Legendary Pokémon: Revision history

20 June 2017

• curprev 01:2901:29, 20 June 2017‎ Blueapple128 talk contribs‎ 46,206 bytes −71‎ →‎Mewtwo: redundant link fix

14 June 2017

• curprev 05:4905:49, 14 June 2017‎ Tsanger talk contribs‎ m 46,277 bytes +5‎ →‎In other languages

13 June 2017

• curprev 18:4018:40, 13 June 2017‎ Tsanger talk contribs‎ 46,272 bytes +239‎ →‎In other languages

30 May 2017

• curprev 13:0213:02, 30 May 2017‎ FinnishPokéFan92 talk contribs‎ m 46,033 bytes +5‎ →‎Trivia: ...

17 May 2017

• curprev 22:4022:40, 17 May 2017‎ Abcboy talk contribs‎ m 46,028 bytes −33‎ Undo revision 2642462 by Eduardinho (talk) Ga-Olé does not label them as Legendary
• curprev 22:2622:26, 17 May 2017‎ Eduardinho talk contribs‎ m 46,061 bytes +33‎ →‎Potential Legendary Pokémon

10 May 2017

• curprev 17:5017:50, 10 May 2017‎ Carmenstar97 talk contribs‎ m 46,028 bytes 0‎ →‎{{tt|Statistical average|Considering alternate forms as separate Pokémon}}
• curprev 16:4716:47, 10 May 2017‎ Tiddlywinks talk contribs‎ m 46,028 bytes −37‎ Oh yeah... Blah, someone else can update the stat...stats
• curprev 16:4316:43, 10 May 2017‎ Tiddlywinks talk contribs‎ 46,065 bytes −2,644‎ Per Ga-Olé disks, the guardian deities are Legendary, Null/Silvally are not. I /think/ most of the previous evidence is invalidated either due to the guardians or b/c of the two NON-Legendaries

9 May 2017

• curprev 18:5618:56, 9 May 2017‎ BigDocFan talk contribs‎ 48,709 bytes +51‎ →‎Tower duo

6 May 2017

• curprev 23:1623:16, 6 May 2017‎ Pumpkinking0192 talk contribs‎ 48,658 bytes −233‎ Undo revision 2636763 by Eduardinho (talk)
• curprev 23:0023:00, 6 May 2017‎ Eduardinho talk contribs‎ m 48,891 bytes +233‎ →‎Potential Legendary Pokémon
• curprev 02:4402:44, 6 May 2017‎ Force Fire talk contribs‎ m 48,658 bytes −210‎ Reverted edits by Eduardinho (talk) to last revision by SaturnMario
• curprev 02:2202:22, 6 May 2017‎ Eduardinho talk contribs‎ m 48,868 bytes +210‎ →‎Evidence against

29 April 2017

• curprev 00:4200:42, 29 April 2017‎ SaturnMario talk contribs‎ 48,658 bytes −5‎ →‎Cosmog line
• curprev 00:4100:41, 29 April 2017‎ SaturnMario talk contribs‎ 48,663 bytes −16‎ No edit summary

19 April 2017

• curprev 17:5817:58, 19 April 2017‎ Pumpkinking0192 talk contribs‎ 48,679 bytes −627‎ I strongly think this is unnecessary; it's the "Other" section, so it should be clear that these can go either way. We don't need to hold the reader's hand in every little intricacy of what certain things suggest or imply or how they can be interpreted.
• curprev 17:4317:43, 19 April 2017‎ Blueapple128 talk contribs‎ m 49,306 bytes +48‎ →‎Other
• curprev 17:4117:41, 19 April 2017‎ Blueapple128 talk contribs‎ 49,258 bytes +314‎ add back the explanations of how each Other point could go for either side. Special Pokemon aren't Mythical according to the Special Pokemon article
• curprev 05:5605:56, 19 April 2017‎ SnorlaxMonster talk contribs‎ 48,944 bytes −293‎ →‎Potential Legendary Pokémon: We haven't drawn a conclusion, so everything is "inconclusive" in the strictest sense. Points should be listed under the conclusion that they indicate.
• curprev 04:1904:19, 19 April 2017‎ Pumpkinking0192 talk contribs‎ 49,237 bytes 0‎ Term usage by a tenuously canon source for a non-game medium is absolutely inconclusive, not "evidence for". || Using bullet points as a method of "improving readability" seems a bit... dumbed-down to me, but whatever, I guess. I'd vote for prose, though.
• curprev 01:3501:35, 19 April 2017‎ Celadonkey talk contribs‎ m 49,237 bytes 0‎ →‎Potential Legendary Pokémon: these are all reasons people would have to believe they are legendary - evidence for

18 April 2017

• curprev 23:1423:14, 18 April 2017‎ Blueapple128 talk contribs‎ 49,237 bytes +456‎ large readability cleanup of the Potential section

10 April 2017

• curprev 14:0414:04, 10 April 2017‎ Raltseye talk contribs‎ m 48,781 bytes +6‎ →‎Necrozma: why was this so big?
• curprev 13:4713:47, 10 April 2017‎ Pumpkinking0192 talk contribs‎ 48,775 bytes +31‎ →‎Evidence for: I mean, obviously the summaries were written by their authors. The question is whether those authors are official or not.
• curprev 13:3113:31, 10 April 2017‎ Tiddlywinks talk contribs‎ m 48,744 bytes +3‎ →‎Evidence for: wording
• curprev 12:2612:26, 10 April 2017‎ Abcboy talk contribs‎ m 48,741 bytes +50‎ →‎Evidence for
• curprev 11:5811:58, 10 April 2017‎ Celadonkey talk contribs‎ m 48,691 bytes −8‎ →‎Cosmog line: not confirmed to be ultra beast

4 April 2017

• curprev 17:5517:55, 4 April 2017‎ Pumpkinking0192 talk contribs‎ 48,699 bytes −239‎ Aside from the fact that many Legendaries do have changed names...evidence for or against must be explicitly about whether the label "Legendary" is used for them, not about whether they have traits that Legendaries often have. The latter is an assumption.
• curprev 16:4916:49, 4 April 2017‎ Sumwun talk contribs‎ m 48,938 bytes +7‎ →‎Evidence against
• curprev 16:4516:45, 4 April 2017‎ Sumwun talk contribs‎ 48,931 bytes +232‎ →‎Evidence against

29 March 2017

• curprev 03:0303:03, 29 March 2017‎ Darthrai talk contribs‎ 48,699 bytes +66‎ →‎Trivia

21 March 2017

• curprev 11:1611:16, 21 March 2017‎ SnorlaxMonster talk contribs‎ 48,633 bytes −28‎ →‎Evidence for

19 March 2017

• curprev 16:5916:59, 19 March 2017‎ Nescientist talk contribs‎ 48,661 bytes +3‎ →‎Cosmog line
• curprev 15:1315:13, 19 March 2017‎ Pumpkinking0192 talk contribs‎ 48,658 bytes +141‎ Several clarifications. || I'm still not super comfortable about "for convenience's sake", but I can't think of a more encyclopedic way of saying "we don't know if the person who wrote that summary is in the loop about what's canon and what isn't."
• curprev 13:0413:04, 19 March 2017‎ Celadonkey talk contribs‎ 48,517 bytes +183‎ Undo revision 2614689 by Animaltamer7 (talk) Dennou Zenshi, a Senior Administrator, said it should be added
• curprev 12:5112:51, 19 March 2017‎ Animaltamer7 talk contribs‎ 48,334 bytes −183‎ Undo revision 2614688 by Geektreecko (talk)please don't unless you had permission
• curprev 12:4912:49, 19 March 2017‎ Geektreecko talk contribs‎ 48,517 bytes +183‎ No edit summary

12 March 2017

• curprev 22:3322:33, 12 March 2017‎ Tiddlywinks talk contribs‎ m 48,334 bytes −464‎ Undo revision 2612432 by LanceDrake286 (talk)Speculation
• curprev 22:2922:29, 12 March 2017‎ LanceDrake286 talk contribs‎ 48,798 bytes +464‎ →‎Trivia: Added information to Trivia

4 March 2017

• curprev 15:4115:41, 4 March 2017‎ Tsanger talk contribs‎ m 48,334 bytes +205‎ →‎In other languages

24 February 2017

• curprev 15:1015:10, 24 February 2017‎ Celadonkey talk contribs‎ 48,129 bytes +20‎ →‎Cosmog line

12 February 2017

• curprev 06:3106:31, 12 February 2017‎ Pumpkinking0192 talk contribs‎ 48,109 bytes +22‎ →‎Trivia: Subject-verb agreement. "The Cosmog line" is singular, "are" is plural.
• curprev 01:2901:29, 12 February 2017‎ SaturnMario talk contribs‎ 48,087 bytes +9‎ →‎Trivia

8 February 2017

• curprev 06:2706:27, 8 February 2017‎ Tsanger talk contribs‎ m 48,078 bytes +7‎ →‎In other languages

2 February 2017

• curprev 19:1119:11, 2 February 2017‎ Pumpkinking0192 talk contribs‎ 48,071 bytes −206‎ Heavy restructure since Zygarde is now part of this trio. Including five images in one section seems like it would be way overcluttered, so I went with just 50% Forme since it's the one that most closely parallels Xerneas/Yveltal in stats and Ability.

26 January 2017

• curprev 14:0014:00, 26 January 2017‎ TechSkylander1518 talk contribs‎ 48,277 bytes −181‎ General policy of Bulbagarden is to not assume gender based on perceived traits.

24 January 2017

• curprev 16:5016:50, 24 January 2017‎ Pumpkinking0192 talk contribs‎ 48,458 bytes −2‎ Undo revision 2589085 by SaturnMario (talk) If/when it's confirmed for M20 (or a later one, if not M20), then the trivium will be deleted entirely. Until then, "has yet to" is speculatory because it implies it eventually will.
• curprev 16:2716:27, 24 January 2017‎ SaturnMario talk contribs‎ 48,460 bytes +2‎ →‎Trivia

23 January 2017

• curprev 17:5417:54, 23 January 2017‎ Hamfart talk contribs‎ 48,458 bytes +183‎ No edit summary