Talk:Baby Pokémon: Difference between revisions
From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to navigationJump to search
Fabu-Vinny (talk | contribs) (→Phione) |
(Note about Phione in the baby Pokémon article) |
||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
I don't know who added it, but Phione's baby status is illogical. It can breed, therefore it can't be a baby. I'm taking it out unless there's some sort of general consensus with some good logic behind it. --[[User:Kaoz|Kaoz]] 15:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC) | I don't know who added it, but Phione's baby status is illogical. It can breed, therefore it can't be a baby. I'm taking it out unless there's some sort of general consensus with some good logic behind it. --[[User:Kaoz|Kaoz]] 15:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
:That won't get you a Manaphy. --[[User:Fabu-Vinny|FabuVinny]] <sup>[[User talk:Fabu-Vinny|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Fabu-Vinny|C]]-[[User:Fabu-Vinny/Sandbox|S]]</sup> 16:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC) | :That won't get you a Manaphy. --[[User:Fabu-Vinny|FabuVinny]] <sup>[[User talk:Fabu-Vinny|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Fabu-Vinny|C]]-[[User:Fabu-Vinny/Sandbox|S]]</sup> 16:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
::I think there should be a small note about Phione. It should mention that, because of it's ability to breed, it can't be considered a Baby Pokémon. --[[User:JMS|JMS]] 20:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:55, 4 March 2008
Togepi
Is Togepi a baby? I've never heard that before...Although it makes sense. Anyone wanna verify? The only "baby" PKMN I knew of were the pre-evos of preexisting pogeys.
Well, that's exactly why I added that note on the bottom. But if you compare other babies to Togepi, the only thing it's messing is an old evolution. It's not a pre-evolution, but it is a baby. - Ferret 20:42, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Same could be said about Riolu, as it's obtained in a similar way to Togepi in DP. Tom Temprotran 03:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Phione
I don't know who added it, but Phione's baby status is illogical. It can breed, therefore it can't be a baby. I'm taking it out unless there's some sort of general consensus with some good logic behind it. --Kaoz 15:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)