Talk:Ultra Beast

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Ultra Beast connection to Legendary

Should Ultra Beasts be count as a another class of Legendaries like Deity and Myhtical?--Jacob Kogan (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I think they should be legendary - they fit the definition - but it's not really my decision. I am discussing this currently on a different thread and the opinions on this site seem to be pretty divided. ----Celadonkey (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks fro letting me know. Nintendo sure knows how to make Pokemon interesting huh?--Jacob Kogan (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Nintendo doesn't make the games, GAMEFREAK does, but yes. ----Celadonkey (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Mythical Pokémon are not a class of Legendary Pokémon, they are an entirely separate group (although the distinction was not made in European languages until Generation V, it's always existed in Japanese). "Deity" is not a class of Legendary Pokémon; assuming you're referring to the guardian deities, there's no evidence that they are Legendary Pokémon. --SnorlaxMonster 07:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
There are new classifications in Pokemon Sun and Pokemon Moon: Legendaries and Sub-Legendaries. You can see this through the Pokedex and through the data of the game. The Totem Pokemon, Type: Null, Silvally, and around half the UBs are considered Sub-Legendaries. Zygarde, the Cosmog line, Necrozma, and Magearna are considered Legendary. --Lighthouse (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
If you're referring to the background colors in the Pokédex, those split the Pokémon up into groups, but they don't give names for those groups, so we can't claim they're "Legendaries and Sub-Legendaries". Meanwhile, Rotom makes special comments highlighting when you add a Legendary or a Mythical (they're not the same thing, and Magearna is the latter), but not for the things you're labeling as "Sub-Legendaries". Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Haven't dataminers found out a code called "sublegend" listing All non-box legendaries (Zygarde and Necrozma) and non-mythical pokemon? The list included Type:Null/Silvally, the Tapu, and UBs as well. I personally believe Mythical Pokemon are still considered "Legendary", and the fact that Magearna shares the same color in the PokeDex as the Cosmog line, Necrozma, and Zygarde kind of says something. Though that there is just speculation, the sublegendary thing were from codes. --Lighthouse (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
We know definitively that Mythical Pokémon are not Legendary Pokémon. It's incredibly clear from the fact that official sources specifically say "Mythical and Legendary Pokémon" whenever they want to refer to both at once.
This seems to be the origin of "sublegendary". To me, it looks like the dataminers just invented a name for to group of Legendary Pokémon that are not Special Pokémon, which are flagged as such by the game; I see no evidence that the name comes from the games themselves. However, it does indicate that the game considers Ultra Beasts and the tapu to be in the same category as non-Special Legendary Pokémon (at least for tournament restriction purposes, and presumably is the same set of flags used by the GTS filter). --SnorlaxMonster 08:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Also, it looks like "sub-legendary" is an older fan term that either refers to non-Special Legendary Pokémon ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]), or to pseudo-legendary Pokémon ([9] [10] [11]). I hadn't heard it before, so I don't think it's a particularly common term. --SnorlaxMonster 09:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I know I'm kinda late to the topic but if cosmog along with iy entire lines are UB and they are considered legendary wouldn't that make the other UBs legendary? - unsigned comment from Badwolf1234 (talkcontribs)

Cosmog and its evolutions are not confirmed to be UBs; while the Aether Foundation suspects Cosmog is an Ultra Beast, there is no other evidence that the Cosmog line are Ultra Beasts, and Cosmog's evolutions do not have an increased catch rate in a Beast Ball. Likewise, even if they are Ultra Beasts, there's no reason there cannot be some Legendary and some non-Legendary Ultra Beasts, like how there are some Legendary and some non-Legendary Fire-type Pokémon. --SnorlaxMonster 01:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Apparently the dataminer claims they didn't make up the term, but the term itself is in the code: [12] --Lighthouse (talk) 03:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Cosmog, UB or no?

There appears to be conflicting information on this. In game text states that Cosmog's line are theorized to be ultra beasts, but they lack many of the characteristics unique to the group. Should Cosmog's line be listed here, or at least mentioned as possibly being connected? Lyriq (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it still should be as it has Property related to the Ultra Beast like the energy that powers upUltra Beast and Totem Pokemon, they fact its Pokedex entry and the Legends said it came from another World, Ultra Space. and the fact and it can Ultra Portals just like the Ultra Beast. A connection--Jacob Kogan (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The auras don't necessarily make a Pokemon an Ultra Beast-none of the totem Pokemon are considered Ultra Beasts-and Cosmog was never shown to have an aura. The fact that it's from another world does give some weight to the idea, but it only says it's from another world-it never said it was from Ultra Space. (unless I'm forgetting something said in Ultra Space-I'm fairly certain I'm not, though) And the Ultra Beasts were never shown to be able to open the Ultra Wormhole-that's sort of why they're lashing out, because they don't know how to get back. TechSkylander1518 (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

And yet the Aether Foundation said its a Ultra Beast. What was their reason and proof that it was an Ultra Beast and remember that Alternative World that was introduce in the games.--Jacob Kogan (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

You'll have to jog my memory there, I don't recall any point in which the Aether Foundation referred to Cosmog as an Ultra Beast. If they had, I'm pretty sure the debate would have been settled much sooner. And it's not like it's impossible to add multiple alternate universes in one generation-Gen 4 had the Distortion World and the first references to the Ghost World in the games. TechSkylander1518 (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

In Aether Paradise B2F, there si alan with he Notes of Cosmog, one of them mentions its an Ultra Beast--Jacob Kogan (talk) 02:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

That file says Cosmog is hypothesized to be a type of Ultra Beast that hails from another dimension. The key word here is hypothesized-even the Aether Foundation is just speculating. TechSkylander1518 (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The developers had to have included that line for a reason, though. It seems to me that we should at least include a note to the effect of The Aether Foundation hypothesizes Cosmog to be a type of Ultra Beast, even if it's only in the trivia section. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I'm definitely not opposed to including that line as trivia, I just don't think it should be taken as confirmation that Cosmog is an Ultra Beast. TechSkylander1518 (talk) 05:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

That sounds fair to me, let's do that--Jacob Kogan (talk) 05:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

They also hypothesized that Cosmog is an Ultra Beast from Ultra Space, due to its ability to create Ultra Wormholes. is already on the page. --Abcboy (talk) 05:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Master Ball

So, the Ultra Beasts ignore any non-Beast Ball's enhanced catch rate multiplier, right? Does this mean they can break out of Master Balls? And if so, should this be noted in the article? - unsigned comment from Missingno. Master (talkcontribs) 03:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Even though the Ultra Beasts ignore any non-Beast Ball's enhanced catch rate multiplier the Master Ball never fails to catch one. I tested this theory by hacking in Master Balls and it never failed to catch an Ultra Beast. Lolo0912 (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Ultra Beast AI. Smarter?

I find that they are quite smarter than most opponents with their attacks. Here's my experiences:

  • Nihilego only used Power Gem against me; never used any other attacks.
  • Buzzwole only used Lunge on my Haunter because it was immune to its other attacks (at least until it ran out of PP)
  • Buzzwole always used either DynamicPunch or Hammer Arm on my Snorlax; never Lunge or Counter. (This was probably random, I admit).
  • Xurkitree only used Power Whip against my Zygarde, never Discharge
  • Kartana always used X-Scissor or Detect against my own Kartana, never Leaf Blade or Air Slash.

Can someone else please confirm or debunk this? Unowninator (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I can confirm it...for everything. Especially trainers. I don't think there's anything special for UB's but every trainer I've faces with a super effective move used it and only it. ----Celadonkey (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Totem Pokémon work the same way, only using the most effective moves. I would be careful calling it "smarter" though; I find it far easier to manipulate, since the moves they choose are usually easy to predict based on your active Pokémon. --SnorlaxMonster 04:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Don't know if this means anything, but I just fought an NPC with a Ditto while training my Gabite; after it transformed into my Gabite, it used Iron Head (my Gabite also had Outrage & Dual Chop), which IMO confrims at least that UBs are smarter than regular trainers. Unowninator (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
NPCs in general have always been using smarter moves against me. I don't think it means anything - just luck. To confirm anything one would have to look at the code of the game. ----Celadonkey (talk) 02:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Similar movesets

Is it really necessary to have a Similar movesets section on the page? I know it's probably there to follow precedent, but none of them learn the same move at the same level. And even the moves that more than one of them learn aren't learned at similar levels (e.g. Ingrain for Xurkitree at level 18 and for Celesteela at the start). Could we at least rename the section if not remove it entirely? slimey01 00:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this. It just clutters up the page. ----Celadonkey 02:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree as well as the only similarity is that they learn a new move at the same level which can easily be stated in a sentance and doesn't need an entire table. --Raltseye prata med mej 08:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Seven sins

Is it just me or do the UBs seem to be based on the Seven deadly sins?

  • Nihilego: envy - something something fusion with Lusamine
  • Buzzwole: pride - buff and all
  • Pheromosa: lust - although its antennae (and its appearance in general) creep me out, this seems only logical due to its pose
  • Celesteela: sloth - heavy and slow?
  • Kartana: wrath - dude seems kinda angry pointing out that sword all the time
  • Guzzlord: gluttony - heck, even its codename is the same
  • Xurkitree: greed - not that fitting, but the only one left out

Thoughts? --DJWolfy-- 00:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Intriguing, but I'm not 100% convinced. Although its Pokedex entry says Xurkitree raided a power plant, which could possibly associate w/ greed, but still, not 100% convinced. I'm also not really qualified to decide; just stating my opinion. ¿¡Unowninator?! (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
This is entirely speculation, and only vaguely suggestive speculation at that. It's barely convincing at all, and for us to include it, it would need to be not just convincing but officially stated. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to convince anyone, but I was a bit surprised no one brought it up by now because it does seem a tiny bit they have some sort of connection. Guess it might just be my imagination running wild. --DJWolfy-- 17:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with that. Though, just to note, people have been posting this theory around the internet for some time. Honestly, it's pretty flimsy, as you can easily attribute most of the UBs to several Sins (for example, Buzzwole is super strong, thus it can also be Wrath; it also drains energy, which can be Gluttony/Greed). That being said, it's still just speculation. Ataro (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Catch rate multiplier

According to this page, any ball other than the Beast Ball and Master Ball has a x1 catch rate against an Ultra Beast, which should in turn mean that regular Poké Balls are no less effective than usual. Which should, in turn, translate to Kartana being as easy to catch as Rattata, in theory. And yet, when I went to test out this theory in Sun, I wasted dozens of Poké Balls on a weakened Kartana. I forget how low I got its health, but it was definitely in the yellow. I might be misunderstanding how catch rates work here, but something with a catch rate of 255 with its HP in the yellow basically can't break out of anything, barring possibly a Heavy Ball if it's really light, or something. Assuming I'm not wildly mistaken about my understanding of a catch rate of 255, either this page is wrong in how the catch rates of Poké Balls are affected against Ultra Beasts, or Kartana's page gives an incorrect catch rate. - unsigned comment from Missingno. Master (talkcontribs) 00:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I and a person who actually knows what she's talking about have both come to similar conclusions. I don't think anyone's taken a second look at the capture routines to determine this for certain, but it definitely looks like 0.1x. -- Umbee (talk) 05:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
That would make a lot more sense, and it would definitely explain Kartana being so frustrating to catch without Beast Balls despite the 255 catch rate. - unsigned comment from Missingno. Master (talkcontribs) 05:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Maybe the catch rate's wrong? ¿¡Unowninator?! (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking that could be a possibility, but this tumblr post Umbee linked to, it makes a lot of sense, apparently Kartana's not the only Ultra Beast people have struggled more against than what the catch rate would suggest. - unsigned comment from Missingno. Master (talkcontribs) 18:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Unlock?

Can this article be unlock after the latest episode aired or wait until the release of Ultra Sun and Moon? Singaporean (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

It is locked until USUM as a precautionary measure against speculation. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I see. But could you tell Admin to add the section of In the anime since the latest episode had mentioned them about it. Singaporean (talk) 10:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

No longer accurate trivia

The first bit of trivia says that "The Ultra Beasts who share the same code number share at least one type, and are the only Ultra Beasts that share any types." Since UB Adhesive was introduced and UB Assembly's typing was revealed, that last bit of trivia is no longer accurate since they shares types with UB-01 Symbiont, UB-04 Blaster, and UB-04 Blade. Can someone who can edit this page update this, please? --PKMNAdventurer (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Anime confirms everything?

In SM044 Burnet say that's a high chance to Cosmog being an Ultra Beasts and also Lusamine says that Solgaleo and Lunala are Ultra Beasts registred in the past so Cosmog line are Ultra Beasts and the Ultra Beasts are legendary. Pika fanatic (talk) October 6 2017, 17:49 (UTC)Pika fanatic 17:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

They said Solgaleo and Lunala are Ultra Beasts spoken in legend, hence they are legendary. they did not say anything about the others being legendary. this page should at least mention how Solgaleo and Lunala (and Cosmog and Cosmoem) is connected to the Ultra Beast, since both the anime and games imply that they are Ultra Beast, or at least related to them. -Pokeant (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, like Pokeant said, I don't think you can go from "Solgaleo and Lunala are UBs" to "all UBs are legendary".
If there is a direct quote saying that yes, Cosmog is 100% a UB when the episode gets dubbed in English, then yeah, I think that's reason to add it, but until then, I don't think so. --Celadonkey 14:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
UB already have ten do not include Cosmog line and Necrozma. They (UB) can have their own independent classification. E9310103838 (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but what does that mean? --Celadonkey 23:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I think I understand. I think you're saying something along the lines of "there are already ten UBs, we don't need anymore".
The thing is: it's not up to us to decide if a Pokemon is an Ultra Beast or not. Gamefreak can really do whatever we want, and we don't have to like it, but we do have to accept it as fact. --Celadonkey 01:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
In fact I mean that they are already enough to be as an independent classification (UB), and not necessarily affiliated with legendary Pokemon. (This not include Cosmog line and Necrozma.) XD E9310103838 (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
The Ultra Beasts are technically battle facility-legal legendary Pokémon according to the games' internal data, as are the other Pokémon with green dex entries in SM. The wiki's staff are adamant that we wait until someone official refers to them as legendary before adding that they are, though they said the same thing for the tapu when they were first revealed (IIRC that stemmed from them not being listed as legendaries on SM's website unlike Solgaleo and Lunala? Cosmog wasn't either, though...) until Tapu Koko was referred to as a legendary in one of the promotional things for the shiny event. Cosmog's family and Necrozma have been suggested in several media to be Ultra Beasts lore-wise despite the game mechanics not treating them as such (i.e. altered ball catch rates), but like Celadonkey said it's up to Game Freak to decide how many UBs there are and that maybe we should wait until USUM or SM044 to be dubbed, whatever comes first, before we add any of that stuff about the other five to this page. Hell, if USUM includes the National Dex it might even make some of the clarification issues clearer if we can refer to what dex backgrounds other generations' legendaries and mythicals have.Azureprism (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
You're assuming too much, Azureprism. There is no marker in "the games' internal data" marking anything as legendary or not. As for the dex backgrounds, Type: Null and Silvally have the green one but were explicitly stated to be non-Legendary in Ga-Olé, so it's clear that "green = Legendary" was a false assumption the fanbase jumped on. Is it really that ludicrous to want confirmation before saying something rather than relying on assumptions? Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
SciresM literally found lists of legendary/mythical markers with hexcodes that correspond to certain species while he was datamining SM nearly 11 months ago, not to mention ALL of those Pokémon are the ones filtered by the "search for special Pokémon" option present within the Gens VI and VII GTSs, which explicitly refers to legendaries and mythicals in SM. Azureprism (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Hm, thank you for actually providing enough identifying information for me to (presumably?) track down the source you're referring to, unlike everyone else I've ever seen make such a claim. I assume this and this are what you're referring to? Those lists seem to contradict the fact that, as I said, Ga-Olé identifies Type: Null and Silvally as non-Legendary, and I'm inclined to take official, public word as more valuable than back-end data that could have been misinterpreted (for instance, who knows whether "sublegends" is an actual canonical term or just a Game Freak coder's shorthand). I am, however, quite interested if you know of anything that gives a better analysis/explanation of the context of that data than just those two tweets, which are fairly contextless. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the text "sublegend_list" and "legendaries" along with the names don't actually exist in the code of the game, it was just sciresm's way of labeling the code. Yes, these Pokemon are grouped together but it doesn't actually say anything about "sublegends" in the code.
On the subject of Ga-Ole - Personally I think it's a little bit silly to say that Silvally and Type:Null are for sure not legendary because Ga-Ole called Silvally a "super-strong" Pokemon. That could really mean anything, and unless I'm missing something, doesn't say anything about Silvally's legendary status. Doesn't say that it's legendary ≠ being not legendary without a doubt, especially with a side game developed by a third party. Of course I'm not implying that they are for sure legendary either, but it's a bit of a stretch to push it out of the way and say that there is no possibility of it being legendary at all, especially with the amount of evidence saying otherwise.
Azureprism: first of all, I agree that the mods' stance on this issue is a bit silly, but they have a right to be doubtful - they strive, like they should, to be a professional and accurate source for Pokemon information. Although this wasn't the stance I had a few months ago, I think that it's perfectly fair for the mods to want an explicit statement (even if not everyone's definition of an "explicit statement" is the same). --Celadonkey 22:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Everyone still not conviced, so we could just add an article in the Ultra Beasts named "Potential Ultra Beasts" to include Cosmog line and Necrozma? Pika fanatic (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

(resetting indent)Cosmog is already on the page. Tiddlywinks (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Just the Cosmog what about the others? What's i think is better to create a Potential Ultra Beasts article in the page. Pika fanatic (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The page addresses Cosmog as well as Necrozma just fine already, you don't need a whole section for it. Tiddlywinks (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the term "SubLegend" is used in the code symbol "PokeRegulation::CheckSubLegend", and is official. --SciresM (talk) 03:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, huh. That's interesting, and probably worth adding, assuming if it's true. I trust you (not that it matters), but can you provide proof? --Celadonkey 21:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
[13] SciresM has put up some proof on Twitter --Celadonkey 16:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Pokémon Shuffle

Pokémon Shuffle counts as official source if they say that the Ultra beasts are lengendary? Because they didn't said nothing about Silvally status. PS: No, there's no event calling any UB Legendary yet, i'm just asking if count as official source if some day they call. Pika fanatic (talk)Pika fanatic 20:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Since we took Ga-Olé as a source until it was contradicted by a higher-quality source, then I would imagine we would also take Shuffle as a source if it were to say anything on the matter. But since it hasn't, the point is moot. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

In fact, in USUM latest trailer (Mewtwo trailer) they were mentioned separately with Legendary Pokémon. E9310103838 (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Cosmog’s ultra beast status

Granted I have a very limited knowledge of Japanese so take this with more than a few grains of salt but in SM047 a sub I watched said, and I’m paraphrasing, “Nebby.. I cant believe she named an Ultra Beast” and I clearly heard Gladion say “Hoshigumo” and “Ultra Beast”. Can someone confirm this? If so, it would be a statement saying Cosmog is a ultra Beast. --Celadonkey 03:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Adding onto this... these cards list Necrozma as an Ultra Beast... With the above information (of course assuming it's true) would that make Cosmog and Necrozma ultra beasts? --Celadonkey 16:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Considering the information revealed in USUM, wouldn't that makes Cosmog, its evolutions,and Necorzma, their own class of Ultra Beats??--Jacob Kogan (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Moveset and base stat tables

I had little room in an edit summary to explain myself, so let me explain further. The main point of these sections is to show at a glance the similarities between members of a group: see, for example, Tao trio, which is an excellent example of these sections being set up to optimally show where members do and do not share the same moves and base stats.

However, this is not true for this page. None of the Ultra Beasts learn the same move at the same level, nor do they share any significant similarities in base stats (aside from all being prime numbers). There is no reason to have a huge table that stretches beyond the page's borders when it doesn't give any of the useful information that the template is meant to give: i.e., information about similarities.

I strongly feel the trivium about the learnsets/stats being prime numbers is sufficient to cover what little value these sections may have had. Perhaps we could even move that note out of the trivia section and into somewhere more prominent; I don't have strong feelings about that. But the sections, as they stood before I removed them, were utterly pointless. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. They just cluttered up the page, and there was nothing useful to take from the tables. --Celadonkey 01:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Necrozma & the TCG

The TCG calls Dusk Mane and Dawn Wings Ultra Beasts. Is that worth mentioning somewhere in this page and/or Necrozma's Trivia section? --Mr. Bonding (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I think so --Celadonkey 23:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Ultra Beast History section updates

So I was wondering how to update the history part on Ultra Beasts given the lore amd history reveled in USUM. So can we do that along with a message that mentions it being incomplete. Any suggestion?--Jacob Kogan (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit Requested

I'm not too familiar with the DL template, but the History section links to Ultra_Wormhole#Faller when it should instead link to Ultra_Wormhole#Fallers, but I don't know how to change it without making it grammatically incorrect in the sentence. Nairbnroh (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

New image

Do you think it is better to use this image for the page than the current one since it shows all the UBs? Or not?[14]

It wouldn't work as its essentially nine images and all of them are too tiny to see at thumbnail size. PDL (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)