk) 05:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

None of the things listed by ChampionBlue are a reason to consider the tapu to be Legendary. Rotom meets a number of those conditions in Diamond and Pearl, for example. BSTs are unrelated to whether or not a Pokémon is Legendary (see Cosmog, for example). Oricorio has the same catch rate as Lunala, and Beldum's is incredibly low.
Which Pokémon are Legendary is solely determined by which Pokémon have been officially stated to be. --SnorlaxMonster 06:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Also, the Tapus were listed under normal Pokemon by Sun and Moon official site. Only Solgaleo and Lunala (which were the only legendaries revealed pre release) were listed under the 'Legendary' section. If Tapus were legendary, they too would've been listed under 'Legendary' section. The legendary PkmnTrainerV is Here! (talk) 08:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I wanted to use the official site earlier, but currently the English site isn't listing either Cosmog or Zygarde as Legendary Pokémon either. The Japanese and Chinese sites give the tapu their own section (so I wouldn't take them not being in the Legendary section as evidence), but also don't call Cosmog a Legendary Pokémon. The Korean site doesn't call either Cosmog or Zygarde Legendary, but also doesn't give Mythical Pokémon their own section. --SnorlaxMonster 08:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Even Ultra Beats were not considered Pokemon... E9310103838 (talk) 09:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
@SnorlaxMonster, pretty much what I was going to type.Animaltamer709:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
The official site never said they weren't Pokémon, but it never said they were either. Until the game was released (or perhaps more accurately, until the game leaked), we didn't know whether or not they were Pokémon. --SnorlaxMonster 09:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
In the GTS, the ultra beasts and tapu WILL NOT BE SHOWN if we choose not to include legendary and mystical pokemon in the option. -Pokeant (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I just looked at this myself and can second this. On top of that, Type: Null and Silvally won't be shown either if you choose not to include Legendary and Mythical Pokemon in the requests from other Trainers. Does this count as a piece of evidence for the Tapus, Ultra Beasts, and Type: Null line being Legendaries? Nintendocan (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
For the moment, I see no harm in adding the Tapus to the Legendary section. They can always be taken back out if their classification proves to be incorrect. UB00 (talk) 07:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
That's not how we operate. Tiddlywinks (talk) 07:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
In that case, we would best be served by making a "disputed Legendaries" subsection for the time being, as mentioned below. UB00 (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
That was decided against as seen below - for a "disputed Legendaries" section we'd need a reason not to believe they are other than it wasn't stated against. ----Celadonkey (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Disputed legendaries section

There's a lot of debate on Legendary status of newly introduced Guardian deities, Ultra Beasts and Type: Null/Silvally (two sections above et all) as well the old debate on Manaphy and Phione. Do you think it'd be a good idea to add a section describing that dispute as well as explaining the stance Bulbapedia has taken on the subject? That would help to avoid potential debates and edit wars. Phione Trivia section is an example of how it could look like. — ∀ЫъГЬTalk page 13:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense to me, as this debate is till going, I sure the Admins will also be willing tog having a disputing Pokemon page, soundalike a good idea.--Jacob Kogan (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I would personally keep it under discussion, as this isn't a long standing debate like Phione. It'll most likely be confirmed within the next month or so considering it is already nearly confirmed. Also, Jacob: try to use colons before your posts so that they are staircased - one more than the previous posts.----Celadonkey (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Got it Celadoneky. I will be sure to remember that. --Jacob Kogan (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Phione actually has evidence for and evidence against listed. To create such a section here would require evidence against them being Legendary Pokémon—what evidence would that be? --SnorlaxMonster 14:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
But didn't the discussion above end with the conclusion they are not? With the major argument being Official site does not explicitly names them as such. Or did you mean the opposite? The argument that supports their status as Legendary Pokemon would be the GTS search filter. — ∀ЫъГЬTalk page
Official site not explicitly naming them as such is a lack of evidence for, not evidence against. I already pointed out above why the official site cannot currently be relied upon to definitively say something isn't Legendary yet (although once it is properly updated we should be able to). --SnorlaxMonster 11:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

However, when Guardian deities, Ultra Beasts, and Type: Null/Silvally register in the Pokedex, they will not show up as legendary Pokémon. So they are still some degree of controversy as legendary Pokémon, I think. E9310103838 (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, that's a lack of evidence for, not evidence against. The point is is that it isn't an established controversy, like Phione. ----Celadonkey (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Additionally, the message Rotom Pokédex gives for all of them is a special message. If it just gave a generic message, I think that would be reasonable evidence against. Instead, it has a special message that is used instead of the Legendary Pokémon message. --SnorlaxMonster 09:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
So the game is undeniably, definititively stating that they are all legendary. May I add them to the page now? Nutter Butter (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd say so, but we'd have to wait for mod approval, as sometimes they say something completely different than expected. ----Celadonkey (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
According to Abcboy, a Bulbapedia Administrator, two sections above: The staff have decided that since the games don't explicitly refer to these Pokémon as Legendary, they should not be referred to as Legendary until and if an official source explicitly describes them as such. Since this is the most recent official word from the staff as a whole, that's what we need to follow until they reconsider, if/when they do. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
If we're following that, we now have an official source stating that they are legendary (the GTS), so it can be added. Nutter Butter (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
The GTS excludes Legendaries and Mythicals, but does not otherwise distinguish those groups. We will continue to wait for a source that clearly gives these Pokemon only one of those labels.
(I'd like to suggest that, going forward, anyone who thinks they have proof and is itching to make edits try contacting a staff member directly if there's no particular response here. Thanks.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


I've heard on the internet that the Tapus, Nullvally, and Ultra Beasts are included as a classification known as sub-legendaries in the game's code. What is interesting is that the "lesser trios" (i.e. Musketeers, Birds), as well as other minor legendaries such as the Latis and Heatran are grouped alongside them as sub-legendaries. Can someone confirm this for me, and in that case does this call for a massive overhaul to the legendary page? Or should we wait till January for Pokebank to finally make things clear?--Geektreecko (talk) 03:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Outside of game mechanics, details obtained by rooting around in the game's code are not considered an official source. I'm not sure exactly the rationale for this, but edits have been reverted before for it. Xolroc (talk) 03:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh! In that case, is the National Dex considered an official source? Assuming that when released it follows the format of the SM dex as well as the game code, it will likely group this generation's disputed legends and previous generations' minor legends under the green page background. Would that provide enough evidence to create a new grouping called sub-legends, and also give a conclusion as to the disputed legends' identity?--Geektreecko (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
See this talk page section for my response to this rumor. As for the Pokédex, as you can tell when you catch Island Scan Pokémon, the National Pokédex just isn't in the game. --SnorlaxMonster 03:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if it's been officially confirmed, but I seem to recall hearing that the national dex is going to be released along with the pokemon bank update. Don't know if you can really say it just isn't in the game--seems more like the way to unlock it just doesn't exist yet! Xolroc (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
The National Pokédex will be in Pokémon Bank itself, rather than Pokémon Sun and Moon (based on officially announced information and the game data). For example, the Pokédex sprites used for Alola Pokédex Pokémon simply don't exist for non-Alola Pokédex Pokémon. ---SnorlaxMonster 04:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Legendary Disputes Part X

The Tapus, UBs, and Type: Null Line, are still in dispute - whether it may be game mechanic or folklore factors. Those two factors do prove that they are though. Folklore of course, undeniably speak of the Tapus and UBs as legends. Type: Null and Sillvally's stature may be postulated with the existence of the Cosmog Line, such that they can perform evolution, and Mewtwo, that they are artificially made. The game's code itself also prove it though. But let me say first that the non-prohibition of these Pokémon in Battle Institutions are very lousy proofs, since multiple minor legendaries are allowed. But one thing's for sure. The GTS. It has a systematic sieve, an option to filter out Legends and Mythicals. In reason: Only Legendaries and Mythicals can be filtered out of the GTS. The Tapus, UBs, the Type: Null Line can be filtered out in the GTS. Therefore, these are Legendary Pokémon. Phiraptor28 (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Your logic is faulty, and this has already been addressed on this very same page. The GTS filter means they are either Legendaries or Mythicals, but we don't know which. We won't be labeling them as one or the other until they have been officially labeled so we know which label to use. (You can see a staff member, Tiddlywinks, say this exact same thing in the last comment of the subheader "Disputed legendaries section" above, timestamped 05:43, 17 December 2016.) Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

We have to wait for Nintendo to confirm it--Jacob Kogan (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I hate to be a bother, but you're missing the colons I had told you about earlier... ----Celadonkey 19:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
"The GTS filter means they are either Legendaries or Mythicals, but we don't know which"—well, they're obviously not Mythicals, so, by using the process of elemination, we can conclude that they must be Legendaries. Therefore, the GTS should be enough to prove that they are Legendaries; however, it seems like the staff wants to wait for official confirmation, which I can understand, even if I disagree. But, I haven't found any official confirmation for Marshadow either, so by that logic, shouldn't we delete that article? —MartinZ (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Marshadow is in the games. Tiddlywinks (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I think MartinZ's point was that they haven't been officially confirmed to exist. IIRC, in Gen VI, we didn't have pages for Diancie, Hoopa, or Volcanion until they were announced. ----Celadonkey 01:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Per Talk:Marshadow (Pokémon)#Officially Revealed?, that's because at that time, datamining for the 3DS wasn't yet verifiable by the staff, so it was unknown whether those Pokemon actually existed or were being faked. The staff are now able to verify 3DS datamining, so Marshadow has its own page because it's confirmed to exist in the Sun and Moon data. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


Should we state that it is currently unconfirmed if Necrozma forms a group with Solgaleo and Lunala, much like with Zygarde? There is a lot of evidence to indicate a relation between the three, but aside from the file name for Necrozma's picture (which itself is somewhat vague) nothing has been officially confirmed yet. --Geektreecko (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, it might turn out like with Zygarde where they might probably never officially state that their a trio. Animaltamer708:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I think that it's unnecessary and unencyclopedic to state that something is not known, the fact that it says nothing here should suffice that we simply don't know. --Raltseye prata med mej 11:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking about the unseen tag like the one for zygarde.Animaltamer711:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Shiny backgrounds in Pokémon Bank

Since Pokémon Bank is out, I got my Pokémon registered in the National Dex within, and apparently there's shiny backgrounds on the following Pokémon. I split them between Legendary and Mythical for readability, but they are all in a similar style:

  • Legendary: Lugia, Ho-Oh, Kyogre, Groudon, Rayquaza, Dialga, Palkia, Giratina, Reshiram, Zekrom, Kyurem, Xerneas, Yveltal, Zygarde, Cosmog, Cosmoem, Solgaleo, Lunala, Necrozma.
  • Mythical: Mew, Celebi, Jirachi, Deoxys, Manaphy, Darkrai, Shaymin, Arceus, Victini, Keldeo, Meloetta, Genesect, Diancie, Hoopa, Volcanion, Magearna.

What's notable here is that the Legendary are all Special Pokémon, but Mewtwo is the only Special Pokémon without a shiny background. Of the Mythicals, Phione doesn't have the shiny background, and I don't have a Marshadow to check. I'm not sure how this affects the definition of Special Pokémon, Legendaries, and Mythicals, but it's interesting that they singled out these Pokémon from the rest.- unsigned comment from RHeegaard (talkcontribs)

Whoops, just noticed I forgot to sign my comment above! - RHeegaard (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
And all the other legendary Pokémon get... nothing. But while this doesn't help to prove or disprove the Tapus' or the Ultra Beasts' legendary status, it could be another Evidence Against Phione. --Celadonkey 13:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't have Pokemon Bank, so for clarification, may I ask: what color are the backgrounds of all of the above Pokemon? And what color are the backgrounds of all the other Legendaries that aren't listed (and Phione)? Are all of them yellow*, or are the above ones yellow and the unlisted ones green? If the latter, that may be decisive evidence that the background color indicates Special/non-Special, and that the tapus, Type:Null, and UBs are non-Special but Legendary. If the unlisted ones are yellow as well, though, the plot thickens and the green background still has no obvious explanation. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
All Pokémon RHeegard named have a shine under their picture. All other legendary Pokémon have nothing to differentiate them from regular Pokémon. --Celadonkey 16:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
So all other Legendaries have blue backgrounds?!? That makes even less sense... Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The color of the background corresponds to the Pokémon's types. Mythical and Special Legendary Pokémon (except Mewtwo and Phione) also have a shine effect on the background. --SnorlaxMonster 16:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, so the backgrounds in Bank have no correspondence to the backgrounds in Sun/Moon? Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks completely different. Gives us nearly no info at all :T --Celadonkey 16:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, if you missed it, RHeegard's distinction between Legendary and Mythical is his own - Pokebank's Dex doesn't show a difference between them. Plasma (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
What's most surprising is that Mewtwo does not have a shine background. Overall though, it implies that Gamefreak is pretty serious about plans to make Legendaries and Sub/Semi-Legendaries separate categories.Plasma (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think I like that, especially as someone who still considers Mythicals Legendary. ----Celadonkey 01:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Cosmog line

Should we have a page for the Cosmog line? We have a page for every other legendary group. --Celadonkey 18:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Just make the duo page and add notes there: Game mascot#Generation VII. Tiddlywinks (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)