Talk:Legendary Pokémon

Talk:Legendary Pokémon

This talk page is for discussions about the contents of Legendary Pokémon.

Archived discussions: 1 • 2 • 3

Revising Legendary pokémon page

So there have a good attempt to revise this page and mythical Pokémon information page to make more good and deciding which information was needed. But it got undo by a guest contributor, who made ti clear we need to rethink on how to do this properly. So I am kickstarting this to help lead to discussion and plans on how to do this going forward and ensure it does not get undone. Any has suggestions or tips? Like we do we need the information on where to find the Legendary Pokémon or keep it or have a separate page on their debuts in games and stuff?--Jacob9594 (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I think what this and the Mythical Pokémon page is missing is a structure like the Ultra Beast and Paradox Pokémon pages. A table providing an easy list of Legendary Pokémon with a brief description of their lore, and maybe even an overview of their game locations (which could be a separate table if that content is too much for the main list table). Landfish7 15:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

That can work and be creative. Plus more distinct and special.--Jacob9594 (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that we should go more towards what French wiki did. So, describe generally what it means for Pokemon to be legendary and just list all of them. Their lore is unnecessary when all legendary groups have their own separate articles and there's also page called "Myths and legends involving Legendary and Mythical Pokémon". Maybe there should be a simple table listing them with some of their legendary related traits. I made a draft here: Legendary_Pokemon.--Rocket Grunt 20:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. we just got to make sure no ine tries to undo this new direction.--Jacob9594 (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Team Rocket Grunt: While I'm open to paring down some specific details, I do wonder if readers would still appreciate having brief blurbs for each mon in one easy place? There's a slight difference there from how the Myths and legends page is presented. Landfish7 14:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Ture, its jus the myths and legends page is sadly ignored. While me and others do edit, its largely ingored and neve really fixed enough to be proper and have brief blues while still connecting to that big page to show its accurtae and enjoyable for our readers.Jacob9594 (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not very confident in writing, so I can't create detailed blurbs for each legendary Pokémon. These could easily get messy, trying to cover every place or event tied to their lore. It's challenging to pin down each Pokémon's themes, stories, or powers because the sources are varied. Official media often presents their lore in an open-ended way, leaving room for new stories to be told and that relies on interpretations, which are better suited for dedicated pages on each legendary group. Instead, I'd like a simple list of locations, myths, and artifacts relevant to each Pokémon's lore - for example, listing the Pokémon Mansion and its Journals for Mewtwo. This approach keeps things clean and easy to explore further.--Rocket Grunt 17:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

If you don't feel confident writing the blurbs, I could take up the job. Alternatively, we could do what the Paradox Pokemon/Ultra Beast pages do and copy-paste from the dex entries. Welkamo (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a point of repeating the same thing that already is on the wiki. It would have to be a custom text like Landfish is trying to do.--Rocket Grunt 20:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

(resetting indent)Catching up on this conversation...I definitely agree that a table would be helpful, but I don't really like the idea of leaving all the nuances of their lore to "dedicated pages on each legendary group". Where does that leave Pokémon that aren't part of a group, like Heatran or Eternatus? A big part of the appeal of Legendary (and Mythical) Pokémon is that they have lore, story relevance, and such, so I feel like that should all be collected in one place rather than making users piece together all the lore from tidbits scattered across several different articles. So I feel like either: a) there should be a separate section, after the main list, that details the lore of each Legendary Pokémon; b) there should be a separate article that details the lore of each Legendary Pokémon; or c) the scope of the "myths and legends involving Legendary and Mythical Pokémon" article should be expanded to include facts about them and their role(s) in the modern day. Storm Aurora (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I assume that Pokemon like Heatran should have their entire lore covered on their own pages. Here, on "Legendary Pokemon" page Heatran is described with two short sentences so what's even the point. I agree with the idea that the page "myths and legends involving Legendary and Mythical Pokémon" should be expanded and cover all that. Also, can its name be a little shorter?--Rocket Grunt 22:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Heatran does have nore lore to it evne tis not as cmmon or used often as others.--Jacob9594 (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I've added a table to generally address the complaint that there's nowhere to see all the Legendary Pokemon in one place. I think that's an easy problem everyone can agree on so I went with the "bold" approach. (Mythicals should get a similar treatment, but I don't have time atm. And of course there could be improvements and stuff. Like, I put all the Pokemon in dex order, but that makes a couple arguably awkward cases, like for Gen V where groups are "split".)

Regarding the specific idea that tables like on the Ultra Beast page could be imitated here, I'm not sure that'd be best. For one thing, I noticed when I checked that page on my phone that the table became pretty inconvenient (all the text got smooshed to a couple words per line and each row was awkwardly big and hard to read). But more broadly, it's easy to make a table when you already have a group with certain traits explicitly in common; Legendary Pokémon overall do not have such similarities that would make a table explicitly useful, and IMO just using a table to basically put a border around the lore isn't that advantageous and can even be restrictive.

As for some of the other substantive issues mentioned above, I will say, I'm not sure what the best form of the group sections or whatever are. It may be good for someone to start a draft page to explore some more organized/systematic ways of talking about those groups—or not talking about them, or talking less, or whatever. Tiddlywinks (talk) 06:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I made this table prettier and based around divs. You may revert it if you don't like it.--Rocket Grunt 18:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

If by "prettier" you mean to refer to all the colors, personally, I don't equate a bunch of color with "prettier". I'm obviously a little biased, but I think the table was better without so many colors before. (FWIW, something based on divs isn't really a "table" anymore either.)

To examine the non-color pieces of your version, you added Pokedex numbers, names, and types, and you changed the images to use the HOME sprites. Of those, IMO the dex numbers are the least important. (FWIW, those aren't anywhere else on the page, which IMO indicates that they're not really necessary.) I think adding the names to the previous table would be fine; personally, I feel like the types probably also aren't super necessary (and would mainly be clutter; I'll point out again that types aren't anywhere else on the page currently), but if people like that, I can see how that'd be nice too. As far as the images, I kind of avoided menu sprites because that requires that we have those images. When a new Pokemon is revealed, we probably won't have anything but art for a while, so I thought it'd be best if we just used the art in the table for all the Pokemon.

I'd also like to point out that you removed the part of the previous table that had jump navigation to the sections below. Admittedly, that was easy to miss, and it occurred to me at one point that it might be best to add a note above the table (or below like the asterisk) explaining those jump links. But I think links like that are valuable in this context. Honestly, I find a simple list that doesn't provide any jumps a little weird, like...kinda just duplicative. You also removed the counts of how many Pokemon were in each generation, which I think is nicer to see in a list like that rather than across all the generation sections. (I also personally find the discrete rows for each generation nicer to follow and compare things between generations than a continuous grid that relies on background colors.)

I know you said I was free to revert it, but since other people have edited the new table, I wanted to try to see what everyone thinks before I go making changes again at this point. Tiddlywinks (talk) 05:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok I reverted it and I'll experiment more on the style. Here's how it looked and I added a toned down version according to your advice.--Rocket Grunt 12:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

There are certainly good elements to it! The names being listed is certainly one of them, since having only images is generally considered bad wiki design. It would be good to see a proper blend of the two proposals, since there good ideas in both. ^Maverick_Nate 12:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I struggle to add those jump links, but I think this is the best of my ideas so far: [1]. I also would like to seperate galarial legendary birds to not confuse people on the number of legendary species.--Rocket Grunt 12:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I do like the white version you have best. I've made a version that tries to bridge some of the gap between what we seem to like: User:Tiddlywinks/Sandbox#Legendary Pokémon in-page list. I also tried an idea to add the jump links in. It's not all perfect (part of that is that there's no explanation of the ↓ links, and/or maybe they could be or say something else, like just "jump"), but I guess for now I'll just see what people think. Tiddlywinks (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

My final offer: [2]. I joined Pokemon together in groups like you and I hid jump link into images. It could be explained on the page that you can click them.--Rocket Grunt 21:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I like that. I didn't think of grouping them like that, it works well. I think the jumps are still a problem, they probably need to be an explicit element, I'll have to see if I can find a decent way to insert something. Tiddlywinks (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe sonething to them other than typing like maybe game debut, link to goruo page or individual thing? wouks that solve the jump issue or replace it with something better.Jacob9594 (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok so I grouped together their names which are now the jump links to each section while the images send you to individual Pokemon page, look: [3]--Rocket Grunt 23:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I've been taking a break for the holidays. I think that last one is very good. If we're going with something else, I think that's a solid option. Tiddlywinks (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I really like the last one as well! The only thing I don't like about it is the heading "Regional Legendary Pokémon", as it's not entirely clear what "regional" means in this context. I think it'd be clearer to make the heading "Regional forms of Legendary Pokémon" or something. (We'll also need to fix the image links so they link directly to the species pages and not redirects, but that's a minor thing.) Storm Aurora (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Mythical is sub-category for Legendaries

I know this was already talked, but with the release of Arc Suit Misty, we have a 3rd time where a Mythical is actually called Legendary.

Misty (at least in the italian version, so... here we must check the original version to be sure) call Arceus a Legendary Pokèmon. This make it the 3rd time that this happened. With the title of Legends Arceus, with the Poké Center dialogues during the type battle in Masters and an Arc Suit Misty dialogue.

I ever found pointless counting Mythical their own thing when clearly they are sub-category for Legendaries... I mean... we even have multiples Legendary groups with regular Legendaries and Mythicals as members: Mew Duo, Lunar Duo, Sacred Sword.

Just wanted to point out we had another istance where a Mythical is called Legendary. Do what you want with this info.Zarxiel94 (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd say Mythicals count as their own distinct topic, even if they are sometimes lumped in with Legendaries. The many, many times they've been called out as their own thing I feel supersedes the few exceptions. That said, feel free to add those exceptions to the article, and readers can then come to their own conclusions. Landfish7 11:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)