Talk:Pseudo-legendary Pokémon

Talk:Pseudo-legendary Pokémon

This talk page is for discussions about the contents of Pseudo-legendary Pokémon.

Archived discussions: 1

Contents

Hide

Close table of contents

• (Return to top)
• Move to "Powerhouse Pokémon"
• Split
• Egg Cycles
• Explain why others are excluded inline
• Why do we continue to exclude Archaludon?

Contents

Move to "Powerhouse Pokémon"

Uh oh, it's that time again, fellow first partners!

The header for the upcoming psuedo-legendary Mass Outbreak event refers to the event as "Challenge Powerhouse Pokémon!". The Japanese equivalent of the term is 強力なポケモンたち (Powerful Pokémon). Previous uses include two tweets and the "Powerhouse Pokémon" merch line.

A potential counter argument is that the term is too broad and has been used in the past to refer to non-psuedos - see this UNITE blog post on Mamoswine that uses the term, for example. However, I think there's a case to make that as a recent term, it makes sense that there's unrelated uses of it before it started being used for psuedo-legendaries, just as there are certainly uses of "partner" prior to the modern definition of that term. Would love to see some discussion on this :) Meeper12346 (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea, personally. "Pseudolegendary" is the most well-known term for the group and the one people use, while "Powerhouse Pokémon" in return sounds too broad. You could call a Scizor a powerhouse Pokémon, if you so desired, but it's not a pseudo. At least with first partner Pokémon, you couldn't really make the argument that the term is too vague, y'know?

Buwbasaur (talk)

Personally, I've always thought "pseudo-legendary" is an awful term, it doesn't really hint at any of the traits that define the group but instead implies a connection to Legendary Pokémon that doesn't really exist. At best it hints that they're powerful like a lot of Legendaries are, but "powerhouse Pokémon" gets that across much more obviously and without relying on the term "Legendary", which doesn't really mean "powerful" given the existence of Pokémon like Cosmog. I doubt you'd be able to guess which Pokémon "pseudo-legendary" refers to if you didn't already know. We should probably wait for at least a couple more official sources to use the term "powerhouse Pokémon" so we can be sure it's intended as an official name for the group, but once we are sure, I'd be down to rename the page. Hewer (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't see how 'powerhouse Pokemon' is any less vague than 'pseudo-legendary'. Yes, there are pseudos or even normal Pokemon with greater competitive play than some legendaries, but the general idea of a legendary in most people's mind is stuff like Mewtwo, Dialga, whatever: incredibly strong Pokémon with an air of mystique surrounding them. The existence of Magikarp isn't gonna cancel out Gyarados. 'Powerhouse' basically just means 'strong', so it's infinitely more useless.

There's also the plain issue of colloquial confusion. The people who know they're sorted in a group already call them pseudolegendaries, so they're gonna refer to them as such. A sudden change to powerhouse Pokémon will just be bizarre.

Buwbasaur (talk)

Not sure I follow this argument - you suggest that "pseudo-legendary" would be taken to mean "strong", then say that "powerhouse" is useless because it just means "strong". Even if "powerhouse" doesn't narrow it down much more than "pseudo-legendary", no name defines exactly what's in the group all by itself unless we're gonna start calling them "600-base-stat-total-three-stage-evolution Pokémon", so no term we use will be totally free of ambiguity. "Powerhouse" I find to be much better in that regard than "pseudo-legendary", which is supposed to get across the same thing (that they're powerful) but does so in a much more long-winded and misleading way by implying that Legendaries are relevant to the group. "Legendary" is generally more of a lore term that refers to a very diverse grouping of Pokémon with little in common besides being special and important to some degree, very much unlike "pseudo-legendary", a grouping based on very specific criteria that thus has much more similarity between each member. The two groups have nothing connecting them, contrary to what the "pseudo-legendary" name would have you believe. Hewer (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Pseudo-legendary is not as broad as Powerhouse because it is a specific term. Powerhouse JUST means 'strong'. It is not a specific term that applies to a specific group. Anyone can use 'powerhouse' to refer to any strong Pokemon. Nobody is gonna call Heracross a pseudolegendary, though.

Regardless, though, this shouldn't be purely a contest of 'which one is better'. People are much more familiar with the term pseudo-legendary, if they know it refers to a group at all. The term has a more common usage and predates 'powerhouse' in reference to the group by a wide margin, so I think grandfather clause should ultimately trump official word for both clarity and to avoid confusion. Buwbasaur (talk) 9:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Our general guiding principle is to use official terminology where it can be established/confirmed that there is a preferred official term. We can always add "commonly referred to as___" where there is a fan term in common use. 4iamking 19:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

My understanding of the consensus on "late bloomers" and "electric mice" was that the merchandise lines aren't considered a strong precedent for naming, and the Poké Portal News was not acceptable for "lively little Pokémon" or "adorable Pokémon" to replace baby Pokémon. I would be open to moving this page if "powerhouse Pokémon" sees use in other contexts, but I don't believe these instances are sufficient on their own. --Apopheniac (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I feel like this is a bit of a unique case since "baby Pokémon" is an official term anyway, whereas "pseudo-legendary" was never official at all, so the bar might be a bit lower for how much the new term needs to be used before we rename. But yeah, we should probably wait for a few more clear instances to be sure. Hewer (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Powerhouse seems to me to be the official term for these Pokémon. I think it was always understood by the community that Pseudo Legendary was a term created among the fandom.

Well, I'm going to discuss this topic with everyone, but you have strong points in this discussion. Anyway, even if it changes, there will generally still be a redirect to the term pseudo legendary, there's not much of a problem with that.--Hikaru Wazana (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I've also always been bothered by the term "pseudo Legendary". Powerhouse is vague too, but at least it's not misleading. Pseudo Legendary is also a fandom term, whereas starter was at one point official before being replaced by another official term, "first partner". iirc there was never an "official" term for pseudo legendaries, so I think the official term takes precedent. That being said, powerhouse hasn't yet seen a lot of useage in official media. So I say we wait until it does and then rename + redirect from pseudo legendary. Welkamo (talk) 03:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but the term "powerhouse" can be referred to any dominant Pokémon. Like, if a Mon starts sweeping the other team though boosted stats, moves, or anything similar, they can be considered a "powerhouse" simply because of their threat level. Pseudo-legendaries refer to Pokémon that are somewhat rare and not common to find, game-wise and anime lore-wise. I think that's why the term Pseudo-legendaries works better. Because it makes those Pokémon who are already rare and difficult to find/see even more special. It does make sense. Like, game-wise and anime lore-wise, you see people walking around with Pokémon like Bidoof, Roselia, or even some fully-evolved ones like Infernape and Blastoise. But you don't see people in both settings walking around a big-a** Dragonite around. Or a Salamence that's big enough someone can ride on their back. HygorBH (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with this, the pseudo-legendaries don't really get much special treatment distinct from other Pokémon in official stuff (the fact it took until now to even have a solid contender for an official name for the group demonstrates that). The thing that defines the group is nothing to do with how rare they are (I'd argue they're probably not that much rarer than a lot of regular Pokémon), the main thing that connects them is their strength, which is something that "powerhouse" gets across nicely. The thing that Legendaries have in common isn't that they're powerful, it's that they're in some way special, usually from a lore perspective. If I wasn't already familiar with the term "pseudo-legendary", I'd probably sooner think it referred to something like Rotom, Gimmighoul, Ultra Beasts, Paradox Pokémon, etc., Pokémon that are also sometimes treated as special and distinct, not just this group of standard Pokémon that happen to be among the strongest (again, not all Legendaries are strong). Hewer (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I think were on the right track, but i'd honestly like to see the term used a bit more or at least there being some form of official acknowledgement before we would consider such a page move. TPCi's usage of the term is extremely recent, and I see nothing wrong in taking a cautious approach to ensure that if we do move the page, it is to a term that will endure the test of time. 4iamking 03:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I personally support the new name. --FinnishPokéFan92 (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I understand and respect the reason for changing the name, but I personally believe that the new name, "Powerhouse", is informal and vague compared to the name "pseudo-Legendary". The term "pseudo-Legendary" is more consistent with Bulbapedia's status, and the term "powerhouse" is too ambiguous of a term, as many Pokémon, Legendary or otherwise, are powerhouses. "Pseudo-Legendary" is more clearly definitive of this group of Pokémon. Goyangi (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

How is the "powerhouse" term "informal"? If anything "pseudo-legendary" is the "informal" one, seeing as it's unofficial and frankly, as I argued above, misleading. As for "vague", I'd argue that "powerhouse" is no more ambiguous than "pseudo-legendary" - you'd be unlikely to guess which group of Pokémon either term refers to if you didn't already know, and they both try to get across the same thing (that these Pokémon are strong), except "powerhouse" does that in a more straightforward and less misleading way. Also, what do you mean by "more consistent with Bulbapedia's status"? Bulbapedia has been making a conscious effort lately to prioritise official terms over fan names, most prominently in the first partner Pokémon case. Hewer (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

While everyone's focus was on Worlds yesterday, the Scarlet and Violet update page was quietly updated. While nothing new, it includes another use of the term Powerhouse Pokémon. Notably, the Japanese site uses the rather descriptive term 成長すると強力になるポケモン (Pokémon that become stronger as they grow) in its place, which makes the English site's use of the term feel far more deliberate and lends credence to it being the designated term for that group. The raid event is not live yet and more official blog posts will surely pop up when it is, so we should have enough by then to make an informed decision on this topic. meeper! ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 00:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

It's funny that one of the first sections on this talk page is about calling them Powerhouse Pokémon. It's become abundantly clear that this is the official English term for this group of Pokémon. I know that this is not a vote right now, but I strongly support moving the page to Powerhouse Pokémon. SlyCooperFan1 (talk) 04:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Makes you wonder if TPCi reads this very wiki before deciding on a new official name for these things, lmao. anZAsquiddles 2222(:D)SSSS (talk) 04:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the biggest issue with this term right now is that it seems to be including the pre-evolved forms in the term "Powerhouse Pokémon", and the pre-evolved terms are by definition not Pseudo-Legendaries, so they are not one-to-one terms. In fact, the usage of the term "Powerhouse Pokémon" to describe the pre-evolved forms is extremely strange because they are not actually very powerful, which matches more with the Japanese just calling them "Pokémon that become stronger as they grow". Minibug (talk) 09:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Something being a powerhouse implies that it, well, houses a lot of power. The term actually fits the pre-evolved forms perfectly because they do, in fact, house great power within them, and that power comes out as they evolve. SlyCooperFan1 (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you are reading into the word Powerhouse too metaphorically. I've never heard it used in a way that means "has great power within (something) that comes out over time". I don't see any dictionaries that it define it in this way, either. Minibug (talk) 08:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Mmmm, disagree. The reason being is that the two terms are different things: pseudo-legendary is a strict fan-definition, so strict that Archaludon isn't included in the western definition whereas it is in the Japanese one. However, powerhouse seems to refers to anything in the line. It's not like the starter case where they were the same thing under a different term. There's enough differences between them that I feel this article should still exist in some form, while an article on the official term is made. Otherwise, it'd have to be heavily rewritten. System Error (talk)

Split

I propose that this article should be split into Powerhouse Pokémon instead. It is currently unclear which Pokémon are included in the group, other than the pre-Gen 4 ones plus Goodra and their pre-evolutions. Therefore, this is unlike the other major moves Bulbapedia has done, because on all of those, we knew TPCi was referring to the concept that we had made a page for. Perhaps they will decide to include Slaking or Archaludon’s line, or exclude Hydreigon, for example. Or maybe we could ask them? I heard about someone doing that in regard to the Base Stats issue, so maybe we need to wait for a response? If it does become clear that they mean Pseudo-legendaries and their pre-evolutions, we could keep this page, but defined as “Pseudo-legendaries are the final stage of Powerhouse Pokémon.” CyberDragonM (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The Powerhouse Pokémon merchandise seems to use the term to refer to the same Pokémon as "pseudo-legendary". Hewer (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, missed that. Forgot that there were prior sources other than the ones mentioned. However, there is still the pre-evolution difference, so they are still referring to slightly different concepts. Although I think starters excluded Pikachu and Eevee, so maybe the difference is not big enough to mean anything. CyberDragonM (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that it still a bit unclear if the term will have some significant difference to make a page specifically for "Powerhouse Pokémon". Maybe with the release of Legends: Z-A we will have more information regarding this topic. — Lakelimbo (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that more info would be required for a split than for a rename? Because the people over at that topic seem to have enough info, and it is already confirmed that the pre-evolutions are included via the Poké Portal News. CyberDragonM (talk) 07:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

It's true, but that aspect is still not very relevant to dedicate a split, in my opinion. If this trend continues, I would argue just a section would suffice since the fan term and the official term would overlap in >95% of definitions. There's also other unclear matters, such as Archaludon. — Lakelimbo (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I guess a section would probably be fine, but wasn’t Archaludon confirmed to be excluded from the group in the merchandise mentioned above? CyberDragonM (talk) 05:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Egg Cycles

All of these have 40 Egg Cycles. Is there a reason this isn't part of the criteria, since it seems to be by design? WOLKsite (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Explain why others are excluded inline

It should not be necessary to check the individual pages of each mon named in

Among Pokémon commonly mistaken for pseudo-legendary Pokémon are Slaking, Aggron, Flygon, Haxorus, Volcarona, and Archaludon. For one reason or another, these Pokémon do not fit the criteria to be classified as pseudo-legendary Pokémon.

in order to see why they are excluded. Nor in the mention of Archaludon at the top, if it's kept; it should either be removed or add an explanation. I suggest:

Among Pokémon commonly mistaken for pseudo-legendary Pokémon are Slaking (base stats too high), Aggron, Flygon, and Haxorus (base stats too low), Volcarona (two-stage Pokemon and base stats too low), and Archaludon (two-stage Pokemon and Medium Fast experience).

Likely this is an oversight because most editors know enough about all of them to consider it obvious, but this is of course not true of wiki readers. -- JiSK (talk) 04:07, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Do we even actually need this trivia point? I don't think there are many people who know what "pseudo-legendaries" are yet don't know that these Pokémon aren't part of the group (perhaps Archaludon could be argued, but that's already mentioned in the article's intro), and even if there were, the exclusion of these Pokémon is already implied by them not being on the article. Hewer (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. Like, it may have been true in the past that people commonly mistook those Pokémon for pseudo-legendaries, but I haven't seen anyone make that mistake in years. Storm Aurora (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, this concept is pretty popular among content creators:

-The Pokémon Group You NEVER Heard Of

-This Pokémon Secretly Qualifies as a Pseudo Legendary

-Ranking Every Pseudo Pseudo Legendary from Worst to Best

-Every Pokémon That Could Be Pseudo Legendary Rocket Grunt 22:37, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Why do we continue to exclude Archaludon?

The answer is simple: Archaludon, of course, does not meet two of the three conditions for being Pseudo-Legendary (which I'll abbreviate to "PL" here). Archaludon does, however, meet what we can pretty much all agree is the most important of these three conditions: having a BST of 600. I feel that the current definition for PL that Bulbapedia uses does not accurately reflect how the term is used by fans, nor does it reflect the pattern Game Freak appears to be following. As such, I propose changing the definition in the following way: removing the condition that the Pokemon have 1,250,000 exp at level 100 and changing the condition that the Pokemon be the final stage of a three-stage line to instead be something along the lines of "The Pokémon is not Legendary, Mythical, Ultra Beast, or Paradox". This would make a PL Pokemon be a "A non-Legendary, non-Mythical, non-Ultra Beast, non-Paradox Pokémon with a base stat total of exactly 600 (excluding Mega Evolution and other temporary form changes)."

The two conditions that I question are what I'll refer to as the "three-stage" condition and the "1,250,000 exp" condition. Of these two, I question the latter most strongly. To me, it really does not seem like it should be a CONDITION for inclusion in the PL group. It really seems like a coincidence, or at least otherwise incidental to what really matters: a BST of 600. Yes, all of the Pokemon we can agree are PL do share the "1,250,000 exp" trait, however, as another user noted in another topic on this talk page, all PL Pokemon (except Archaludon) have 40 Egg Cycles. Both of these seem arbitrary, and as previously stated, either coincidental or incidental. They both seem equally plausible as conditions, and it feels like they should either both be conditions or neither should be. I personally find both to be implausible, and I feel neither should be strict CONDITIONS for being PL; they feel like properties that should be relegated to the trivia.

I was curious about how the "1,250,000 exp" condition developed and why it even became fanon in the first place. My first guess was "maybe all Legendary Pokemon also have the 1,250,000 exp property and so the PLs also having it make them more 'legendary'", except Mew, Celebi, and Shaymin are in the Medium Slow exp group rather than Slow. I subsequently went digging to try and find the answer, it seems to have its origin in Bulbapedia itself, being randomly added back in 2011. It could possibly have origins prior to that, but if it did I couldn't find any. The second version of this article, uploaded 4 minutes after the article's original creation back in November of 2007, had the line "they require a lot of experience to level up", which is where I hypothesize the "1,250,000 exp" condition actually spawned from. The rationale I found for keeping the condition (coming from the talk page in November, 2011) was essentially that "it's part of the pattern, so it should be part of the definition"; I find this silly, partially because it's inconsistent with the exclusion of a "40 egg cycles" condition, but also because it doesn't align with my philosophy for having a definition consisting of conditions. Like, we could easily have a definition for PL that was just "PLs are Dragonite, Tyranitar..." and call it a day, simply updating the definition whenever a new Pokemon we determined fit the "PL vibes" released. If we're to have a definition with conditions, I feel that the definition should be versatile enough to include any Pokemon we would deem PL whilst also being minimal in its number of conditions. That is, the highest priority is having the fewest number of conditions that can include current and future PL Pokemon, followed by having those conditions being specific and relevant but still general. I also feel that these conditions should be malleable, so that they can evolve as our understanding of the term evolves. The "1,250,000 exp" condition does nothing: if we remove it, the list of PL Pokemon does not change (this is unlike the "three-stage" condition, whose removal suddenly adds Pokemon like Manaphy to the list of PL Pokemon due to there being no "is not a legendary" condition). I therefore do not think we should keep it around. However, I also don't think it should have ever been included in the list of conditions, and in a moment I will ask you to consider a situation where it wasn't.

The "three-stage" condition, to me, is a condition for being PL which was reasonable to evolve. Even if technically "has BST of 600 and isn't legendary/mythical/etc." would've worked just fine (prior to Archaludon), it seemed reasonable that Game Freak would never add a non-legendary with a BST of 600 that wasn't three-stage. In fact, prior to Archaludon I didn't really have any problems with this condition, only the "1,250,000 exp" condition. However, I feel that Archaludon itself demonstrates why this condition has issues. Believe it or not, Bulbapedia's PL definition used to have four conditions. In fact, this fourth condition predated both the "1,250,000 exp" condition AND "600 BST" condition! Yes, this fourth condition--which no longer is a condition--predates the most important contemporary condition. This fourth condition was being dual-typed. This "two types" condition was present in the article from the aforementioned second version, and stuck around until 2011 when it was removed along with the "1,250,000 exp" condition. Both conditions were added back and removed independently multiple times, until eventually one of them was killed off, leaving the other as a survivor. Specifically, the release of Goodra sealed the fate of the "two types" condition; a Pokemon with a BST of 600 with only a single type served as a counter example against the "two types" condition, and so it was left to rot. Now, imagine a scenario where the "1,250,000 exp" condition was never included in the PL definition, and so when the Indigo Disk released the PL definition was simply "three-stage Pokemon with a BST of 600 (when not Mega Evolved)". In this scenario, I imagine Archaludon's exclusion on the basis of being two-stage would be brought into question. While we wouldn't have expected Game Freak to add a non-legendary with a BST of 600 that wasn't three-stage, Archaludon existed nonetheless. This directly parallels the situation with Goodra. And just as Goodra killed the "two types" condition, I feel that Archaludon should be allowed to kill the "three-stage" condition. Or, more accurately, we would replace the "three-stage" condition. While we can simply remove the "1,250,000 exp" condition, the "three-stage" condition is a dam holding back legendary Pokemon, so we would need to replace it with a condition of "not being Legendary, Mythical, UB, Paradox, etc.". Frankly, I find it strange that we don't have that as a condition anyways: If Game Freak for *some reason* gives, say, Urshifu or Manaphy an evolution with a BST of 600, then suddenly this evolution is PL, which we can probably all agree is ridiculous.

Another thing is that we know Game Freak specifically chose to give Archaludon a BST of 600. We can also observe a pattern beginning with Dragonite and including at least up to Baxcalibur wherein non-Legendary Pokemon are given BSTs of exactly 600, which we can be all but certain is an intentional pattern on the part of Game Freak, although we cannot be certain what exactly their understanding of their pattern is. Since the Bulbapedia definition of PL came from observing this pattern, it seems reasonable to me that we would want the definition to align with Game Freak's intention with the pattern. To this end, I ask the following rhetorical question: "Why would Game Freak intentionally add a non-Legendary with a BST of 600 if they didn't consider it to be part of their pattern"? Like, if I was Game Freak and I was creating a pattern of non-Legendary Pokemon which had a BST of 600 + some other properties (such as, perhaps, being three-stage), then I would not add a non-Legendary Pokemon with a BST of 600. Thus, when designing Archaludon I wouldn't have given it a BST of 600. If I still wanted it to be strong then I would've given it, say, a BST of 590, but I would not do 600. Yet Game Freak gave Archaludon a BST of 600. I can only think of three reasons why they would do this. 1) they didn't think it was an issue that Archaludon had a BST of 600 despite the pattern. This isn't impossible, although as I've already explained I do not think this would've made sense for them to do, so I find this unlikely. 2) Maybe the pattern has nothing to do with having a BST of 600. For instance, the list of fully-evolved Pokemon in the Slow exp group and with 40 egg cycles is pretty small, hitting not only all of the PLs but also many strong Pokemon "commonly mistaken as PL" such as Snorlax, Volcarona, Haxorus, and Palafin (pretty interesting list, actually. I'm not actually entirely against the proposition that this is intentional, although the fan term "PL" relating to a BST of 600 is still useful even in such a case). Maybe there's not even a pattern. Maybe Game Freak just kinda likes giving dragon type Pokemon a BST of 600, and then they gave Tyranitar and Metagross a BST of 600 just 'cause they wanted them to be strong. This doesn't seem completely implausible. However, even in such a case, the term "PL" is still useful as a fan term. In fact, in such a case there is no reason to include, say, a "1,250,000 exp" condition on the basis of "all of the PL Pokemon have it, therefore it should be a condition". In this second case, the only reason I can think to exclude Archaludon from being PL is not thinking it fits the vibe of PL, which to me would be a very strange take indeed. 3) Archaludon follows Game Freak's understanding of the pattern, and it was not an issue that it was two-stage and didn't have the "1,250,000 exp" property. This is what I expect to be the correct case. In fact, I actually do think that previous PL Pokemon all having "1,250,000 exp" and 40 egg cycles and being three-stage and whatever was intentional. However, I don't think Game Freak had Archaludon in mind when they created Duraludon, and so Archaludon being in the Medium Fast exp group and having only 30 egg cycles was carried over from a Pokemon they didn't expect to get an evolution that they'd add to the 600 BST pattern. However, I expect that they reasoned that the important property was having a BST of 600, and that there wasn't an issue that they couldn't do the things which they normally do to Pokemon following this pattern to Archaludon.

I think the reason I feel so strongly about this is the fact Archaludon meets the most important PL condition (600 BST) and very much fits the vibes of "PL", even more so than Pokemon like Flygon (which, fun fact, was listed as a PL Pokemon in the original versions of the PL article because the 600 BST condition was added an entire 37 days after the initial article's creation). I can very much imagine a situation like the following: [A Pokemon fan who didn't really engage with gen 9 asks a friend what their favorite Pokemon is. The friend pulls up a picture of Archaludon on their phone, saying "This guy, Archaludon, is my favorite. I like it because it's cool and is pretty strong. It has a base stat total of 600". The fan replies "oh cool, so it's a pseudo-legendary?"] It really doesn't seem all that galarian farfetch'd. Because when people think of PL Pokemon, they're almost certainly thinking most directly about how they're strong and indirectly about how they have a BST of 600. Right? I don't have any sort of proof for this, but feels very implausible that this wouldn't be the case.

Given all that I've said here, I'll restate my question(s): Why has Bulbapedia's definition for PL maintained its inertia and stuck with its three conditions? Why haven't we changed it? Why do we continue to exclude Archaludon?

To be clear, I am proposing we change the definition of PL. However, I am also open to being "proven wrong" or "shown the error of my ways" or whatever. In fact, while I am strongly in favor of changing the conditions and would be thrilled if it got changed, I don't expect that to end up happening. But if it doesn't, I still want there to be some concrete reason as to WHY we aren't. I couldn't find some sort of official ruling on this matter, yet I feel like I somewhat frequently see people question Archaludon's exclusion. And so I come as some sort of self-appointed "woman of the people" to either seek an explanation or be a catalyst for change.

Apologies for the length of this comment. I recognize that it is somewhat long for a talk page, but I felt the issue warranted a full explanation. Archieludon (talk) 06:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate the level of thought, research, and analysis you've put in here. I do want to challenge some assumptions made, however.

The main thing that catches my attention is the framing of Archaludon as an update to the pattern rather than a clear exception that doesn't quite fit. The other pseudo-legendaries have far more in common with each other than they do with Archaludon. I think it's reasonable to see how Archaludon may not be part of the group, with the shared 600 BST not being quite enough to justify its inclusion. Archaludon has also never been officially shown together with the other pseudo-legendaries. It may have been introduced too recently to draw too many conclusions there, but it indicates to me it might be better to wait before abandoning so much of the historic criteria serving as the foundation of this grouping.

In the case of Goodra, it broke one historical characteristic of the group by being monotype, but it still shares nearly every other trait traditionally associated with pseudo-legendaries: a three-stage line, a Slow growth rate, a base stat total of 600, and various other similarities. In that case, removing the dual-type criterion made sense because Goodra still overwhelmingly aligned with the rest of the group.

Archaludon on the other hand does not simply differ in one respect while matching the rest of the pattern. Rather, it lacks multiple characteristics that have historically been shared by every other pseudo-legendary. While it has a base stat total of 600, it is part of a two-stage line, belongs to the Medium Fast experience group, and differs in several other ways. To me, this suggests that Archaludon is a distinct case that just so happens to share one prominent characteristic with the traditional pseudo-legendaries.

I think this ultimately comes down to a difference in how we view the grouping itself. To me, the traditional pseudo-legendaries are defined by a broader collection of shared characteristics, of which a 600 BST is only one. Given that Archaludon diverges from that pattern in several respects, I think there needs to be stronger evidence before concluding that it belongs in the same grouping. I don't think the fact that it has a 600 BST is, by itself, sufficient reason to discard multiple long-standing criteria that have collectively defined the category for decades.

It's also worth noting that the recent official marketable term "Late Bloomers" heavily implies that the Slow growth rate is a core aspect of this group, rather than merely incidental. The "Late Bloomers" branding appears to be built around the idea that these Pokémon take longer to reach their full potential, which is directly reflected in their growth rate. While that does not automatically make the Slow experience group a definite official criterion for pseudo-legendary Pokémon, it does suggest that it may be intentional or something they're leaning into and considering with any new additions. In any case, this indicates Archaludon's placement in a different experience group becomes more significant rather than less, so I hesitate to discard the criterion outright.

The question ultimately is not whether Archaludon shares a particular, if important, characteristic with the traditional pseudo-legendaries, but whether it shares enough of the broader pattern to justify treating it as part of the same group. I'd lean towards no, but I think the lack of strong official evidence one way or another supports a "wait-and-see" approach here. Landfish7 08:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)