Talk:Dracozolt (Pokémon)

Origin

About the origin, the upper half is not based on a velociraptor. The description of the Fossilized Bird item states it is a flying creature. It is a bird. The same applies to Arctozolt. Herbizarre (talk) 05:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Signature Move

I don't want to start an edit war, but I'm confused as to why we removed the bit about Bolt Beak when it's been listed on the signature move page for a little bit. No one has had a problem with it there. In my opinion, Dracozolt and Arctzolt are similar enough to warrant it being considered a signature move. AmoongussForLife (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

They're counterparts, but they are not of the same evolutionary line, which is one of the things needed for the move to be a signature move. They were placed in the wrong place on the sginature move page, they should've be in the "Moves commonly associated with certain Pokémon" section, not the main template.--ForceFire 05:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

So basically whoever add those moves in the signature move page just mis-match where they were supposed be. Well that is awkward.--Jacob Kogan (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

What about Nature's Madness? It's considered a signature move, yet it's not exclusive to a single evolutionary line. By that logic, why would Bolt Beak and Fishious Rend not be? ThighFish (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)ThighFish

Are fan designs of the properly reconstructed Galar fossils noteworthy?

I've seen plenty of images showing fan designs of the original ancient Pokémon that the Galar fossils are actually from. All designs I've seen of the Pokémon that the Fossilized Bird originated from call it "Velozolt" and have many universal design features. Is this noteworthy? ThighFish (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)ThighFish

It is not. Kai * the Arc Toraph 21:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)