Talk:Pokémon of myth/Archive 1

This is a talk page archive. It contains old discussions of topics relating to the article. Please do not add or remove any content from it.

Contents

Hide

Close table of contents

• (Return to top)
• Untitled
• Wait a tick...
• Dragon Trio has been officially confirmed
• No way
• images
• Hey...
• Proof
• I've been thinking about something...
• New Table
• Form/Forme
• Giratina Sprite
• Platina Version release, Dragon Trio status Confirmed
• Dimensional Trio?
• Legendary titans trio?
• Spacial Rend
• Greek Gods
• Edit request
• Triviatastic curiosity
• Question
• Something i noticed
• Protect
• The Dragon Trio Movesets and HGSS
• Eggs
• Dimensional Trio?
• Spacetime link
• Renames
• Really?
• Weakness
• Legendary titans
• Move request
• Move to Primordial Chaos
• Move to Pokémon of Sinnoh myth
• Move back to creation trio

Contents

Untitled

But... we don't even know if they're a trio... TTEchidna 05:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait a tick...

Palkia is the Space pokemon
Dialga is the Time pokemon
Arceus is the Alpha pokemon

Wouldn't this technically be the trio; given that, well, aren't Palkia and Dialga technically made of Arceus, or something?

Although, if you took into account that Giratina is related to an "ancient cemetary in another dimension", you could technically consider it: Arceus ; life ; Alpha Giratina ; death ; Omega

Beginning and end, so to speak...maybe it could work? Myrmidon 06:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That'd then make Arceus the master of this trio, too... TTEchidna 09:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Arceus really did a lot for the world of Pokémon, at least in the mythology. Althoughit is unknown how Arceus relates to Giratina, unlike Dialga and Palkia, where it is clearly known that Arceus created the two. Therefore, it is not really certain if Arceus is in fact the master of this trio. Pokéball 18:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Either way, I still don't think we should name the "dragon trio" off until DP v3 comes out. We knew beforehand that Rayquaza was the third member of the weather trio, but that's mostly because it just fit. Far as I'm concerned, Dialga and Palkia are just a duo, like Ho-Oh and Lugia. TTEchidna 19:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious that Arceus created Giratina? --Shiny Noctowl^{Talk | Contribs} 01:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's proof:

Attacks (Attacks in bold do direct damage)	Start	DragonBreath Scary Face
	10	Metal Claw	Water Pulse	Ominous Wind
	20	AncientPower
	30	Dragon Claw
	40	Roar of Time	Spacial Rend	Shadow Force
	50	Heal Block
	60	Earth Power
	70	Slash
	80	Flash Cannon	Aqua Tail	Shadow Claw
	90	Aura Sphere

Shiny^{Talk | Contribs} 12:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm totally against this. This is purely fan speculation... Agent 448^{δ | DP} | ☆ 11:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Adding a cleanup tag. Fan speculation and move similarity mean sh*t, tbh.Dark0805 (talk|contribs) 17:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Compare to this:

Attacks (Attacks in bold do direct damage)	Start	Water Pulse	Mud Shot	Twister
	5	Scary Face
	15	AncientPower
	20	Body Slam	Slash	Dragon Claw
	30	Calm Mind	Bulk Up	Dragon Dance
	35	Ice Beam	Earthquake	Crunch
	45	Hydro Pump	Fire Blast	Fly
	50	Rest
	60	Sheer Cold	Fissure	ExtremeSpeed
	65	Double-Edge	SolarBeam	Hyper Beam
	75	Aqua Tail	Earth Power	Dragon Pulse
	80	Water Spout	Eruption	Outrage

Or this:

Attacks (Attacks in bold do direct damage)	Start	Explosion
	9	Rock Throw	Icy Wind	Metal Claw
	17	Curse
	25	Superpower
	33	AncientPower
	41	Iron Defense	Amnesia	Iron Defense Amnesia
	49	Charge Beam
	57	Lock-On
	65	Zap Cannon
	73	Stone Edge	Ice Beam	Iron Head Flash Cannon
	81	Hammer Arm
	89	Hyper Beam

Shiny^{Talk | Contribs} 12:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well it is possible. There is space and time. What else is there. Giratina is said to live in a world on the reverse side of ours. This is possibly the afterlife. This place may neither be space nor time. If these three pokémon are a trio, then it would mean that this trio would control Space, Time, and the Afterlife, which are the only places where anyone could possibly be. Pokemaniac102

AND THEY ALL SHARE THE SAME STATS ONLY MIXED UP.

So, since it's not official. the Dragon Trio, although is based on a certain amount of canon, is fanon as Pokémon and Nintendo have nto released it officially...Optimatum♏^Talk|♊Hi 07:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

First, Dialga, Palkia, and Giratina all appear in the 11th movie. Second, WHY CAN'T WE ALL WAIT!!!Pokemaniac102 17:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless someone can give me official proof that these three are the trio, and that Giratina is the master and the mascot for the third DP game, I'm putting a delete notice on this page. Canon, people! -ニョロトノ666

"May even be true" doesn't cut it here. For instance, it may be true that Ash Ketchum is a cross-dressing girl! However, I'll hold off on the deletion notice until a sysop okays it. -ニョロトノ666

How bout shipping the names are fanon and the whole thing is fanon.Pokemaniac102 23:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Shipping usually has some logical basis, and it's noted that it may not be true. It's accepted that ships are often false (sorry, shippers!), but stuff like this has no place here unless it's official. -ニョロトノ666

These three Pokémon being a trio has some logical basis, and it is noted that it may or may not be true. But there are people who believe that these three pokémon are a trio. Some ships have come true(Rocketshipping in manga) and this may come true too. There are reason that I believe that these three pokémon are a trio:

   *They all have the same stats just mixed up.
   *They have similar moves, as seen above.
   *They look similar in appearance.
   *They all were created at the same time, as said in the article about the History of the Pokémon world.
   *I believe that Palkia controls space, Dialga controls time, and Giratina controls the only other thing, the afterlife.

But still, it hasn't been revealed yet. But there is a possibility that, if a third version comes out, It may be Giratina (or Arceus).Pokemaniac102 21:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The possibility of it being Arceus is zero. If the third game confirms that Giratina is the third part of the chain, then fine, make the article. But until that game comes out, this is nothing but fanwank, and thus does not belong here. This page should be scrapped until this information can be OFFICIALLY confirmed. --Dual 09:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, following Crystal's pattern, it could be one of the Lake Trio. Optimatum♏^Talk|♊Hi 10:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Completely possible. But lets leave this article to rot until V3 comes out.^PokeManiac₁₀₂01:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

IF there's a V3. Gen IV has been avoiding most of the rules, such as nearly getting Dark, Psychic and Fighting starters and not all the new Pokémon are in the new dex. Optimatum♏^Talk|♊Hi 13:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

wait.. if we go by emeralds patten. the MAY be a battle between Palkia and diagla as depicted in the movies and Giratina will quell the battle. Dakclaw

Giratina cannot represent the afterlife, as the Lake trio have been stated to represent spirit. MATTER, on the other hand, is seperate from space and time, yet does not seem to be represented by Giratina. Noname

I'm not talking about MATTER, I'm talking about life. What creates life, besides spirit. Space, for things to move. Time, for things to accelerate. And a life after life...^PokeManiac₁₀₂ 01:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that Giratina represents life after death, but I do beleive he represents Death itself. He lives in a cemetary and is part ghost. Noname The afterlife would be a bit of a streach and I doubt they would do that in a pokemon game.

whait you're forgetting something important. If any of you has played Ruby/Sapphire, you'll note that Rayquaza is not considered part of the wheather trio, althought it has similar attacks and base stats, and it is catchable only after the elite 4. it is later given a special role in Emerald AND THEN IT IS CONSIDERED part of it. Maybe it is what will happen with Giratina, and in the third Sinnoh game, a legend will say that Arceus created the three, as it happened in Emerald with Rayquaza who in Ruby/Sapphire is not mentioned anywhere. Hfc2x 20:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, until then, this is pure speculation, which does not belong here. We need a template or something that states that it's only speculation, and is not canon as of yet. Vekter 17:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Giratina is part of the trio, opposing both Palkia and Dialga. I believe it's something like this: Palkia is space, Dialga is time, and Giratina would be the absence of space/time. If it's established that Giratina is "a Pokémon from another dimension", it's very easy to understand that the concept of time is different to Giratina. Also, his signature move being "Dark Void" tells us about the concept of space (also different from ours). Anyway, let's wait for the third game. I'm quite sure they'll explore Giratina as opposed to Dialga/Palkia, or maybe some collateral effect of Arceus' creation. --Rafaelpuff 20:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% with you, but Giratina's signature move is Shadow Force. Dark Void is Darkrai's signature. hfc2X 03:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Since this is speculation anyway, consider this: Giratina's Shadow Force makes it "suddenly vanish", making it completely untouchable. It's possible it does this but exploiting it's absence of space and time, then the next turn it rematerializes intersecting its target, causing the damage as the solid matter (or pseudo-solid in Giratina's case) violently attempts to resolve a physical impossibility.--Zyphers 12:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, my bad. I've written Dark Void with the ingame animation of Shadow Force in mind. Thanks for the correction. Now, what about the new rumours? About Giratina being the mascot of the third game? If these rumours are confirmed, I guess it's no doubt that there is a Dragon Trio. Also, Serebii.net announced that there'll be a new dual-type form to Arceus - maybe an ancient form of Arceus before he "created the Dragons from itself"? Well, anyway, this is only speculation. But I like Zyphers' theory (about Giratina's Shadow Force) very much. --Rafaelpuff 17:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Trio has been officially confirmed

At last no more speculation. People who hasn't checked Serebii.net do it. A hi-res scan of the Coro coro magazine has leaked and is available here. As you can see in the pic, cyrus is standing in front of Dialga, Palkia and the shadow of Giratina. hfc2X 21:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That imaged could be faked or photoshopped......C is for Cookie 21:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please know that THE WHOLE THING CAN BE FAKE!•Pokemaniac102 21:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

giratina is on teh box art for pokemon platinum which has been officially announced... Arutoa 20:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well then NOW it is conformed.•Pokemaniac102 20:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

well then lugia ho-oh and suicune are a trio by that logic - touché! OrigamiGuy-_T-C-M 11:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The boxart proves nothing by itself, or Charizard, Blastoise, and Venusaur would be a trio. But with the other evidence shared among the members of this trio (similar typing, all half Dragon; similar moves at the same levels; similar origin for their names Diamond/Dialga, Pearl/Palkia, Platina/Giratina)... well it pretty much says it all. But until we get evidence that Arceus also made Giratina, which is undoubtedly the case, I would say, the dragon trio technically is unconfirmed. Come September, though, the whole thing will become clear.

I hate to be a hardass here, but hey, we're not taking any crap when it comes to anime Pokémon's gender (even for Ash's Charizard, and that's honestly ridiculous in my mind), so no crap is taken here. This trio is almost official. TTEchidna 05:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Where is it written that trios have to have a master? That idea came more from the anime and the second movie than anything else. Furthermore, should we really be classifying trios of version mascots the same way we do the honest-to-God trios (ie, the birds, the beasts, the golems, the bizzare psychic things)? I've always had a problem with that. --Martonimos_{((Argh|Blargh))} 09:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No way

It's not necessarily part of the trio, as a matter a fact, I think it's the leader-guy! Posted by the Θρtιmαtum♏^Talk|Links10:03 16 May 2008

Excuse me for asking, but what do you mean by "leader-guy"? As in leader of the "duo", or the duo and Arceus? Arceausams 23:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe he thinks that Giratina is sort of the trio master of the duo. But I believe that they all are a trio only with Giratina being the strongest.•Pokemaniac102 14:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Everybody wait for platinum instead of saying "NUH UH MY THEORY IZ BETR THAN YERZ". Arceausams 23:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I never said anything. I just believe what I said.PM102 00:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the same as the weather trio. They are a trio, but there's one that's seemingly more powerful than the other two. hfc2X 00:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats a good point but it would still be BETTER to JUST WAIT. Arceausams 22:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

images

I think the image should go back to the turnback cave 1 the new 1 does not clearly depict Giratina its a silohuette and the others are in Sprite Form. Sailor Earth 20:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The new image is important, though, as it demonstrates that there is probably some sort of link between the three. I think we should have both images; that way, there'd be one for each of them on their own in DP, and one of them all together in Platinum. --Martonimos_((Talk)) 21:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% Sailor Earth 21:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey...

Look Its a trio with it being Dialga:Time Palkia:Space Giratina: VOID with arceus being the trio master of spirit and the dragon trio. Atomix26 17:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense.Shadow1337 22:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Proof

Pokémon Platinum serves as proof that this is a trio similar to the weather trio. --S^hi_ny ^No_ct^ow_l 20:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be like saying Lugia, Ho-Oh and Suicune are a trio? ~$aturn¥oshi ^{THE VOICES} 17:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Nopes. Lugia and Ho-oh are kind of a duo, and Suicune is just a version mascot. Suicune has nothing to do with Lugia and that's why they aren't a trio. In Gen III however, Groudon and Kyogre were a duo, and Rayquaza was a Pokémon that had apparently no relation to the other two (not even in its pokédex description). However in Emerald, it was revealed to be part of the trio, as it's the only one capable of stoping the effects of Kyogre and Groudon. This is exactly the same that's gonna happen with Giratina. hfc2X 20:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about something...

I was watching TV one day and they said something about Time, Space and DIMENSION. That made me think about how each of the dragon trio has a certain control over what they represent and that Giratina has control over dimension. So wouldn't that make Giratina represent Dimension? User:Darkmaster0 20:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

True. LugiaRules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" 17:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same. In fact I'd like to suggest renaming the trio to a more specific term like Reality trio, as in time, space and dimension being the three elements of reality, though I prefer to leave it up for debate. --Kaoz 01:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it was on doctor who - TARDIS stands for Time And Relative Dimension In Space. Lord of Origami 12:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

TARDIS Dragons, then? :) --Kaoz 13:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

LOLSHAZAAAAM! 13:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that Giratina represents the NEGATIVE of Dialga and Palkia's respective dimensions, like the negative of an photograph. It's as if the negative were intertwined behind the strings of dimension, thus it having a connection, like an astral plane. TorchicBlaziken 14:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Somebody is misinformed here. Space is the combination OF the first three DIMENSIONS. The fourth Dimension is the forward and backward directions of Time. Also, if Giratina resides in the ReverseWorld, then surely there should be a fourth - to oppose both Dialga and Palkia! Do I make sense?Monblazon 20:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, sorry to bump an old topic, but I believe SPACE is the first three dimensions and TIME is the fourth. A 3D thing can't see anything 4D or higher (that's why we can't 'see' time). Giratina is in the Reverse World, supposedly a separate world from ours. However, could it be that the Reverse World is our world, just that it has more dimensions? And building on that, does that mean that the Reverse World allows travel in time? Θρtιmαtum♏_Talk|Links06:46 3 Sep 2008

Now that you mention it, string theory has those six extra curled-up dimensions, which could be why the Reverse/Torn world is shaped so oddly...

Although I somehow doubt that the people responsible for coming up with these things pay much attention to theoretical physics. --Martonimos_{((Argh|Blargh))} 20:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Especially since those curled up dimensions are very 'small'. And that it is called the 'Reverse' world suggests a form of opposition, as is found with matter and anti-matter, therefore necessitating the need for a fourth related Legendary to maintain the balance of the worlds. i.e. If Giratina is the 'Reverse' equivalent of either Dialga or Palkia, then there is an imbalance - and a Gap to be filled by another Reverse World Pokémon.Monblazon 23:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, the First two Seasons of the Diamond and Pearl series are What? Diamond and Pearl, the first two Games of Generation IV; and Battle DIMENTION, the thing that Giratina controls. §hin¥£ik@chµ 00:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC) P.S. Please join The User Post Gazette

Obviously yo didn't get it... SPACE and TIME are DIMENTIONS. Giratina doen't control DIMENTION, or it would have been named "Spatial and Temporal Pokémon" instead of "Renegade Pokémon". He is more a negative-space controlling Pokémon. hfc2X 20:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

So, u r sayin that Giratina controls somethin' like a blackhole? §#!π¥£!Ψ@Ϛ#µ 00:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. A black hole is a strong gravitational field around nothing (like a planet or star). Giratina seems to control a negative space, created of anti-matter, but there seems to be an unbalance as it looks to be only the oposite of Palkia. There is an unbalance because in its dimension there is no anti-temporal Pokémon. hfc2X 02:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

By jove I got through to somebody at last! The creators have either been very neglectful, or Giratina is not a specific opposite to any other Pokemon. As has been said then if it were the opposite to one of the other Dragons then there must have been a fourth! (Maybe they are saving it for the remakes;-p.)Monblazon 22:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for opening an old subject; But i think i've figgured it out. The three thinks that make up the univirse are Space(Contoled by Palkia), Time (Controled by Dialga), and Matter (Giratina?) and is there any info in Plt.? §#!π¥£!Ψ@Ϛ#µ 22:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No, its Dimension isnt it. Anything has dimensions, even an atom, is 0.000000001 something wide. I guess its another way of saying matter. So eventually when they make Gen 4 remakes LOL, in Gen 6, itl be TimeDiamond, SpacePearl, and DimensionPlatinum LOL. --Guardian of Earth |SGMS 2010 19:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Space (width, length, and depth) and time ARE the freaking known dimensionss!!!! stop with that!! Giratina doesn't control dimension, or Arceus had only created him to do both time and space and not Dialga and Palkia!!!! hfc2X 19:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Giratina controls an alternate dimension, parallel to the real world. The torn world-where the laws of physics in the real world don't apply. Giratina seems to control what is the reverse reality or the reverse dimension to the real Pokémon world. I don't think that calling it, and by it i mean a future game that probably won't even ever be considered to be produced, "DimensionPlatinum" is sensible. The only reason they had FRLG was because it was impossible to have your Ruby Version trade with your Blue version. Plus, with much better graphics, it was a really cool game to play if you are someone who loves the originals. Anyway, Giratina does control something: an alternate dimension. Maybe even the dimension opposite of what we call the living world because it is mentioned in on of the Pokédex entries that it hangs around graveyards. Maybe that's what it does when it enters the natural world. --いぬみみ 21:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Giratina is supposed to balance out the Time and Space. In Platinum, Cyrus says DNA has two strands to balance out each other. D/P is one part while Giratina is the other. But I also think that if it was caught, the world it created/lived in would stay like D/P if they were rather than destroy like Cyrus said. So I'm not sure. It is probably confined to Turnback Cave when it visits the world for its "crimes".Laxafett 19:12, 12 August 2009(UTC)

I figured it out. Arceus created Giratina to be the controller of space-time, but it used it's power's wrongly, so it was banished to the Distortion world, so Arceus created Dialga and Palkia to do what Giratina would have done if he was good--Minimag 22:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

New Table

I think this resolves everything:

Species	Dialga	Palkia	Giratina
Type 1	Steel-type	Water-type	Ghost-type
Type 2	Dragon-type	Dragon-type	Dragon-type
Level 10	Metal Claw Steel-Type	Water Pulse Water-type	Ominous Wind Ghost-type
Level 40	Roar of Time Dragon-type	Spacial Rend Dragon-type	Shadow Force Ghost-type
Level 80	Flash Cannon Steel-type	Aqua Tail Water-type	Shadow Claw Ghost-type

Lord of Origami 13:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Form/Forme

Change it. It's in the article. Θρtιmαtum♏_Talk|Links06:52 3 Sep 2008

There's no real need to change something if pretty much 100% it's not going to stick, such as this whole "forme" bullsh*t. Trust me, it'll be "Origin Form" when it's revealed stateside, and that'll be the end of this whole "forme" debacle. --Shiningpikablu252 15:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Except for Deoxys being Attack Forme on Pokémon.com, you know. TTEchidna 02:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Giratina Sprite

Should we use the Platinum Sprite for Giratina? §hin¥£ik@chµ 00:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC) P.S. Please join the The User Post Gazette:D

As in.. Origin Forme? TTEchidna 09:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yea. §#!π¥£!Ψ@Ϛ#µ 00:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC) P.S. Please join The User Post Gazette.

Platina Version release, Dragon Trio status Confirmed

So, with Platina Version released Japan-side, is it pretty much safe to say that this article no longer needs the "disputed" status? Giratina has had a confirmed role alongside Dialga and Palkia, and the status of the Dragon Trio is confirmed. Is it safe to remove the "disputed" label, or will doing so cause a bomb explosion of hate and flame? I won't do so until I'm granted confirmation people aren't going to flip out on me for doing so. Same goes for the Legendary Pokémon article, which is similarly out of date. Satosuke 17:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. It's pretty freaking obvious from the start that Giratina goes along with Dialga and Palkia. I know having proof is important but seriously, it was so obvious that Giratina belongs in the dragon trio. That's just how Nintendo does things. If the Pokémon have similar move sets, and in this case, one type shared by all 3, then changes are, they are trios. Plus, with the way game mascots are assigned now (refering to Generation III), it gives you a little more proof. It's almost like people need Nintendo to just come out and say "hey guys, Giratina is in the dragon trio with Dialga and Palkia now so no more speculation, yeah!" for them to truly consider Giratina as a member of the dragon trio. --いぬみみ 21:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Dimensional Trio?

Shouldn't it be called the Dimensional Trio? It's like Palkia rules the third dimension, Dialga rules the fourth dimension, and Giratina probably rules the fifth dimension. The place where they all live must be the SIXTH dimension, based on implications from the Darkrai and Shaymin movies, (you know, where all the Unown live) because they have to be in a dimension higher than theirs to warp them, and in the Shaymin movie Dialga and Palkia apparently trashed Giratina's place. (Giratina is probably the oddball in this, because he lives in the fifth dimension to guard it, but he probably moved at the beginning of everything, but Dialga and Palkia don't need to stay in their dimensions to guard it, and there are also Pokemon who guard their dimensions, like Celebi for Dialga, and every Pokemon and human in the universe for Palkia) Because of this, Dialga and Palkia can warp Giratina's dimension (although without having the power to control it) like they did in the Shaymin movie. I say the reason why Dialga and Palkia can't control each other's dimensions is:

1: They don't have the power to do so. 2. Arceus, who lives in the SEVENTH dimension, has made it impossible for them to even WARP each other's dimensions.

I also say the reason that Dialga and Palkia are apparently able to warp GIRATINA'S dimension is that Giratina's dimension is a parallel to the regular one, and you can't control one dimension without warping the parallel dimension in some way.

All this, however, is just my opinion, except for the fact that all this opinion backs up my statement that it should be called the DIMENSIONAL trio. TorchicBlaziken ^(talk) 17:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, DIMENSIONAL seems appropiate. I agree =O hfc2X 01:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait, Fifth dimension? You mean a tesseract?Shadow1337 22:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Legendary titans trio?

According to Circuit City, which released the English name for persons, things, and places in Platinum, the official name semms to be "legendary titans" or "legendary titans trio". Can any sysop please move the page to it's official, English name? Pokémon Lover King Mario 14:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather we didn't because I don't know how reliable Circuit City is with names. Besides, it may not even be official. --Jonouchi 15:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I looked at Pokebeach (I look at Pokebeach and Serebii as well as Bulbapedia) and they said that Circuit City removed the information. So they might have been told to take it down by Nintendo. ~Toastypk - ^Loom. 03:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm guessing too. I'm near certain that the lake and dragon trios will get official names soon (legendary pixies and titans), and Brock's gonna be seeing Uxie by DP120. TTEchidna 21:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No May saw Uxie --Guardian of Earth |SGMS 2010

May saw the lake if I remember right, but didn't mention Uxie... I dunno, I never saw the dub version, but I heard no mention of "Yuxie". TTEchidna 20:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, what the heck with it. "Legendary Titans" sounds better. LET'S MOVE IT!!! TorchicBlaziken ^{(talk•edits)} 13:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, i really don't like the idea of calling them "Titans". Based on the old greek mythology and definitions, i always saw the weather trio as more the Titans as compared to the dragon trios god-hood. But then, this is just probably cuz Nintendo is too cowardly to dare use the g-word.Morgil27 21:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There's been no confirmation of the "titans" name yet, only of the Platinum release date. Note Handsome and Pluto. TTEchidna 09:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah but everything else from that circuit city page has been confirmed true, and besides, can't we change it anyway? Seriously, Titans makes more sense than DragonsHades666 15:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It might be official since it's under "Manufacturer's description", but IDK. UltimateSephiroth ^{(about me · chat · edits)} 15:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Spacial Rend

It's colored a light blue colored as if it were a water-type move instead of a dragon-type move. was this done on purpose or something? --いぬみみ 01:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

GASP! TEH COLOR MEANS EVERYTHING. Osrry. I severly doubt it, it could have just been colored that wayDCM_{((曲奇饼妖怪Spy on My Edits))}

Yeah, I figure this was done to show the primary type of each of the titans, but to be more align with the rest of the 'pedia can an admin change this? As the page is locked. Thanks. — THE TROM — 09:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The coloration (in those three rows, at least) is more to represent the differences between the dragons, rather than the types of their moves. If we changed Spacial Rend (and Roar of Time, for that matter), it'd mess up the aesthetics of the table. --((Marton imos)) 10:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

But what about the tables at legendary birds, legendary golems, or lake trio? Surely displaying the correct type, as all other tables do around the entire wiki, is more important than making three colored lines. — THE TROM — 10:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. I likes me my pretty lines. If it were up to me, I'd change the other pages... still, it's not. At any rate, I'll change it for now, at least. Maybe I can get my pretty lines back later. (And maybe they'll release Classics Soundwave, and maybe my classes won't be so hard next semester, and...) --((Marton imos)) 10:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I admit, it did look better before, but a certain echidna once told me that we strive for accuracy at Bulbapedia. And here accuracy does mean correct typing. This "razz frazzin' [adult]" thanks you for carrying out his "razz frazzin' edit" :D — THE TROM — 10:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'm nineteen, practically venerable. I can call whoever I want a "kid."

Anyway, 's cool. This is a community project, and I'm no community (the voices in my head don't count). Just so long as I got them all. Anything else needs did-ing, come poke my talk page. --((Marton imos)) 10:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Greek Gods

I was thinking, ever notice how the dragons seem to be like Hades, Poseidon, and Zeus of Greek mythology? Like, Palkia/Poseidon is the more substantial and more all-present of the three, Zeus/Dialga is the more ethereal and less reachable, and Giratina/Hades is the one who can't live with the others and guard a dimension which no one wants, and controls the afterlife.Hades666 23:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting theory, but considering that Zeus was the king of the gods, wouldn't that be Arceus instead of Dialga? I was thinking that same thing with Hades, seeing as Giratina is the Renegade pokemon, like he's defying Arceus and was sent to guard the dimension people would rather avoid... ARGH! I'm an atheist and I was about to go into a God/Satan thing... But in my opinion, just like Rayquaza in Emerald, Giratina will be added to The Original Story and whatever Giratina controls will be mentioned alongside Time and Space... Kiryu 00:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Do do do. All mythology is basically the same. I could find you three main gods in the Egyptian Religion and Norse Mythology that function the same way you described. Basically, no.DCM_{((曲奇饼妖怪Spy on My Edits))}

Actually, Arceus would in this case be more similar to the Titan Kronos, in that it is the "father" of the dragon trio/main greek gods.Hades666 14:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Very good point, but then, Zeus killed Kronus because Kronus ate his "kids." I can't see anyone killing Arceus- except for certain fans- and Arceus certainly didn't eat the dragon trio. Kiryu 22:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

To the Conquering of Space-Time. If that's not children revolting against a maker... Aura-Knight 19:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I'd say it's more of one child beating the crap out of the other two. --Marton_{I'm Jewish}imos 20:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, lets just wait for To the conquering of space-time. Then we should find out all we need to know about Arceus.Hades666 13:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Trio has as much to do with the greek gods as the Weather Trio have to do with them. Over.DCM_{((曲奇饼妖怪Spy on My Edits))}

No.Hades666 18:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

O RLY? Kyogre is Posieden. Hades causes earthquakes. So does Groudon. Zeus is God of the Sky, GASP! SO IS RAYQUAZA!DCM_{((曲奇饼妖怪Spy on My Edits))} 18:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Silly, everyone knows that Hades doesn't cause Earthquakes.Hades666 20:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Silly, remember in the myth of how he stole his wife? ( I think Persephone). He caused an earthquake and kidnapped her, the Goddess of Earth (not Gaia) got angry and wouldnt let the earth grow, zeus comprimised, Persephone spends half her time in the Underworld *winter* half her time on earth *summer spring*DCM_{((曲奇饼妖怪Spy on My Edits))} 20:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, stop this silly discussion once and for all. They are not based on the greek gods or something, so please stop. hfc2X 20:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Btw, Posidien causes earthquakes. 'ŚĥîΠŶPî₭₳ĉĥŭ' 01:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

And so can HadesDCM_{((Mock MeEdits))} 02:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to set things straight: Hades does not "cause earthquakes". In the myth of Persephone, all he did was make the ground open. That's not an earthquake. The earth might shake in result of the ground opening, but Poseidon is directly connected to the occurance of earthquakes, whereas for Hades, they are nothing but a side-effect. Not the same thing. He does not deliberately make it shake beneath your feet, so he is not the patron of them (like Poseidon is). Anyone trying to argue, in jest or in seriousness, that Groudon is Hades...bwahaha. Yer tring 2 herd. And that "goddess of the earth" is no such thing. Persephone's mother is Demeter, patron of the harvest. The myth is also slightly deeper than that. Amateurs.

Triads of gods are a popular theme in mythology. 3 is a magic number of checks and balances. You can take any trio and set them over any set of three gods remotedly connected, and have yourself a barbeque comparing and contracting, pushing and pulling until the pieces fit lopsidedly. There's no sense in noting it. Luna Tiger * the Arc Toraph 18:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

Could someone edit Another Forme -> Altered Forme, since the page is protected? UltimateSephiroth ^{(about me · chat · edits)} 20:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Triviatastic curiosity

No two members of the trio have the same number of legs. Even considering Giratina's OF this remains true, as Giratina OF has no legs, Palkia has two, Dialga has four and Giratina AF has six. I myself find it odd/curious. --Kaoz 17:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Do itDCM_{((曲奇饼妖怪Spy on My Edits))}

Forgot to add, since it's blocked I can't edit it in. Would you mind to add this shallow appreciation? TiA.--Kaoz 15:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

"Three beings were born to bind time and space." It said this on the draco plate, but only Dialga and Palkia have anything to do with time/space. On the plate page, if you click on where it says three beings it navigates too a page about the lake trio. They, however, have nothing to do time and space, only spirit. Perhaps this third being is Giratina? I choose to stay neutral until the theory is proven.--100xstupid 17:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh. The Distorted World Distorts space and is in its own timeDCM_{((曲奇饼妖怪Spy on My Edits))} 17:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying the link should be changed (or at least, that we should consider changing it)? And if so, wouldn't it make more sense to bring this up there? But yeah, I'll take a look. --((Marton imos)) 18:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No, wait. It can't be the Dragon trio, because it mentions "Two beings of time and space set free from the Original One" right before that. So I guess Giratina's just being left out. Those jerks. --((Marton imos)) 18:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at the page for heatran and, sorry to stir up this wierd argument even more, but it says something about it being created as an after effect of the creation of Dialga and Palkia. This could mean that the trio is of Dialga, Palkia and Heatran. I'll check their move sets and compare them, but i doubt it.--100xstupid 21:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, completely different. Btw, I just want to shine my doubt on the theory of Girantina being death and arceus life. It cannot work, because they have such different stats. To keep things in balence, they would need to be equally strong, like the other trios.--100xstupid 21:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Something i noticed

I noticed it says this in the article:

"Dialga controls time and Palkia controls space, two aspects of the four-dimensional universe that the Pokémon world, like our own, is a part of. The final member, Giratina, apparently has control over other dimensions like the Distortion World, which may itself be a location with a fourth spacial dimension. "

Shouldn't that be the fifth dimension, since the Dialga and Palkia control the other four? I would've just changed it myself, but... well... I can't.Morgil27 15:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Protect

Admin, could you please protect this page? We don't need vandals addin False information about HGSS, and such. _ShinyPika 01:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering that we've known about this for ages and no one had bothered to put any information about HGSS on at all (which is true, btw), I'm denying this request. —darklordtrom 01:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The Dragon Trio Movesets and HGSS

Now, I couldn't do what I did on the Weather Trio page because not only were the movesets different, but so were the levels where they learn them. Since it would be a scattered mess if I combined them, I had to make a new list for HGSS. Chosen of Mana - 17:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Eggs

I know they're obtained at level one in HGSS but are they technically hatched from eggs? When I get my Dragon baby, will it say "hatched at Shinto Ruins" or will it say "met at Shinto Ruins"?

And why does Firefox's spell check recognize Shinto as an actual word?--Skaisdead 08:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I dunno for sure, but it will proably say "met at Shinto Ruins" as for spell check, Shinto is some sort of Japanese spiritual thing, according to Wikipedia. ^たかは_りい! 08:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course, they DO technically hatch from eggs in the cutscene. I'd guess it doesn't count as "hatched" because the egg wasn't technically in your possession when it hatched. --AndyPKMN 12:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Dimensional Trio?

Each of them has control over their own Dimensions, and these Dimensions have a strong connection to their power. TorchicBlaziken ^{(talk•edits)} 02:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm for this as well. Dragon seems to be the creators' favorite picks for Legendary, so maybe we need something more specific, my suggestion: Dimensional Dragons. --☯ *Ɣℯ№ӎօṫհ* ☯ 22:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Spacetime link

I read in the beginning of the article about the four-dimensional space, clicked the link, and it went to a Wikipedia article on Spacetime. But I think, considering it says four-dimesional, it should lead to a tesseract, which is one dimension higher than a cube, which is three-dimensional, making the tesseract four-dimensional. Pawsrent 14:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Renames

I'm thinking God dragon trio, as opposed to the Energy dragon trio. If the word "god" is too offensive to describe them (wimps), maybe the creation dragon trio? TTEchidna 04:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I like Creation dragon trio. In fact, perhaps just Creation trio, as both Creation dragon trio and, for that matter, Energy dragon trio are a bit cumbersome compared to other trio names. --Andy^P_K^M_N 15:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I support the "Creation trio" name, it's less species specific and more in line with their myth. For the Isshu dragons, I think "Balance trio" or "Tao trio" would be more fitting.--Kaoz 15:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I never understood the "Dragon trio" name anyway, I'm a supporter for "Creation trio" as well. --Angela-Samshi 17:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm voting in favor of changing the name to "Creation trio". We have another trio that consists of all Dragon-types now so the name "Dragon trio" might be too confusing.--Alex726_{contributions} 00:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Really?

The last trivia point claims that Kyurem is a version mascot. It is likely, but we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves claiming things that haven't been revealed. Just a thought. Luxraychu 13:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Weakness

Should this be stated that all members have a weakness with one of its own type? Dragon-s, and Ghost (apparently Giratina weaks to both..) Insert non-formatted text here - unsigned comment from Acellutor (talk • contribs)

Dialga is weak to neither Dragon (resisted by steel, thus damaged normally overall) nor Steel (resisted by steel, unaffected by Dragon). Werdnae (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Legendary titans

According to Legendary titans, these Pokémon were called the "Legendary titans" by Circuit City, but this page doesn't mention it anywhere. Can someone find the source and mention it on this page? --SnorlaxMonster 15:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if it is worth mentioning; |closest to the source as Circuit City went out of business shortly after accidentally leaking a game blurb about the Generation IV games. I can add this to the page in a moment. Leaving the link there in-case any else is curious. Frozen Fennec 16:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Move request

According to Cyrus in Pokémon Diamond and Pearl, Dialga is the ancient deity of time, and Palkia is the ancient deity of space and dimensions, so the legendary trio consisting of Dialga, Palkia, and Giratina is called the ancient deities. Please, will you rename this page for me? --SaturnMario, his talk and his contributions 23:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Is that an actual term used in the games or are you calling the group that because they were referred to as deities?--ForceFire 06:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

That's an actual term used in the games, according to Cyrus. --SaturnMario, his talk and his contributions 21:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

According to his quotes article, he doesn't. He calls Dialga and Palkia deities of their respective matter, but he doesn't call the group ancient deities.--ForceFire 05:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

How about a better name? Perhaps you can find an official name taken from a core series game. How about that? --SaturnMario, his talk and his contributions 21:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

If there was, we should use it, if it exists. If not, changing a fan name to another fan name doesn't make sense.--ForceFire 06:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I've come up with a better name: Dialga and Palkia were worshipped by the Diamond Clan and the Pearl Clan, respectively, under the name "almighty Sinnoh". How does that name fit? Can we move the page to "Almighty Sinnoh"? --SaturnMario, his talk and his contributions 22:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

That name would completely disregard Giratina. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 22:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I support the move from creation trio to Primordial chaos. Its like with the Legendary Titans and Super ancient-Pokemon, its an official term and its fitting. A trio of Legendaries born form chaos at the very beginning of the universe thanks to Arceus. The perks of Legends Arceus, reveling more facts on this fun powerful trio.--Jacob9594 (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Will need more context for this term.--ForceFire 05:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Durning Eternal Battle Reverie, you get to the option of facing different variety of Pokemon. The category options name are usually a reference to a certain Pokemon like say The might of Sinnoh references and is Arceus who you face in battle or pick the Banished Pokemon and face Giratina.One of the option is Primordial chaos. When you click on it, you face Dialga, Palkia, and Giratina, all three in their true Origin Formes. And according to legends, Arceus's egg was born from vortex of chaos. And then from that chaos Arceus created the Hisui/Sinnoh and creation trio from said chaos. Hence the term Primordial chaos as the Legendary trio, emerged from chaos at the beginning of when the universe was first created by Arceus. All three are in their Origin Formes. Does this helps with context or more information is needed for move to new title to happen?--Jacob9594 (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Move to Primordial Chaos

Can this page be moved to Primordial Chaos, as how they're described in Legends Arceus? It's the first time the trio has been given a canonical name, and is far better than the unofficial name that is currently used. - unsigned comment from Lewtwo (talk • contribs)

For some context, this is a small sample of the Legends Arceus context where the phrase is used

The might of Sinnoh
Primordial chaos
シンオウ
根源

So the English has been fairly elaborated. Staff are looking at this. But this doesn't really seem like a great option to me. Tiddlywinks (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I dunno if it's the best option, but it is the best we currently have that's used in official media. --Spriteit (talk) 12:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

For the record, this page may be moved to "Pokémon of Myth" per Research Task (HOME). (Primordial Chaos is rejected.) Someone just needs to do the dirty work of relinking/editing the old name. Tiddlywinks (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I feel like this move should have had community input beforehand. The new name is horribly generic and doesn't make it clear what Pokémon it is refering to. Besides, I don't even think the evidence provided is even proof that it's an official term — is "Legendary Pokémon" the official term for the specific grouping of Koraidon and Miraidon? Overall, this move makes no sense. Biblical Bambi (talk) 06:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Dusting off my old account to comment that I agree, this change makes no sense. The Palkia and Giratina pages now say that this trio is "often collectively referred to as the Pokémon of Myth by fans" which is just a blatant lie, nobody calls them that. Also, if we're going with terms from Research Tasks, the Lake guardians should be called "Lakes of Sinnoh", or the trio of Cresselia, Heatran and Regigigas "Deep Within Sinnoh". The Research Tasks are achievements, I don't think they should be take as an official source of what a trio of Pokemon should be called. The names mostly refer to locations, and I believe "Pokemon of Myth" was chosen because that's what they are, mythical. I suggest moving back to Creation trio, that way people know what Pokemon are actually being talked about. Angela-Samshi (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

"The Palkia and Giratina pages now say that this trio is "often collectively referred to as the Pokémon of Myth by fans" which is just a blatant lie, nobody calls them that." This was not a "lie", it was an oversight. The link was replaced without considering the context. Please remember to assume good faith. Thank you.

Also, "Pokémon of Myth" was chosen because it's the closest to an official name that we have, unlike "Creation trio" which is entirely a fan term. Landfish7 19:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

When you say "it's the closest to an official name that we have", you're admitting it's not an official name. And if we're gonna use an unofficial name, why not the one that people actually use and doesn't overlap with other terms like Mythical Pokémon? Biblical Bambi (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, there was nearly a year for any comments people may have wished to make. I *am* sorry that we neglected to mention our alternative, but it's not like there wasn't time for people to chime in and make it clear that there was STRONG support for "primordial" chaos and why, which I think would've made it clear to us that a lot of people might want to offer critiques like above.

We do not think this is an unofficial name. We think this is the best official name/label the group currently has. There may later be a clearly better name.

We're more than willing to hear from more people. Tiddlywinks (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for my earlier comment, I realize it wasn't a well thought out point. To continue, Mythical Pokemon are indeed already a distinct group of Legendary Pokemon. Calling this trio "Pokemon of Myth" is just going to cause confusion, people are going to think it's referring to the likes of Mew and Celebi and not these. Mythical Pokemon are literally Pokemon of Myth, and this trio is not part of that group, so calling them that doesn't make much sense. For the sake of clarity I think the move should be reverted, or moved to Primordial Chaos once and for all, even if this name may be official (however official the name of an achievement is). Primordial Chaos, while still not particularly super good as a group name, is a term that better describes the Pokemon involved, and can be traced back to a game. Angela-Samshi (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I did some more research on this. According to the Japanese Pokemon wiki, the "Pokemon of Myth" research task is named "神話のポケモン", which means "mythical Pokemon". This is the exact same term that Cyrus used to refer to Dialga and Palkia way back in DPPt. It was translated to "mythical Pokemon" in English, with a lowercase m. In all current official instances that I can find, Dialga, Palkia and Giratina are just referred to as "伝説のポケモン", which is the Japanese term for Legendary Pokemon. With this in mind I believe the term is used to refer to them as being mythical, not necessarily being the mythical Pokemon. "Pokemon of Myth" is just a different way to localize "神話のポケモン". Dialga, Palkia and Giratina are mythical Pokemon, because they come from the myths of Sinnoh. They are not the mythical Pokemon. Angela-Samshi (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I definitely agree that HOME missions are usually a bad source for the names of groups of Legendary Pokémon; however, in this unique case, I think it can be justified. I would argue that Eternal Battle Reverie challenge names are substantially worse though — especially because the Eternal Battle Reverie challenge names care about forms ("Primordial chaos" is specifically the Origin Formes of the trio; compare the two challenges for the Forces of Nature, which have different names depending on which forms are included). In Japanese, the challenge "Primordial chaos" is called 「根源」 Kongen, which literally just means "origin" (although it's not the same word used in Origin Forme, it's clearly meant to be a synonym for it), indicating that the challenge is describing their forms and is not supposed to be a name for the group.

Dialga and Palkia are consistently referred to as "mythical Pokémon" (lowercase 'M') throughout DPPt and BDSP. Obviously, we cannot call this page "Mythical Pokémon", as that's a different group of Pokémon and would be very unclear. However, it is notable that this issue is unique to English — in every other language, the term used to refer to Dialga and Palkia is distinct from the term for Mythical Pokémon (e.g. in Japanese, this group is 神話のポケモン Shinwa no Pokémon while Mythical Pokémon are 幻のポケモン Maboroshi no Pokémon), and the usage of the same terms across languages is fairly consistent. So it seems like this term is definitely intended to be the name of the group, it's just really difficult to handle in English because its localized name clashes with another term (that was first used in English one generation after this group's name).

That's where Pokémon HOME comes in. There is a BDSP HOME mission for collecting Dialga, Palkia, and Giratina whose title matches the term for "mythical Pokémon" (Shinwa no Pokémon) in every language (except English and French). That mission is localized as "Pokémon of Myth" in English, presumably using an alternate English localization in order to prevent confusion with Mythical Pokémon (Maboroshi no Pokémon).

Because the term Shinwa no Pokémon is fairly consistently used to refer to Dialga and Palkia in every language (and HOME also uses it to refer to Giratina), I think it's important that we try to use one of the official English equivalents of that term. Of the two choices — "mythical Pokémon" and "Pokémon of Myth" — the latter is clearly the better choice.

I will note that I only researched this cross-language usage after the page had already been moved, to ensure that I agreed with the choice. Had I done so beforehand, I definitely would have posted it on this talk page earlier. However, I have now detailed the cross-language usage on the page itself in the Terminology section (which has more detail about edge cases than I have described here). --SnorlaxMonster 14:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

However, as the user above pointed out, in other instances the Japanese term for "legendary" was used. It's clear that "mythical" is being used as an adjective, not as a title (If they called Miraidon and Koraidon "powerful Pokémon", would that make "Powerful Pokémon" the official name for the group?). Besides, "creation trio" is much more widely used, having 104,000 hits on Google vs. just 3,870 for "Pokémon of myth", with every search result for the latter term besides Bulbapedia using it to refer to Mythical Pokémon! It's clear that "Pokémon of myth" is an awful title for this page, and the placeholder of "creation trio" is infinitely better. Biblical Bambi (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

(resetting indent)There really is no need to overdramatize this. We really only use fan terms if there's no other option, and we've been generally moving away from fan terms anyway. Pokémon of Myth isn't perfect, and not my favorite, but it's our best option in the absence of a proper official group title. Landfish7 22:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The whole point is that there is not enough evidence that this is even an official term, as official sources have not used this term consistently to refer to this trio (as evidenced by no official sources showing up in the search results when "Pokémon of Myth" is Googled). There's an argument to be made that using a widespread fanmade term is better than a convoluted official one that doesn't see wide usage, and I have made that argument, but this isn't even a real official term. The search for anything resembling an official term is getting absurd at this point, since few people use "Pokémon of Myth", the few that do use it to refer to Mythical Pokémon, and it has seen no official use beyond one achievement name, which is not a standard that is being used to determine any other official names (else the Lake Trio is now the "Lakes of Sinnoh"). The old name wasn't causing any problems, why did you feel the need to "fix" it? Biblical Bambi (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I feel like I've addressed these points, so just to be formal, I oppose the move to Creation trio. Landfish7 23:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the Japanese BDSP website has lead to some confusion; while they are not called "mythical Pokémon" on that website, they are consistently and repeatedly referred to that way throughout DPPt and BDSP. I count a total of 6 times the Japanese term is used within each of DP, Pt and BDSP, including the title of a report on Cyrus's computer that is specifically about those Pokémon. Cross-localization analysis is a really effective way to distinguish between purely descriptive phrasings and actual terminology — the fact that the term is fairly consistently translated in the same way across all languages is why I believe it is not merely being used descriptively.

As I said earlier, I don't think HOME missions are usually a good source for group names (hence why I wouldn't suggest moving lake guardians to "Lakes of Sinnoh" — although "Lake Guardians" is an official term anyway). However, in this particular case, I think it makes sense to use HOME's localization of the official term that is used repeatedly in DPPt/BDSP, but only because it matches the term used in the games themselves in other languages. --SnorlaxMonster 08:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Move to Pokémon of Sinnoh myth

I believe it would be more accurate to call this article "Pokémon of Sinnoh myth" to clarify which Pokemon the article talks about. There are several Pokemon with myths associated with them, and the page only talks about Dialga, Palkia, and Giratina. --CuteShaymin (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

This suggestion is rejected, as it is a fan designator, whereas Pokémon of Myth is the official title given to the group in Pokémon HOME. Landfish7 15:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a bad and vague official name, though. Is it really the law on here that official names must be followed whenever there is one? --CuteShaymin (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, our policy is to use the most recent official name over outdated terms or fan designators, whenever possible. Landfish7 21:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Move back to creation trio

First of all, the term still sees little use in the fandom as a whole and overlaps heavily with the term for mythical Pokémon (of the six total hits for "Pokémon of Myth" on Smogon, half of them are referring to mythical Pokémon, compare this to the twenty hits for "creation trio" in the past year alone). And the evidence that this is an "official" name is not very convincing, Pokémon HOME is not a valid argument since it's not used as a standard for official names in any other case (the page is at Forces of Nature rather than "Incarnate Forces of Hisui"). Using "the closest thing we've gotten to official" is also not a standard that's used across the site (the page is at Pseudo-legendary Pokémon rather than "Late Bloomers", which if anything is a much more widely-used term than "Pokémon of Myth" (70ish relevant hits on Smogon, even if Pseudo-legendary still has far more). In short, I think the arguments for this term being "official" aren't convincing enough to counter the problems of this being at an obscure and confusing title. Biblical Bambi (talk) 05:14, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaediac website, we're gonna strive to use the official terms where possible. If not then the page will state if it's a fan term like your example. The fact that a term has "little use in the fandom" is not a reason to rename the page, especially when the common fan term is already listed on the page. There is no reason to move this page. Eeveelutionred (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

As Eeveelutionred stated, it is standard on Bulbapedia to use official terms or descriptors whenever possible, per BP:TITLE. Landfish7 10:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

And of course, you just ignored the main point of my argument, that there is no convincing evidence that this is actually an official term. If this isn't really an official term, then it makes more sense to use the term that is more widely used and doesn't overlap with an actually official term. Biblical Bambi (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Please be civil. While I appreciate the policy isn't clear on this, I'd argue an officially used descriptor is, in many cases, still preferred over a fan term that very well may have just been made up by us in the first place. Creation trio still redirects here, and we still list the term in the article, so it's not like it's being ignored. Landfish7 17:26, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Except it hasn't really been used in an official capacity, as I have stated before Googling "Pokémon of Myth" brings up zero official sources. And "in many cases" is just weasel words, as I can point to many cases like the above mentioned Pseudo-legendary. And if there's any case not to use an "official" descriptor, shouldn't it be one in which the said term overlaps heavily with another term, to the point that a majority of uses of the term are still used to refer to mythical Pokémon rather than this trio? I feel the arguments for this move are still sloppy and were poorly explained. Biblical Bambi (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

"Pokémon of Myth" is used in lieu of "mythical Pokémon" in the English-language version of Pokémon HOME as the title for the Research Task of storing Dialga, Palkia, and Giratina. This is referred to in this article. Landfish7 17:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Hence this the offical name and closest one we had, reguardless if some folks don't like it. Untill another officla name for trio comes this is the offical name and not going back to the fan name for creation trio. Jacob9594 (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

(resetting indent)It occurs to me this conversation is retreading a lot of the same arguments that have already been made previously. I do want to make one thing clear though: fan usage and hits on Google or other sites are not strongly considered in determining the best name for a franchise topic. People are free to voice their opinion here, but not much is likely to change unless new evidence arises. Landfish7 18:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Again, as I have stated prior in literally no other case is Pokémon HOME's research tasks used as a standard for official names so it is completely arbitrary to use it as such here. If "mythical Pokémon" is used more often than "Pokémon of myth" then that is closer to being "official" and not using it is another sign of how arbitrary this change was. If the term being used once is enough to put it at the same level of legitimacy, then surely a move back to "starter Pokémon" is legitimate by this standard since it was used in an official video not to long ago (not to mention it having a much longer history of official use than "Pokémon of Myth"). The reason that this may feel circular is that people repeat the same "but it's official" line to diamiss all arguments without actually engaging with the points I am making. Biblical Bambi (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

SnorlaxMonster already addressed your point about the HOME tasks. Landfish7 18:34, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

It really doesn't (especially with regards to the more consistantly used point) and again you are ignoring most of my argument to just cherrypick one point that you think dismisses it. if you're not going to respond to my whole argument then don't bother. Biblical Bambi (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok I've been lurking on this discussion for a bit so lemme try to explain things in my own words and see if that clears things up.

1) If there's an official name for a thing, we want to use the official name for that thing, regardless of how commonly used it is in the fandom.

2) The name used in the core series games (DPPt and BDSP) to refer to Dialga and Palkia is "神話のポケモン". "神話のポケモン" is also the name of the research task in HOME that requires players to catch Dialga, Palkia, and Giratina.

3) "神話のポケモン" is translated as "mythical Pokémon" in English versions of DPPt and BDSP. However, "神話のポケモン" is translated as "Pokémon of Myth" in the English version of Pokémon HOME.

4) "神話のポケモン" is consistently used as the name for the group in Japanese, so we feel comfortable in saying that it's the official Japanese name. Unfortunately, this name has been translated ti English in two different ways. Under normal circumstances, we would pick the term that's been consistent across multiple core series games rather than once in a spin-off. However, because the more common English name is identical to another English term, we opted to use the less common English name instead.

In short, we did not arbitrarily decide that Pokémon HOME's research tasks can be used as the official name for groups sometimes. We decided that this particular research task can be considered the official name for this group because the task's Japanese title is identical to the Japanese name used for this group in the core series, meaning the two different English names are equivalent. Otherwise, you're correct - a term being used once wouldn't be enough to consider it the official name.

That being said, if you're still not happy with the current page title, we could use "mythical Pokémon" for the name instead. Unfortunately, the first letter of a page title isn't case-sensitive in MediaWiki, so we'd have to use a disambiguation tag to distinguish it from "Mythical Pokémon". Maybe "mythical Pokémon (Sinnoh)"? Storm Aurora (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are trying to address the core of my argument instead of repeating the same thought-terminating cliché of "but it's official", but I still disagree that "mythical Pokémon/Pokémon of Myth" is an official name. First of all, as you state "mythical Pokémon" is only used to refer to Dialga and Palkia and not the full trio with Giratina (outside of Pokémon HOME) so including Giratina in there is already a shoehorn unless you are entirely depending on Pokémon HOME. Secondly, it reads more as a desciptor than a true name. The fact that "mythical" is lowercase (and, since it is consistent across both DPPt and BDSP, seems unlikely to be a translation error) suggests that it isn't a true title like e.g. Swords of Justice or the Loyal Three, simply an adjective that is used to modify Pokémon and thus it doesn't really seem any more official than things like "bird Pokémon" that have also been mentioned. To use another HOME exammple (I know the argument isn't entirely dependent on HOME but this will further illustrate my point) "Hisui's Flying Pokémon" obviously isn't an official title for the grouping of Pokémon including Staraptor, Magnezone, Togetic and Gyarados but is rather using adjectives to describe a group. For another example, Zacian/Zamazenta is called a "mad Pokémon" by Hop (admittedly I'm not familiar with what the Japanese term here) but obviously that is not an official title for the group. Despite the claims of this not being dependent on Pokémon HOME, I do feel that we wouldn't be having this conversation if it weren't for it as otherwise this term is only used in the Sinnoh Gen IV games and the remakes, which as far as I am aware do not use the term "mythical Pokémon" in any capacity that wasn't there in the original games so saying it is present in "multiple core series games" is kind of a stretch. And given that that is the only real use (as opposed to Super-ancient Pokémon and Legendary heroes which while they are both somewhat questionable IMO you can at least point to multiple uses in promotional material etc.) I don't really think there is strong enough evidence that this is the official term. Biblical Bambi (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer "Pokémon of Myth" because arguably, this is the current official term since it was introduced after the latest version of BDSP, in HOME 2.0.0 (May 17, 2022), and remained in later HOME versions. As mentioned above, DPPt/BDSP used the older term "mythical Pokémon".

In a sense, we could argue that in English the "mythical Pokémon" are just Dialga and Palkia (as mentioned in DPPt/BDSP), while the "Pokémon of Myth" are Dialga, Palkia, and Giratina (as mentioned in HOME), but I know that this distinction was obviously not intended by the developers since the names are the same in Japanese.

HOME is an official game. It's fine as an official source for names as long as we make it clear when the name does not appear in the core series. In other cases, spin-off games or merchandise have also been used as official sources.

Cyrus specifically uses "mythical Pokémon" as their title: "Dialga, the mythical Pokémon, and the master of time! ...And the other. Palkia, the mythical Pokémon, and the master of space and dimensions!"

Hop did not know the name of the Pokémon when he said "that mad Pokémon attacked" so he was clearly just describing it. His wording is a bit different in Japanese, he mentions 不思議な　ポケモン (fushigi na Pokémon = strange, mysterious Pokémon). If someone said "<name> and <name>, the mad Pokémon, attacked", I would be more inclined to think of this as their title.

I think it's also fine to keep the articles always starting with a capital letter since that's what Wikipedia and most wikis do, but technically MediaWiki is able to allow articles starting with lowercase letters if the wiki developer uses the option $wgCapitalLinks = false;. In this case, an article could be named exactly "mythical Pokémon" (though that's not my preference). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

You're leaving out one of his other lines, "This is the mythical Pokémon that created Sinnoh!" I think it's clear it is being used as a descriptor here rather than a title Biblical Bambi (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

It's still a title in the quote I mentioned: "Dialga, the mythical Pokémon" (しんわの　ポケモン　ディアルガよ).

Yes, I agree that in the quote you mentioned it's a descriptor. It's also worded differently in Japanese: しんわに　のこっている　ポケモン (Pokémon that remains in myth). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Storm Aurora made most of the points I wanted to (that we're using one of two English equivalents of a term that is used fairly consistently throughout DPPt/BDSP). However, one point I want to address was the comment about the lack of capitalization. The Swords of Justice and Loyal Three are unusual in that they are capitalized. Almost all group names of legendary Pokémon are uncapitalized—even when they include the word "legendary" (which would normally be capitalized in the context of "Legendary Pokémon"), that word is also usually lowercase. SnorlaxMonster 03:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Re: Daniel, I don't really see how the cases are that different even if a different Japanese adjective is used. Not to mention the problems with it being used to refer to Dialga/Palkia individually but not as a group and especially not with Giratina (it can be fairly said that the term being used to refer to the trio is exclusive to Pokémon HOME and I don't think anyone has provided information that disputes that). Re: Snorlax it's the lack of capitalization combined with it being a fairly generic adjective and its limited use in the series, basically only appearing in one script (that was admittedly reused in multiple games). If one other TCG blurb, marketing campaign, official video etc. used this term it'd be easier to swallow (hence why I'm not disputing super-ancient Pokémon) but it's still not clear enough that this is an official term and especially an official title and not just some adjective that was arbitrarily used in that particular context. Biblical Bambi (talk) 06:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

So does this mean we can remove the Move tag from creation Trio page? I am cannot removie it due to it being lock to be fair. Jacob9594 (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that the use of the term "Pokémon of Myth" is largely inconsistent, even in Japanese. Its equivalent Japanese term, 神(しん)話(わ)のポケモン, is used not only to refer to Arceus in Legends: Arceus and in Type: Null's dex entry in Shield, who is not generally considered a part of the trio as far as the page is concerned, but is also used to describe Kyogre in its HeartGold, SoulSilver and X dex entries (translated in English as "mythical Pokémon"):

大雨と大津波で海を広げた神話のポケモン。グラードンと激しく戦った。

Furthermore, Trading Card Game Pocket's collection featuring the trio is titled "Myths of Sinnoh Resurrected" (Japanese: よみがえるシンオウ神話), a very similar English term for the group, but the collection also includes the lake guardians, who surely aren't considered in this discussion at all. So given all of this, it's very possible the term is just used as a descriptor of Pokémon who's existence is referenced in mythology, rather than a term specifically for Dialga, Palkia and Giratina; however, for what it's worth, the name has only been applied to the Sinnoh trio (BDSP, HOME) and Arceus (Shield, Legends: Arceus) post-Generation 6 as far as I can tell.

So really, the only question is if a nebulous yet official term should be prioritized over a fan term. I'd like to see more discussion on this point. Personally, I feel as though the current title is weak given that it's been applied more often to Arceus than it has to the creation trio. It does feel more like a descriptor than it does an official term, and given that the primary English source is in Title Case, it's even harder to tell if it's intended to be a proper name for the group or not. meeper! ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 18:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Fwiw, there's a lot of focus on this being a descriptor, but like, descriptors are perfectly valid page titles, when appropriate.

Bottom line is that either way, even if Pokémon of Myth is not ideal, reverting back to Creation trio is a nonstarter.

We do not use fan terms for Legendary groups anymore. Existing groups using fan terms are only doing so as legacy topics, and as soon as we find better names for them, even if it's a descriptor, they *will* be moved.

If Legends: Z-A gets a new Legendary group that lacks an official name, we will not come up with or use a fan term for that group. We will use an appropriate descriptor. Using fan terms is not a good practice for us to continue doing for franchise topics.

Even if this move wasn't a good one, the solution would be to find an appropriate new title, not to revert to a title that is just as problematic. Landfish7 18:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

But the fact that "Pokémon of Myth" is not used convincingly and consistently as an official term (as in, there's no evidence TPC considers this to be an official term) means that it is also a fan term, just one that is much less used and much more confusing than creation trio as the latter doesn't overlap with an actual official term. Biblical Bambi (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Meeper, thanks for the examples of inconsistent usage of 神話のポケモン. I find them interesting.

In HGSS, Chuck also refers to Kyogre using that term, translated into English as "mythical Pokémon". I find it odd that although Chuck talks about both Kyogre and Groudon in the same sentence, the latter is technically not called a mythical Pokémon (not even in Japanese): "It is said to have something to do with the mythical Pokémon that stretched the seas and that Pokémon that widened the lands."

For the record, "Pokémon of Myth" is capitalized because that's the title of a Research Task. Most of them are capitalized: other examples of RTs are "Deep Within Sinnoh" (Cresselia, Regigigas, and Heatran), "Fossil Secrets" (Aerodactyl, Omastar, and Kabutops), and "Trading Mysteries" (Alakazam, Machamp, Golem, and Gengar). But there's also a bit of inconsistency since other RTs are named "First Partner Pokémon" and "First partner Pokémon". (I double-checked the actual game data, the article is correct) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

"Pokémon of Myth" may not be used consistently by official sources...but it is still a title used for these three Pokémon in software published by The Pokémon Company. That means it is, by definition, not a fan term. Storm Aurora (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Except, as established previously, Pokémon HOME is not a good indicator for official names. If the term is not used officially in a clear and consistent manner, then making the logical leap that it is an official name is a fan invention. Biblical Bambi (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

HOME is fine as a source for "Pokémon of Myth".

Anyway, there's an official guidebook that calls them "legendary VIPs" so I suppose that's another name to be considered. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I feel like the goalposts have been moved in this argument. First, the argument was "HOME is terrible as an official source on its own but the Japanese term has been used consistently to refer to the trio!", but now that that argument has been debunked people are saying HOME is a good source actually. Guess we should move Forces of Nature to "Incarnate Forces of Hisui" then. I also love the desperation to try to find an "official" term that always ends up being an arbitrary descriptor that is just saying they're legendary Pokémon. A comparable situation would be pseudo-legendary Pokémon, where yes one merchandise line did use the term "late bloomers" but it wasn't even used consistently across all merchandise lines featuring said group so it stays at the common (well, more common, "late bloomers" does see legitimate unofficial usage) term. Just mmove back to creation trio, it's not a "problematic" title as it caused zero problems in the decade+ that it was located at the title. When/if there's evidence for an actual official name we can revisit it but moving it to the name that people recognize and is clear in what it refers to is less problematic than the current title. Biblical Bambi (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, HOME Research Tasks aren't a great source for official group names (a lot of research tasks are just the name of a location and the task is to catch all the Pokémon that can be found in that location), but it's better than nothing. As Landfish said earlier, moving back to "creation trio" is not gonna happen. For groups of Legendary Pokémon, page titles don't just serve as the titles of these pages; they serve as the blueprint for how we refer to the group across the wiki, and we do not want to keep propagating fan terms across the wiki. The term "Pokémon of Myth" is applied to these three Pokémon in HOME, so it's at least an official term, even if it's not necessarily the official name of the group. If you don't like it, you need to propose an alternative, description-style title to move the page to. Storm Aurora (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Except this "official" term has been used to refer to Arceus, Type: Null, and Kyogre, so it's just an adjective and nothing more. Since this page was moved based on what are essentially false pretenses, it makes sense to revert the name back to what it was before. Trying to contrive an "official" term where none exists is no better than using a fan name and the only reason why this name is considered to be "better" seems to be contempt for people who prefer unofficial terms. Can you provide me one reason why "Pokémon of Myth" is a better title than "Creation trio" that isn't the thought-terminating cliche of "but it's official"? But if that is really too much to ask then we can just rename this article "Dialga, Palkia, and Giratina". It's unambiguously the "official" names of the three and is clear in what it is referring to (and the three listed out has far more usage than either definition of "Pokémon of Myth". I won't hear arguments of "but it's clunky" or whatever when the same argument can be applied tenfold to the current title. Biblical Bambi (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not opposed to calling it "Dialga, Palkia, and Giratina". That was my first idea for an alternate title, too. Storm Aurora (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I challenge that it's unambiguous, because a title that just lists out some Pokemon names can be referring to any individual "Dialga, Palkia, and Giratina" things without any sort of guardrails. I don't think it's clear, really. ^Maverick_Nate 01:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Nate is right Plus would just a headache and confusion for those looking for one dragon or a group page as to mislead people into getting the wrong impression. Jacob9594 (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

My main concern with that potential title is that we don't title any other page like that but even so it's a hell of a lot less confusing than the current title which is basically the same as an actual consistently used official term (yes, I'm aware the Japanese is somewhat different but this is an English wiki) and has been used to refer to Pokémon that are not a part of this grouping. If necessary, you can title it "Dialga, Palkia, and Giratina (trio)" (but of course it'd be better just to move back to creation trio if you ask me). I'm not sure why people are so willing to defend this obviously contrived and clunky page name, it's okay to admit that we made a mistake by moving it to this title. Biblical Bambi (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

First of all, the reason for it being mythical pokemon term is because both legendary pokemon and mythical pokemon did not have separate classification until Gen V. Second, I don’t think you are going to win this argument. It has been made clear several times why name will not be changed to fan name, You are not going to win this argument. It’s not a mistake, it just being professional and official going forward. This debate is sadly the reason why this page has been protected and unable for anyone else to do contribute all because of a fan name move. Can we just move on as this has been going on for several days with no results and end. Yes not everyone will agree and that is fine, we are allowed to have opinions but having official name is better than just a fan name just to represent a common trait a legendary Pokémon group obviously had. Jacob9594 (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Now you're promoting flat-out misinformation, in Japan Mythical and Legendary Pokémon were always separate groups, it's just that the English translation didn't distinguish them for a long time. And as stated before it's not an "official" name otherwise we wouldn't be having this argument. Have you actually paid attention to the arguments presented above or is it just "fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong"? Biblical Bambi (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Never heared of "fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong thing. It is hard to keep track of everything. The english translation part I am aware of. Not trying to spread misinformation that I said earleir. Its hard to keep track of everything and catch up. Jacob9594 (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok, let me go back to something you asked about earlier, Biblical Bambi. One reason "Pokémon of Myth" is a better title than "Creation trio", other than the fact that it's official: "Pokémon of Myth" is a better descriptor for them than "creation trio". They're Pokémon that are featured prominently in Sinnoh's myths, so "Pokémon of Myth" makes sense. "Creation trio", on the other hand...none of these Pokémon created anything. That was all Arceus. Storm Aurora (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Looking back, the fan term actually refers to the fact they were created by Arceus. They were the first Legendary Pokemon to be created by Arceus. Jacob9594 (talk) 04:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Re: Storm Aurora: the same can be said of Arceus as well as Kyogre in Hoenn's myths, and both of those were referred to using that term! Like "legendary dragons" would be an accurate description of the trio but it'd obviously be a terrible title because it could obviously refer to several other Pokémon. As Jacob mentioned, "creation trio" refers to their roles in Arceus's creation and is a term that is clearly understood when it's used and it doesn't overlap with anything else. Biblical Bambi (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

The only other official names that they have for group name are for example: Sinnoh legends, legendary VIPs, primordial chaos. To me they may be the closest to others official name options that is not a fan name. Jacob9594 (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

"Creation trio" is just a fan term. As discussed above, it may be popular but it's not even that descriptive of Dialga, Palkia, and Giratina.

I suppose "creation trio" refers to the fact that they were there when the universe was created. As to the question of whether they created something, Dialga and Palkia created Sinnoh according to Cyrus, but to the best of my knowledge, I don't think Giratina created anything. Not only that, Giratina was not very helpful with the creation of the universe -- it was "banished for its violence" according to the Pokédex.

As long as we discuss fan terms, I think the name "creation trio" fits more Arceus, Dialga, and Palkia (without Giratina), or perhaps Uxie, Mesprit, and Azelf.

Uxie, Mesprit, and Azelf were also there when the universe was created, and the Pokédex entries say that the "birth" of knowledge, emotion, and willpower are attributed to them. Other Pokémon also created stuff, including but not limited to: Kyogre filled the seas, Groudon expanded the lands, and Regigigas shaped the continents.

Maybe "creation trio" could refer to Raikou, Entei, and Suicune (creations of Ho-Oh); Regirock, Regice, and Registeel (creations of Regigigas); Porygon, Porygon2, and Porygon-Z (creations of humans).

In a meta sense, all Pokémon trios are creation trios because they are fictional characters created by people. In fact, the name "creation trio" says nothing about Pokémon species. Maybe the "creation trio" actually refers to Nintendo, Creatures Inc, and Game Freak. Or perhaps the "creation trio" is Satoshi Tajiri, Shigeru Miyamoto, and Ken Sugimori. Maybe the "creation trio" were the first core series games, namely Pokémon Red, Green and Blue (Japan) or Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow (international).

Personally I'm glad we are avoiding fan terms in page titles like this. If we used "creation trio" as the page title, it could also give the impression that it's official.

Sometimes I've seen online discussions where basically someone argues "This claim is on Bulbapedia so it's official" but then someone replies like "Bulbapedia is just a fan site, nothing is official". Ideally we should use official sources and explain our references. Pokémon of Myth is not perfect but it's probably the best we have from the official media so far. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

A very wise reasoning and showing why Creation trio fan term will not be moved. Yeah Dialga and Palkia apparently has the power to create universe when Cyrus used them to create a world without spirit but stopped by either Lake guaridans or Giratina in one version. Plus their ability for space, time, and antimatter was inherited by Arceus who is the pokemon god and had same abilties as them only more powerful. Neither trio created Time, space or antimatter, they control them overall and not create. thanks to further evidence, legendary pokemon as pointed out has been created by other pokemon, making Creation trio being exlcusive fan name to pokemon of myth kinda null and void as techically can be refered to other elgendary pokemon groups. as a side we do use offical sources as proof to these name. Why yes not eveyrthing we say if offical but at least we make an effort to show proof and sources to make them as accurate as possible, my favorite part of this site,. Jacob9594 (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I've generally wanted to let this discussion run its course; but I just wanted to say that I generally don't find the idea of playing off the name of a Research task as an "official" name to be very convincing. We do however have nothing better to go off, since there never has been an official name given to this grouping. If you look at most of the research tasks, the names they get are generally a descriptive representation of The Pokémon you need to collect to fulfill the task; but these groupings usually have completely different names officially. As an example, the Treasures of Ruin are called "Ruinous Pokémon" in the research task, which perfectly does describe what you need to collect, but it isn't the official name of the Treasures of Ruin. In my opinion the article currently doesn't convey this nuance very well, and a reader could very well walk out thinking the term is official cannon, when in reality its just phrasing a game has used to describe the group one time. In that regard, the current name of the article is really only just slightly better than "Creation trio" which is a pure fan designation. I kinda feel like this page needs a notice template to make this clear; possibly {{unknown name}} could be adapted for this purpose (would have to replace the "fan designator" language with something like "descriptive representation" or similar). 4iamking 16:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

If we're gonna go with a descriptive title, let's pick one that actually applies to these three exclusively, like "Legendary dragon Pokémon of Sinnoh". Storm Aurora (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, as long as this matter can be settled and page can open up again. Jacob9594 (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

If we do that can we rename "Tower duo" to "Legendary birds/Flying Pokémon of Johto"🫠. 4iamking 19:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

That does seem to open up a whole other can of worms. Landfish7 19:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Tbh I feel it might be better; gives us a consistent naming scheme to use for these legendary/mythical groupings when an official name is lacking. 4iamking 19:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Using a name like "Mythical Pokémon (Sinnoh)" has also been discussed above, but personally I'm leaning against this one. Surely we can't just search-and-replace all instances of "Pokémon of Myth" into "mythical Pokémon" in running text, as it would likely lead to confusion with the main group of Mythical Pokémon. Anyway, "mythical Pokémon" may be the most commonly used term for Dialga and Palkia, but it appears that Giratina has not been referred as a "mythical Pokémon" in English so far.

If we are discussing descriptive names, maybe "Legendary Dragon-type Pokémon introduced in Generation IV" instead of "Legendary dragon Pokémon of Sinnoh". To the best of my knowledge, official media rarely says that a Pokémon is "of <region>" based on their first games. Pikachu may be considered a "Pokémon of Kanto" by fans, but as we know it also appears in several other regions and their respective regional Pokédexes.

Rayquaza, Latios, and Latias are also found in Sinnoh if we consider the Ramanas Park. And this article is also talking about Dialga/Palkia/Giratina when they appear outside Sinnoh.

Unfortunately I think that some names suggested may not fit other Pokémon groups. The light trio probably can't be renamed "Legendary Psychic-type Pokémon of Alola" or even "Legendary Psychic-type Pokémon introduced in Generation VII". They were not originated in Alola but in the Ultra Space, and these other Pokémon also share that type: Cosmog, Cosmoem, Tapu Lele, and Psychic Memory Silvally. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

"[...] it appears that Giratina has not been referred as a "mythical Pokémon" in English so far."

While this is true for English, the term in other languages (except French) has been used for the HOME task, so it's fair to assume the term and its localizations apply to the full trio. Landfish7 20:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I also don't think it's a good name; to me that title would imply Darkrai, Shaymin and Arceus which is obviously not this trio. The more I think about it the more I think our standard naming for these pages, barring any known official designation (which I would not consider the HOME task to be) should be "___ Pokémon of ___". Yes, Pokémon will be available in other games and therefore other regions but my counter-point to that is that Pokémon especially Legendary/Mythical Pokémon will always have a extremely strong connection to the generation/region that they were introduced in. 4iamking 20:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I feel that would not be very concise and may involve a lot of variation in detail between groups, making linking more difficult and writing prose more clunky. Landfish7 20:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Landfish7 - Alright, I suppose "Mythical Pokémon" could include Giratina as long as the localization nuances are clearly explained. It's a bit like how the same item has been called Rainbow Wing or Rainbow Feather. The English names might have varied in the past but it's still the same item.

4iamking - I agree that the Legendary Pokémon have a strong connection with their original region, but is that a fandom thing or an official thing? Dialga and Palkia are not from Sinnoh; they predate the creation of Hisui and its renaming into Sinnoh. Those Pokémon have a strong connection with both Hisui and Sinnoh.

But to be fair, on the other hand, I suppose there are a few official sources using this kind of wording nonetheless: "Legendary Pokémon Dialga and Palkia from the Sinnoh region have bent time and space to rule the battlefield as dimension-altering Pokémon ex." (source)

In the case of the aura trio, it uses a fan name but the Pokémon all have different types, so the wording "Legendary <type> Pokémon of Kalos" does not work in their case. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, type is clearly not an effective descriptor. To be accurate yet generalizable, it would have to be "- game mascot trio" or similar (which would technically apply to the Kanto starters, but whatever). Eragon4 (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I never suggested it should be types or anything; there other multi type combinations (Hoenn giants as an example; though they are confirmed as legendary giants). to be more clear my suggestion is it should be "(whatever they have in common) Pokémon of (region they were introduced)"; and maybe the last part can be held out if it doesn't make sense. 4iamking 21:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Fwiw, I'd possibly phrase the lede something like "The mythical Pokémon (Japanese: のポケモン Shinwa no Pokemon, "mythical Pokémon"), localized as Pokémon of Myth in Pokémon HOME, are a trio of Legendary Pokémon consisting of Dialga, Palkia, and Giratina. They are distinct from Mythical Pokémon, a separate classification of rare Pokémon obtained through special means."

Fwiw, the article also states that 神話のポケモン is used to refer to Giratina on the Japanese Pokémon Platinum website [1] (although perhaps a bit indirectly). It may be that "mythical Pokémon" just happens to have never been used in English to refer to Giratina, not that Giratina is being specifically excluded. Landfish7 21:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

My problem is it's not the name of the trio thats localized as "Pokémon of Myth"; it's the name of a Research mission that has you collect the trio. Its a pretty important distinction because there is a level of separation there that we are effectively removing with such wording. 4iamking 21:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

That may be the case in English, but in Japanese the Research Task is named 神話のポケモン. This is the same name previously used by Cyrus a few times referring to Dialga and/or Palkia in each Sinnoh game, and also referring to Giratina in the link Landfish provided above. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Sure but we are an English wiki and our sources need to reflect that especially given the inconsistencies in localization and the confusion this terminology can bring. We also have to be mindful that terms like "Mythical" and "Legendary" had much looser interpretations in generation 4 as they do today.

Another point to consider is that a term in one language can be used to describe two different things an another; as an example "move" and "attack" (as in the stat) are both localized as "attaque" in French but obviously localized into 2 words in English. I really don't think we should be making Such leaps, especially since the English versions don't fully reciprocate it. We should be affirming official terminology as it's used and in the context that it's used in; not inferring a translation as official that was based on what was used in an other language. 4iamking 23:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

It's not uncommon practice on Bulbapedia to refer to the original Japanese name to determine whether two different terms in English refer to the same thing: see PI. Landfish7 23:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

What about Kalos Legends for Aura trio? That was an official name for the trio that was given to them from ORAS official guide book? Jacob9594 (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

That sounds probably fine, but whenever possible I'd like a reference with the page number where "Kalos Legends" appears. The aura trio article currently mentions "Kalos Myths" but with no reference either. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

You can find the reference in history part as it was added before. But was deleted some time ago. I found it, I was close on name.Kalosian Legends. Pokémon Ultra Sun & Pokémon Ultra Moon: The Official Alola Region Strategy Guide Jacob9594 (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the source. The pages 281-282 of the USUM guidebook contain a list of Pokémon labelled "Kantonian Legends", "Johtonian Legends", "Hoennian Legends", "Sinnohan Legends", Unovan Legends", "Kalosian Legends", "Alolan Legends", "Alola's Guardian Deities", and "Ultra Beasts".

I think it's clear that all those "Legends" sections are about all the Legendary Pokémon of each region instead of any trio in particular.

In particular, the "Sinnohan Legends" section contains the text: "The Sinnoh region is where you may have first encountered the Legendary Pokémon Uxie, Mesprit, and Azelf. It's also home to Dialga, Palkia, and Giratina, as well as Heatran, Regigigas, and Cresselia."

The "Kalosian Legends" section is specifically about the aura trio, but that's simply because those are the only Legendary Pokémon introduced in Generation VI. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

(resetting indent)Let's not get bogged down here in discussion about how to handle other pages; that's better suited for their talk pages. The matter at hand is whether "Legendary dragon Pokémon of Sinnoh" is an acceptable new title for the page. I think it is, though I'd also accept "Dragon-type Pokémon" if we don't like the phrase "dragon Pokémon". Storm Aurora (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I think it’s a good title and alternate to Pokemon of myth. I support it. Jacob9594 (talk) 01:36, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

As I was saying above, I'm not a fan of it because from an in-universe perspective, they are not from Sinnoh. They predate Hisui and its renaming into Sinnoh. We can also catch Latios, Latias, and Rayquaza in Sinnoh (Ramanas Park). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh yeah good point. Jacob9594 (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, seeing as there aren't really good options, the current one is probably the least bad. The only problem I have with it is that, since it's meant to be a descriptor rather than a group name, it really ought to be written in sentence case. There is precedent for it - Type: Null's Pokédex entry in Shield actually says "It was modeled after a mighty Pokémon of myth". Granted, it refers to Arceus there, but that ought to be mentioned on the page anyways - it's not like Arceus is completely unrelated to the trio. So, my final suggestion is to move the page to Pokémon of myth. Storm Aurora (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, that will do. Plus, we do tend to lowercase the legendary pokemon groups names anyway. Jacob9594 (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

They have been officially associated with Sinnoh many many times. No one is going to think of the eon duo or Rayquaza with that title. And since the current title's Japanese equivalent was used to describe Kyogre, unless you add Kyogre to this page's scope this title is completely unsatisfactory. Like I seriously doubt anyone would suggest this page be located at "Pokémon of Myth" if this page wasn't moved here under faulty evidence, and given that this term never caught on moving it to a better would cause no disruption at all (again, I'd prefer creation trio but "Legendary dragon Pokémon of Sinnoh" is miles better than the current title). Biblical Bambi (talk) 05:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Personally, here's my ranking so far:

1st - "Pokémon of myth" (lowercase m) is the best we have from the official sources.

2nd - "Legendary dragons introduced in Generation IV" if we want descriptive titles.

3rd - "Pokémon of myth (trio)" with a dabtag in case we need to specifically exclude Arceus and Kyogre.

4th - "Pokémon of myth (Dialga, Palkia, and Giratina)" with a longer dabtag if we need to be a bit more precise.

I specifically consider "creation trio" a bad name (even if popular) for the reasons stated above. I'm glad we are not using it anymore.

What's a creation trio? I did not find it in the official sources. Surely it can't be the trio of Dialga, Palkia, and Giratina. They did not create anything as a trio, did they? They were there at the creation of the universe, but so were other Pokémon. They were created as a trio by Arceus, but so were the lake guardians. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:09, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

"Creation trio" is a perfectly clear term and if it wasn't it wouldn't be the most common term used to refer to the trio. It's "creation trio" not "Pokémon who created something" trio and their association with Arceus's creation is strong (see the Sinjoh Ruins event) moreso than the lake guardians who were said to be created specifically to regulate Dialga and Patkia. This just reads like "we are so much better than those plebians who use creation trio!" Acting like you're too cool for it is at most only a reflection of your own ignorance. Biblical Bambi (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

You do realize that no said we are better than others and just insulted anyone who paticpated in this discussion right? The officals name options we have are fine but you don't want to change it to them unless its solely Creation trio. Its not really fair to call folks ignorance when they are trying their best to find a soultion not being ignorant as you claim. Jacob9594 (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

As no new evidence has arisen since this topic was last brought up two years ago, and as the current convention is to not prioritize terms with no official usage, the Leadership Board has rejected this move proposal until further notice. If new evidence arises from official materials supporting the term "Creation trio", this topic can be reopened.

In the meantime, a straightforward change in the capitalization is still worth exploring given the current evidence, so feel free to discuss the merits of that title or other alternatives, but moving the page back to its previous title is not currently being considered.

Additionally, a reminder to everyone to be respectful when engaging in discussions and to focus comments on the content rather than each other. Personal attacks will not be tolerated, and if there are any concerns, please contact a staff member to take a look into things. Thank you. Landfish7 12:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Except new evidence has arisen that this term has been used to refer to Pokémon that aren't Dialga Palkia and Giratina. Were you even paying attention at all to the discussion? Biblical Bambi (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

The fact that "Pokémon of myth" has been used referring to Kyogre and Arceus is not new. This information was added on the article 2 years ago, back in August 2023. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

In short this discussion helps bring old and classic facts back into spotlight. Pokemon of myth is a fun choice. Though it would mean sharing with those other two pokemon or something to clarify difference. Jacob9594 (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

This is... quite a long talk page section. Most Pokémon groups (Legendary and Mythical / Illusory) typically do not end up having official names for years. While we do have pages with fan terms, those pages might do better with the template at the top noting those groups lack official names and are simply using a fan term until an official name occurs someday. As for the argument at hand, Creation trio does NOT fit Palkia, Dialga, and Giratina and can be misleading of what the trio do. They were created by Arceus, they did not create time, space, and antimatter. They have control over those things but they did not create them. As for confusion with name usage, I'm not seeing it here.

• 神話のポケモン / Shinwa no Pokemon" = mythical Pokémon
• 幻のポケモン / Maboroshi no Pokémon = Mythical Pokemon / Illusory Pokémon

Prior to Generation V, all Illusory Pokémon were capitalized as mythical Pokémon in translations. After Generation V, Palkia, Dialga, and Giratina are the only ones to still have the lowercase mythical used. Pokémon HOME notes the first time all three are addressed as any sort of group at all. In this case Pokémon of Myth as the Sinnoh games largely focus on these three being part of the universe's mythos. Rearranging mythical Pokémon to Pokémon of Myth is acceptable. It is also the closest thing we have to an officially used term for the trio itself. I am fine with the page being moved to Pokémon of myth due to the unique usage of mythical instead of Mythical for this trio. Much like First Partner Pokémon, we are a wiki; we want to document and go by official terminology when possible. There is nothing stopping fans from using fan terminology just because we moved a page title to the officially used terms, even if they are only showing up in this one instance thus far. Should the trio end up getting an official name usage in the future, I'm fine with this being up for debate in the future, but as far as I'm concerned; this argument is a repeat of the same argument from 2 years ago. Nothing has really changed since then. Frozen Fennec 18:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

So given its just a repeat, we can end the debate and open page again? Jacob9594 (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Keeping the page locked for now to prevent more potential edit warring. If something needs to be fixed, can create a new section on the talk page for now and a staff member will handle it. Once things calm down, page will be opened again for editing. Frozen Fennec 19:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my question. I was curious about and wondering when. That is fair. Jacob9594 (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

It feels like people keep regurgitating the same arguments that have already been addressed without actually addressing the points brought up so let me try to make things as clear as possible:

• "Creation trio" is not a confusing or misleading name. The name only says that these Pokémon are associated with Arceus's creation and they undeniably are; it's called "creation trio" and not "Pokémon who created something trio". If it was really confusing the term would not have achieved the high level of usage it currently has. Whenever the term "creation trio" is used nobody asks what Pokémon it is referring to because it is easily understood. The confusion with "Pokémon of Myth" can be easily demonstrated, as even after this site moved the page people use the term just as often if not moreso to refer to Mythical Pokémon because the distinguishment between the terms is not immediately obvious in English.
• There is no official name for the trio consisting of Dialga, Palkia, and Giratina. "Pokémon of Myth" is used only once to refer to the trio as a whole, with other uses of the term referring to specifically Dialga or Palkia, Arceus, or the completely unrelated Kyogre. The latter two mentions would clearly not have been made if it was truly intended for this to be the official name of the group, and this was an argument that had not been made in the discussion that resulted in the move so this is not a rehash. Furthermore, there is no consistency and the group has been referred to under a wide variety of different naming conventions whereas if there was an official term they would have picked one and stuck with it. The term is only used in the Sinnoh games, which largely share the same script so qualifying that as multiple mentions is a stretch, plus the Pokémon HOME task which is something that in no other case is used as a standard for official names and some existing pages like Forces of Nature would have to be moved if it were to be used as such.
• As for the "but it's official" argument, read the above and also no one explained why it's so bad to use a fan term in a case where there is no clear official term. I feel in this case assuming any term is the official name of this group is basically speculation.

And yet the only option that seems to be getting any more traction is the one that might be worse than the current title, since we're breaking with the capitalization that is used for like the only unambiguous case of the term being used to refer to the group. Please make it make sense. Biblical Bambi (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I think it was explained back why in the 2023 on the Move to Primordial Chaos which lead to that discussion ending. From what I understand it was decided to move past outdated or used fan terms. Plus the fan term will still be mentioned on this page even when official name is used. I feel like the not a confusing or misleading name thing has already been mentioned on here before. Plus thanks to the terminology section we have on Pokemon of myth page. We have many evidence of different offical names used. Jacob9594 (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

In this long discussion, it seems that most people have been looking for a term that appears in official media, except Bambi is insisting on "creation trio".

"Pokémon of myth" is not perfect but it's the best we have from official sources.

Bambi, you are being rude when you say things like "people keep regurgitating the same arguments", "were you even paying attention at all", "only a reflection of your own ignorance", "promoting flat-out misinformation", and so on.

People are free to use "creation trio" if they want, but I don't find your arguments very convincing, even after you have repeated and reworded them a few times. I don't think Bulbapedia going back to the fan term "creation trio". Personally I'm glad that we are not using "creation trio" anymore. To be fair, "creation trio" should remain as an usable redirect and it should still be mentioned on the article as a term used by fans. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Indeed a fair compromise while keeping the offical term. Its the best option for a middle ground Jacob9594 (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

It's not an official term! Nor is it "the closest thing to an official term" since that would be something that has been used to refer only to Dialga, Palkia and Giratina and not other Pokémon! And you are all being rude when you are ignoring the arguments I am presenting in favor of repeating the same one or two dismissive lines! People still haven't answered why it's so horrible to use a fan term when no clear official term exists, which is something that is already done on many, many pages on this wiki! Biblical Bambi (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The fan terms used to describe certain Legendary Pokémon groups were never officially designated by The Pokémon Company. This led to the fans creating various fan-made names over the years, as the company rarely reveals the official titles for these Pokémon. Therefore, it’s preferable to use recognized official terms, as they provide a clearer understanding and serve as factual references for anyone looking to verify information. Citing sources is essential, as it lends credibility and proof to the information presented. Relying on fan terms can diminish the importance of factual accuracy and mislead people into thinking that these unofficial names hold more significance. That is my perspective on the matter. Jacob9594 (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Our definition of "official term" is more using langauge presented by official sources to represent the page contents. Since it's presented by HOME to represent these three, it's fine: not the best, but fine. There currently isn't another option that has a better, clearer usage, but also fits this section of the Manual of Style: Article titles and terminology.

As for Kyogre. After looking at the usages, Kyogre was referred by this term at a time (Generation 4) where the translation team/original writers were looser and less careful with using inapplicable terms. We see this in other instances where DPPt accidently call Heatran a mythical Pokémon, yet it's corrected in BDSP. Since Kyogre was not included in the HOME task, we can safely conclude that it was not intended to be referred to that way originally, and this is a case of the Pokémon team getting tighter with their standards over time. As for Arceus, it's clearly related, so we'll be writing the intro to the page to best represent this relationship.

We're using editorial discretion to conclude what is best for our purposes. @Biblical Bambi You're fine to disagree, but since everyone else has settled on Pokémon of myth being okay, it's time to move on. You've been arguing on this talk page for 2 years. Until there is additional context provided in future usage, as Editor-in-Chief, I consider this decision final and this conversation closed.

^Maverick_Nate 00:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Re: Jacob That point would hold more weight if there was a "recognized official term" but per my other arguments there clearly isn't. Calling "Pokémon of myth" an official term is if anything more misleading since we have a template that makes it clear that "creation trio" is a fan designator but nothing to indicate that "Pokémon of myth" is at best an educated guess of what the official title might be. It's best to be clear that there isn't a clear and consistently used official term and trying to contrive one anyway just muddles things more. Re: Nate guess "fifty million Frenchmen" is the official MO of this site, guess I shouldn't have been expecting anything better. Again, by discrediting Kyogre's mention you are essentially discrediting the entire use of the term in Gen IV leaving HOME as essentially the only thing to work with (move to "Incarnate Forces of Hisui" when?). This is essentially only a descriptor that was used in one context to clearly refer to the trio, at least something like "first partner" has a lot of uses in marketing campaigns etc. you can point to. Considering the goalposts were moved several times in this conversation, I don't think I'm being the unreasonable one; I did try to compromise by saying that something like "Legendary dragon Pokémon of Sinnoh" would be a better title, it's you guys who seem stuck on this title. But whatever, this is probably going to give me an aneurysm at this point. Biblical Bambi (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

As discussed above, there are also a few other terms used in official media referring to the trio: legendary VIPs, primordial chaos, and Sinnoh legends.

In particular, "legendary VIPs" was mentioned in the Platinum guidebook. This one sounds silly so I'm not sure we should use it, but I suspect that if the same guidebook mentioned "creation trio" it would likely be taken as confirmation that this is the official name.

"Primordial Chaos" is a Research Task specifically about their Origin Formes, as evidenced by the Japanese name meaning "Origin".

"Sinnoh legends" was used referring to this trio, but it could be just a shortening of "Sinnoh Legendary Pokémon". The same website (Pokémon Center) also used the wording "a couple of legends" referring to Ho-Oh and Lugia. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Said terms are on the main page as proof. Legendary vip I feel would not be the right fit for page as main name despite being offical name. Primordial Chaos is a nice as it refers to when the trio was born in their orgin forms after being created by Arceus. Sinnoh legends is a good one, only downside it also can apply to the other sinnoh legends fo gen 4. Jacob9594 (talk) 03:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The decision has been made and the conversation is now closed guys. ^Maverick_Nate 03:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

"The title of this article is based on official sources" those are sure some weasel words doing a lot of heavy lifting, but I suppose that is the only way to really argue for the current title. Love how this is getting shut down as other users are expressing interest in potential alternate titles, but eh. I suppose some users really are more equal than others here. Biblical Bambi (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Not trying to extend the argument (and also, this isn't a direct reply to Bambi but to everyone in the thread) but I'm content with the capital spelling of Myth for the page. If more usages with the capital spelling comes out then hopefully it'll finally solidify it as an official term used by TPCi but for now, the lowercase myth spelling works as a compromise for its official term. Eeveelutionred (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)