Discussion Characters / PokemonRecurringArchetypes

to note:

• several of the dogs are noted in their description to fit other archetypes better, or have more caveats than core traits
• the serpents have little in common outside of body type. They have different types, stat builds, habitats, evolution methods, trainers types, and three of them Ekans, Onix and Dratini debuted in the same Gen and are never grouped together.
• Woobat echoes Zubat, but they're only two of a kind. The other bats just happen to be bat like.

Not sure if it might do more harm than good than to call out the model example like on the fire emblem page. (i.e. The Common Rodent, or The Rattata) to make them more about a clear role or design sensibility, not just a species. Not every rodent is a "Rattata," and not every "Rattata" is a rodent.

Hey any response on these before making major reversions one way or the other. trying to make the page more intentional than just body types

i.e. the reason why I removed Throw and Sawk from "humanoid fighting type" is because, while true that they are humanoid fighting types, is that they more closely resemble Hitmonlee and Hitmonchan in Gen I (noted under unrelated related duos) while like the Timburr line more closey resembles Machop in Gen I. (Also why it might be more useful to call the archetype "the machop" or "the common fighting type" or something)

I think distinctions beyond body shape/species (and maybe typing or number of evolution which is also inconsistent) should be taken into consideration when defining an archetype otherwise a lot of these could be hugely expanded.

I never thought that there would be different kinds of humanoid fighting-types, but if you feel that a better distinction should be made between the two, I ain't going to complain.

However, I was under the impression that "Pokémon that only have elements of this archetype" was what this was used for. It's where mons like Throh and Sawk were originally as humanoid fighters that don't quite fit the archetype, but have enough characteristics to be honorary members of the archetype. Yet they were deleted anyway? That's the part that I don't get.

Yeah just wanted to add more distinction. If we include every humanoid fighting type that also includes Iron Valiant or Buzzswole. It's a common type/body shape overlap. But Iron Valiant in no way plays similar role to Machop or Timburr. Even Gallade is only partially fighting in its final form, but is pure psychic for two stages before that.

That's why it could be more useful to state which Pokemon the archetype is modeled after, rather than grouping species/type/body shape.

So just chiming in since more voices are required: I think most of these groupings should be cut. The Rattata type early weak mon with one easy evolution that falls off pretty quickly are definitely a recurring archetype to fulfill a certain niche, as is the fact that there's usually a group of minor legendaries that come in groups of three, fossils, a box/main legendary with a 680~ base stat line etc. I do not, however, believe that mushrooms, crustaceans, yeti etc have any place in this.

At least three quarters of these groupings should be cut. I particularly frown at what I saw in one of the groupings where Pokemon only partially qualify, which reminds me of the weasel wording "shades of" and so on that this site heavily discourages: You qualify or you don't. Pulling out of the Pokemon general thread, I think it should come down to

Commenting a bit on the above discussion, I don't think 'Humanoid fighting type' even comes close to qualifying: I feel like the majority of fighting types are humanoid, be they monkeys or lizards or punching bag things. They're supposed to look more like people 'cause they're basically martial artist monsters. If you want to call that a theme in the games then sure, but it's not really a recurring archetype. It's like saying fish Pokemon being water types or rocky things being rock type are an archetype.

And thinking about it now the dumb cave bat is really just Zubat most of the time.

Tldr: If you can't think of a solid gameplay, marketing or image reason behind the grouping, it's probably just a coincidence.

I wasn't trying to go as far as axing 3/4 of it right out of the gate... but maybe worthwhile to do a sandbox?

Chiming in: I'd axe... most of this. The only ones I really think are valid are The Starter Trio, The Common Rodent, The Common Bird, The Early Bug, The Mushroom, The Pikaclone, The Aquatic Magikarp Power, The Two-Stage Pollutant, The Fossil Duo, The Pseudo-Legendary, The Minor Legendary Team, The Version Mascots, The Third Legendary, and The Mythical Fairy. Most of the others don't have enough full examples to clearly be a thing (there's a lot of "gen 1 did it, gen 5 made an expy, and something similar happened in another game"), are way too broad, or are just straight-up apophenia

For what it's worth, I think the common rodent thing really ought to include Poochyena alongside Zigzagoon for Gen 3. It's basically a category for two stage Com Mon available early with a base stat around 410-420. Maybe we should name the category after the earliest or most well known example to make it as clear as possible that it needs to fulfill the same role rather than having superficial design similarities. The Rattata, the Pidgey, the Pikachu Clone, Mew Clone etc.

I'm not really sold on the Mushroom thing. It's just, well, how else are you going to keep including Spore apart from having mushrooms?

Here I put together a sandbox that i think is clearer, and cut several of the archetypes out. but let me know if this goes to far, not far enough etc. if there's any in particular you want to discuss

I’d add back the 'Blade-Armed Humanoid' Archetype because the fact that such a specific design choice has been used for six different Pokémon at this point (nine different Pokémon if you want to also count Scyther, Kleavor and Kabutops) really makes it feel like TPC is at least *trying* to make it an archetype.

Also I really don’t see any point in changing the names of so many of the archetypes, especially when the names they already have get the point across just fine, though I do think it would probably be a good idea to rename the 'Common Rodent' Archetype to the 'Common Mammal' Archetype since some of the Pokémon in that archetype aren’t even rodents.

And I’m not sure why you think the Hoothoot and Taillow lines fully count as part of the 'Common Bird' archetype but not the Spearow, Wingull and Wattrel lines, since, as the actual page explains, the Hoothoot and Taillow lines aren’t common enough to fully count, whereas the other three lines do fully count because they’re far more common.

The names seem not to get across the archetype fine as with the way too broad "humanoid fighting type." They need to be more well defined roles than superficial design similarities, per Arha.

Blade armed is a design similarity, but the proposed members don't share the same role.

Could you please explain what you mean by “the same role”?

I guess Pokemon that are clear Expies of one another. Usually a mix of being marketed together across generations, used by similar trainers, appearing in similiar locations, having similar evolution methods etc.

It is subjective, which is why I think most people are advocated for fewer archetypes overall. We can all agree that most games have a "rattata" that's basic, easy to catch, one of the first monsters you might encounter in the wild, has lower than average stats even in its final form, usually looks like a rodent or small field mammal, has Normal typing, often used by Youngsters and Lasses etc. etc.

It's a harder sell that just having swords for arms is anything more than a design similarity when Scyther, Kabuto, Ralts, Pawniard, Charcadet etc don't have much to do with each other. One is a standalone rare bug in the safari zone. One is a fossil revival. One is a psychic type with a branched stone evolution based on gender. One is a dark type with an extremely late evolution and then a battle based evolution in a later gen. etc.

Okay, though you still haven’t explained why you think the Hoothoot and Taillow lines fully count as part of the Common Bird Archetype but not the Spearow, Wingull and Wattrel lines despite the actual page explaining that the former two aren’t common enough to fully count (The Hoothoot line can only be found at night whereas Taillow can only be found in four areas while Swellow can only be found in one), while the latter three (especially the Wingull line) are noticeably more common.

The main reason is that Hoothoot and Taillow are used by Ash in the anime the same way the other first 6 members of the archetype were. that shows a bit more intention.

The archetype’s description doesn’t even mention the anime. And even if it did, it doesn’t change the fact that Hoothoot and Taillow don’t fit the 'common' part of the archetype, so to say they fully count feels like a stretch and I honestly don’t think we should be letting the anime influence what does and doesn’t fit into an archetype, this is meant to strictly be about the games. Also you still haven’t explained why you don’t think the Spearow, Wingull and Wattrel lines fully count.

I think Spearow and Wingull do count. Probably Wattrel too but I haven't played that gen.

I think the Poochyena (though you could add him into the Rattata grouping since the only difference is that it's a Dark type) still needs to go as well as Meowth, Paras, Oddish, Teddiursa, Growlith, Ponyta, Krabby, Zubat, Geodude, Machop, Gastly, Multiplying, Lucario maybe and also maybe hostile Legendary.

Sure on the birds.

I'd argue the Poochyena is distinct from Rattata, given that there are so many of them and they tend to be used on evil grunts rather than youngsters.

I'm okay cutting Meowth (not super well defined), Growlithe (not super well defined), Zubat (only two solid examples, Gen 1 and Gen 5 expy), Machop (only two solid examples, Gen I and Gen 5 expy) and Lucario (only two solid examples, Gen 4 and Gen 5 expy the others are more of a stretch and squint).

The others I feel like have more ground to stand on. Is there any rationale?

I'd say the ones to keep would incldue

• Starters
• Com Mons
• Avian Com Mons (including Wingull and Fearow)
• Cute Monster Girl esque designs
• Everything pertaining to Legendary and pusdos

The ones I'm more iffy on are the Mushroom, bladed humanoid and Invasive Species. I lean towards keeping as well, but despite how deliberate the pattern is the fungus has little goingin for it cohesion wise belong the design, and the latter two seems is either two recent or have their won wrinkles (in the form of the decidedly unbladed Scizor and Amarouge)

Unrelated Related duo could go either way, but I lean towards cutting as even the subtypes have some things that make it it clear they were more retcoens (Marenane/Corsola and the like) and would be disqualified on basis of original intent.

Okay, I have to complain about keeping The Venomous Grunt— 'Poison-type animal' isn't an archetype when every type gets animals. And if we increase the requirements to be villain team mascots, we only have two gens worth of examples

The Hostile Legendary is asinine— Legendaries regularly get some amount of characterization, of course some of them are hostile

The Invasive Species really needs to show up more than twice to be worth having

The Unrelated Related Duo is incoherent. Weird combination of version counterparts, split evolutions, and team-up gimmicks

I think Unrelated Related Duo might be better (and certainly sound better) as something like Paired Species and cut down accordingly as necessary. Lunatone/Solrock were advertised as something interesting back when RS was new, for example. Then there are the Nidorans, Miltank/Tauros, Plusle/Minun etc.

Tulightful: Well, let's look at an example. Crustaceans only have three real examples before you get into weasel word territory like 'shades of.' At some point you just gotta acknowledge that with a thousand species of pokemon you're gonna have some shellfish and there can be no particular intention behind this. And Ponyta expies include literally Ponyta being included again. And then there are things like 'two stage serpents' that includes Onix and Dunsparce, neither of which even had two stages when first released and therefore clearly weren't intended to be anything but weird snaky things.

And then you have things like Two Stage Fish when fish are basically the most common vertebrate on the planet and the length of the evolution seems pretty arbitrary.

yep, a lot of those are cut. reference the sandbox for where it's at now.

The crabs strike me like the mushrooms, like its not in every gen but whenever it comes around they show up in similar places and have the same signature move.

I'm not sure about the crabs— Crabhammer would be a good argument, but klawf only learns it through breeding while gligar learns it naturally. Which suggests that this isn't really something gamefreak is actively thinking about like they do with the mushrooms

Okay, if most people are feeling like the crabs can go then i'm not super pressed about keeping them.

Not sure if this helps or hurts any cause, but two more recent examples of archetypes being acknowledged by the Pokemon Company itself are in some of the groupings in the 1000 pokemon recap video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa08Y-fhfTI and this credits sequence https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Supereffective_Type#Variants

Not all of these are cut and dry, or exact to how they're grouped on the T Vtropes page, but gives more credence to the Rattatas, and Pidgeys for example on the 1000 recap. (though there are also groupings based only on habitat, or evolution method etc. there's a comment by a user jeizaip6231 that lays it out)

The groupings in the credits are even more loose but it seems the intention was to find three stage lines that feel like starters. And shy of that, mix and matching to make sure every Gen is represented in the types they selected. Or finding a sub when one line was only two stage instead of all three. (i.e. Larvitar clearly isn't a geodude but is the only three stage Johto rock type, and Bonsly, Rampardos, and Bastidon aren't the same evolutionary family for Sinnoh)

When the sandbox page gets finalized, should references to the removed archetypes be removed on the Pokémon pages themselves? Like, the character page for Skitty says that it's "Hoenn's resident line of early-game cat Pokémon" under Recurring Element. Since "Early Cat" is no longer listed on this page, would that trope have to be removed as well?

Sooo... I feel like literally every archetype under general game animal category should go apart from Pikaclones. Are there any there that we wish to keep?

Edit: For ones we do want to keep, I suggest doing something to the description that helps tie them together. For example, the mushrooms are added to the game so that there's always a pokemon that can use Spore.

I'd keep the magikarps. There's enough examples to say that it's A Thing and there's actual gameplay tying them together

Fish only or broader Magikarp Power?

I could be convinced to cut the bears. It's a more common fan grouping (like if you just type in teddiursa, cubchoo, pancham into google you'll get a lot of forum threads and fanart) but there isn't much to support it in-game outside of aesthetic.

The Ponyta's I feel are more of a thing in-game even if the fans don't group them as much. Also because they always appear on gym teams in the generation they're introduced. Blitzle is a clear Gen V version of Rapidash where most of the one off expies come from, but Mudsdale fits the mold as well and has Rapidash's base stat total.

Aquatics only on the Magikarp thing. I think the correlation between Magikarp Power applying to aquatic creatures is more of a trend than just any major power jump between evolutions.

Outside of Magikarp being an ironic name for how bad it is, so far the others all have their weakness in their name (Feeble, Wimpy, Wishy-washy, ordinary citizen)

I would cut basculine though. It was pretty good attacking stats in base form, and didnt get its evolution until much later. So it's not intended to be weak, and then become much stronger.

Which of the Miscellaneous category are worth keeping? Pokeball Decoy, Pollutant, Unrelated Related (as paired species 'cause the current name sucks) and Fossils are the only ones that stick out to me.

Edit: I accidentally edited the character page instead of the sandbox. I put in a private ATT to revert the edit, so no need to freak out or anything.

I like the sandbox as it is now, but if anyone else feels strongly something should be removed let me know.

Geodude, Gastly, Multiplying, Edible, Hostile Legendary, Invasive Species, Ponyta and Tediursa should all go. And I personally think Oddish/Bellsprout and Poochyena should too.

I'm pretty opposed to Hostile Legendary and Invasive Species. There's a few others I'm not sure about, but those two I will definitely fight to kill

okay to cutting invasive. It's only happened twice with the Ultra Beasts and Paradox. We could always add it back if they do it a third time. Same with cutting Ponyta and Teddiursa if that feels more like just species overlap.

The Geodudes (in the Gens that have one) are all grouped together in that video which makes me want to keep it. And the Gastly Elite Four connection feels more intentional (Gengar with Agatha, Dusknoir with Phoebe, Chandelure with Chauntal etc) at least as much as the Abra is.

The one eye'd Multiplying and Edible feel like very specific quirks that don't feel like typical tropes outside of a Pokemon context. I feel more strongly about keeping multiplying than the edible tho. Multiplying also has the whole boss battle thing going for it, and Colress' team is comprised of all the ones that existed at the time of release.

Maybe Hostile Legendary was too broad? There's something about Mewtwo as a mean artificial Pokemon thats been done several times now. Mewtwo, Deoxys, Genesect, and Silvally seem like clear examples even if the others may have been shoehorned. Essentially the Mewtwo clone the way the Mythical is a Mew clone.

I'd... tolerate an artificial legendary entry. But just being hostile is way too broad

What's the rationale on cutting Pochyena and Oddish/Bellsprout? Those seem pretty consistent across gens.

Well, the main rationale for already doing it was that I didn't see anyone argue to keep them. Apart from that, I don't see their value here? There's a lot of pokemon types you can get early, but that doesn't mean they all fit a pattern. If a Gen X pokemon game was announced tomorrow I would immediately wonder who would be the game's Dragonite and how strong they'd be and I know there would be a Rattata, but I wouldn't immediately assume there'd be an equivalent to, say, Blitzle except that there'd probably be a weak low level electric type somewhere.

It doesn't necessarily have any meaning just because you can form a category with multiple examples unless there's a clear, obvious intention.

As for Oddish/Bellsprout, my reasoning was that while I think Seedot/Lotad might be a genuine example, Roselia really isn't. It's just a plant available in the midgame in gen3 that had no early or later stages for several more generations and thus wasn't built to mimic them. Four total examples feels a little sparse, but if others strongly believe it's a recurring archetype I won't argue it.

There are so many Poochyena's tho that play in the same space as the rattata and the pidgey even though the didn't start appearing until Gen III.

The oddish and bellsprout at least have gen III with seedot/lotad, and gen V with cottonee/petilil. Roselia doesn't fit in Gen III when it's standalone but Budew is in Gen IV when it gains both a prevovled and evolved form, the latter requiring a stone like the other clear examples.

I mean, there are a lot of early game electric types as well. Water too! It just doesn't really mean much of anything.

The Poochyena's are also used for the evil team grunts in every generation they appear in. Often the only dark types they use will be of that archetype (or at least the dark type they use most often). That combined with their availability and relationship to the rattata's makes them note worthy. Poochyena outright replaces zigzagoon in Emeralds opening. And twice over they have literally been a dark type regional form of a rattata. (alolan rattata in Gen Sun and Mon, and galarian zigzagoon in Sword and Shield)

The Oddish/Bellsprouts (at least the three solid examples) are all version exclusive duos that need a stone to reach their final form.

Raticate was also used in a similar capacity in gen 1 and maybe gen2, can't remember. That's why I think if anything Poochyena is just another form of your typical Rattata.

Yeah predating the existence of the Poochyena.

I mean do you want to count them separate or count them together like weedle and caterpie? Sometimes there's just a normal type, sometimes there's a normal and a dark after Gen III.

I personally feel Rattata's iconic enough not to lump them, but the Poochyena's are def there.

I think Poochyena probably just belongs under that category. It's not a normal type but it's used ingame in the same way and has a pretty much identical evolution pattern and stat total.

Is there a third opinion? I'd rather keep them split.

also should there be an "under review" banner on top of the page before we launch the sandbox? I think we're getting close to replacing it with the sandbox in about a week or so, but it is a big change for anyone not following the discussion.

Jumping in with a third opinion about Poochyena, which is that weak dark types and weak normal types belong to the same "early game mammal" group. In my opinion, they are not that significantly different to each other to categorize them as belonging to two separate archetypes. At best, Maschiff is the moth to Lechonk's butterfly.

So basically, it sounds like the archetype is "Pokemon based on a real world common mammal usually living near humans, typically evolving one time around level 20 and with a base stat total between 410-420. Moderately useful early on, but poor coverage options (typically normal and dark) and low stats cause quick obsoletion."

Okay, added them in with the Rattatas. And added back Oddish and Bellsprout.

Still thinking it might be good to put the under review banner on the main page before making a huge edit? Or should we just launch the sandbox if there's no more debate by the end of the week?

You can add it, won't hurt anything. I think main thing from here is just a bit of description rewriting and maybe changing some of the category names? Fossil Duo to just Fossil Pokemon, Pokeball Decoy to Fake Item and maybe more generic names for the various duos, aka just Paired Species and, iono, Gendered Alternatives? That last name sucks though.

Does the Nymble line really qualify as a member of the Caterpie/Weedle archetype? In terms of evolution level and overall power, it's closer to something like the Venonat line, and it's not a Crutch Character like nearly all of the other examples.

Tarountula and Nymble maybe just have the round Caterpie vs pointy Weedle thing going on, since they're right next to each other in Pokedex order.

But you're right that Nymble's stats, evolution, and location are quite different than Tarountula even. They're not even as close as Ledyba and Spinarak.

We could cut both of them or move them to "similar to"? What do you think?

Weedle/Caterpie, Spinarak/Ledyba, Wurmple, Kricketot, Tarountula and Scatterbug seem like unambiguous examples. Dunno about Burmy, but I guess it probably counts.

Blipbug, Grubbin, Nymble, Sewaddle and Venipede lines are too strong and evolve too late, I think.

I would discourage the 'Similar to' line here or in any other area because it invites shoehorning.

I don't think strength and evolution are enough to disqualify Blipug, Grubbin, Sewaddle, and Venipede. They're all clearly takes on Caterpie for their respective gens. Especially Sewaddle/Venipede who are even paired like Caterpie/Weedle and come from Gen V which was the Gen that had the most direct analogs to Gen I. I can see the intent there even if their power levels are off.

Nymble is the odd one out because it kinda looks the part with Tarountula but doesn't actually play the part, and isn't even directly paired with it in power, evolution, or location despite coming from the same Gen.

Gen IV is a weird one. Kricketot is kinda of a standalone version of like a Ledyba and has no counterpart. But it evolves early and is pretty weak.

If you count Burmy, feels like you have to count Combee. They have the same habitat, evolve close to the same level, and both have gender locked evolutions. (only female combee evolve, female burmy get three evolutions, male burmy get one evolution). That seems like there's some intentionality of have two contrasting bug types that literally end up as a bee and a moth, but neither come as early as Kricketot. They also end up with different base stats to each other.

I don't think every single bug has to fit into the Weedle/Caterpie dynamic. I think the important parts are A. obtained very early B. evolve early, sometimes very early and C. fall off near completely past the midgame. Sewaddle, for example, doesn't even fully evolve based off levels but rather requires an item that's hard to even get during the normal game, at least early on. Venipede meanwhile has to get to 30 to get the final evolution. And given their stat totals they don't necessarily get power crept. Like I remember Scolipede actually being fairly decent and Leavanny has about 100 more stat points than the likes of Butterfree. Those two in particular are acquired after the second gym, which is fairly late.

Yeah but the larva, pupa, adult form and the round safe one and pointy poison one are clearly meant to evoke Caterpie/Weedle for Gen V. Ash's roster in the Unova series even directly echo of his starting Kanto team (Pikachu, Three starters, Unfezant/Pidgeot, Leavanny/Butterfree). They're played with, but it's hard to look at them and think there's no intent there. Especially given how Gen V has the most direct reprises of prior Gens, because none of the old mons were available until after you beat the elite 4 in BW.

The Gen IV Kricketot, Burmy, Combee thing is yeah much looser and I'm not sure they count. Maybe Kricketot as a standalone.

Honestly, I don't really care enough to argue about it and no one else seems to want to chime in, so we can just let it stay. I'll try to do a basic rewrite of descriptions over the weekend or something so we can just move the sandbox in before everyone forgets all about this.

I edited the descriptions and tried to clean it up a little. Does anyone have any additional input?

I still think we should keep Sewaddle & Venipede in the early bugs, especially if we're keeping Tarantoula & Nymbal. They former feel like they have a stronger claim.

And don't see why The Gastly and Mewtwo-like were cut.

Also think it's important to call the Mythicals "Mew-like" because there are other mythicals like Volcanion and Zarude that I don't think most people would include in this particular archetype.

Wait, why was the Gastly a thing in the first place? It had like two examples. Duskull was not introduced as a three stage ghost and has a completely different stat spread and role, meaning all they share is typing. Also I thought there was agreement that hostile legendaries were really not a thing done with any particular intention.

But yeah I guess we can put Sewaddle back, I don't really care. And you wanted Venipede on there right? They're back.

Why is it important to call them Mew like? Zarude doesn't look like Mew, it doesn't have the Mew stat spread or movepool and the official name for them is Mythical Pokemon. I feel like if a category actually has a recognized group title already we probably ought to be going with that.

Even if Duskull only fully counts after the remakes, you still have three examples in Gastly, Litwick and Honedge. I feel like they're at least as strong a claim as Abra, especially with the Elite Four connection.

I guess my thing about the Mythicals/Legendaries is that both are officially recognized umbrella groups, but within them you see certain patterns. Like how Mew, Celebi, Jirachi, Manaphy, and Victini all had similar design and even stat spreads, and were somehow mcguffins in their movies and other spinoffs when they came out. They had more in common than just being Mythical.

Similar to how Legendary is a broad category, but it includes things like the Legendary Team, or a Version Mascot Legendary.

Which then to that point is why between the two it seems like even if you cap it at only these examples the "Mewtwo-like" Generally has a more intimidating design than the "Mew-like," is used as an outright antagonist rather than a mcguffin in most of its appearances, and is somehow altered by science (Mewtwo is a mutant clone, Deoxys is a mutant, Genesect is a cyborg, Type:Null is a chimera). Mewtwo's also fought Genesect in a movie, and fought Deoxys in the manga showing more intent from the pokemon company that there's something about these mean ones even though Mewtwo and Type:Null are officially Legendary, and Deoxys and Genesect are officially Mythical.

I don't think most people would look at both Jirachi and Deoxys (Gen III Mythicals) and not be able to say that Jirachi is more Mew-like than Deoxys is in narrative and design. And Deoxys is more Mewtwo-like. Rather than saying Deoxys is Mew-like on the strength of being officially Mythical alone.

I mean, three examples across nine generations is a pretty poor showing as far as ghost types go. If you wanna remove the Abras feel free.

Deoxys isn't really altered by science. It's just an alien DNA thing. What is it that holds this category together? Hostility? I just don't think it's a real group.

Mythicals are event legendaries not otherwise obtainable within the generation where they were introduced. Yeah, the likes of Genesect are pretty out there compared to Mew, but they dropped the cute little mascot thing a long time ago.

Genesect and Deoxys are in the same generation as the cute mascots Victini and Jirachi, showing that they exist alongside the Mews, not as a later installment weirdness or replacement of the mew concept.

Deoxys is altered. Half of its Pokedex entries are like "An alien virus that fell to earth on a meteor underwent a DNA mutation to become this Pokémon." or "The DNA of a space virus underwent a sudden mutation upon exposure to a laser beam and resulted in Deoxys"

Deoxys is also Mewtwo's rival in Detective Pikachu's return, as well as the Adventures manga.

Mewtwo, Deoxys, Genesect, and Type:Null are all genetically modified, aggressive, and hold either legendary/mythical status that play antagonistic roles (even if they get redeemed and have Heel–Face Turn), two of which are pitted against Mewtwo itself in various spinoffs. That's 4/9 generations. They also have some type of Multiform Balance. Mewtwo would get two megas, deoxys has 4 forme changes, genesect has drives, Null when it evolves has memory systems.

I mean, who cares if there are multiple of them per generation? They are an existing category: They're Mythical pokemon. That's what they're called.

Need a third opinion on the Mewtwo thing, I suppose. Though we already had consensus that hostile legendaries were really not enough to make an archetype.

Don't get hung up on the old name (which is why using general names is something I've been pushing to avoid). The point isn't "hostile" in a vacuum, because that would include like Pecharunt and the Loyal Three or even Giratina. The point is similar origins and use in the mold of Mewtwo.

I'm saying that we could also have one Legendary lump category that includes the legendary teams and the version mascots and other one offs, but we don't. There are distinctions in how they're used beyond the official category.

If anything, I would rather it be a broader group like manmade pokemon to include the likes of Porygon, some of the electric types (I think?) or the various pollution based ones. I just don't see it with the legendaries.

I believe that there is a similar enough pattern with small, cute Mythicals that are allies in the anime movies to call it an actual category. Even if new ones stopped showing up, it does not mean that the pre-existing group stops existing.

On the other hand, I do not like the idea of a "science monster" category. Mewtwo and Genesect both are man-made powerful Pokémon that escaped, but Deoxys is a space alien and thus have a completely different theme about it. While Type:Null is also man-made, it is a failed experiment that got stolen and is only as menacing as its owner Gladion, not a powerful monster that escaped and is hostile by itself.

Also, the "three stage ghosts" is a bunch of random pokémon with a couple of coincidental similarities and is even less of a thing than the "powerful science monsters". "Feminine human-shaped psychics" I am also iffy on, but I am more willing to have it as a category.

I think the "Gastly" section could be canned. They don't share many common traits like the Geodude or Abra archetypes do, and it feels shoehorned. I'm unsure about the Mewtwo-themed "science monster" category, though.

Looking over the Rattata section, I don't think Stunky qualifies as a member of the Poochyena sub-type. It's a Dark-type mammalian Pokémon used by evil teams, but it tends to be found later than the others are, evolves way later, and Skuntank's stats are better than those of the other Dark-types. EDIT: It's also designed as a counterpart to Glameow, not to the regional Normal-type Rattata like the ones in other regions.

It's not like I don't think the Mew clones are a thing, I just think the category ALSO includes the likes of Deoxys and Genesect. I mean, they were already coming out when the little 600 BST munchkins were still being released.

I agree on Stunky being removed, I just forgot to take it out.

I removed Stunky, and if i'm out voted on science monster legendary it can stay cut. I don't like expanding it to all artificials because then yeah that opens you up to Grimer, Voltorb, Porygon etc. The theme of science and nature is always part of Pokemon. There's that "Science is great NPC" in every game, but outside of being artificial they share even fewer similarities than the mewtwo like ones.

I do think the Mew-clones are definitely a thing within the Mythical category. Deoxys, Genesect, Volcanion etc are all portrayed very differently even though they are considered Mythicals.

Mythical Pokémon is a group that exists, but I do not believe that it is a meaningful group, at least for the purposes of this page. They do not really have much in common with each other other than (at minimum) above average stats and being handed out at limited online events. I believe that creating a folder for Mythical Pokémon is no different than creating a folder for Legendary Pokémon in general, just a large, meaningless grab bag of a category.

Shrug. Okay, I'm in the minority, it can be just the Mew clones. I'll rewrite the description, I've only played up through Gen VII and I barely remember the Mythical from Gen V and VI. If someone wants to make sure that list is completely accurate I'd appreciate it.

Ok i made some edits. maybe just needs a typo pass and then launch it this weekend?

Launching friday if there's no other discussion

Done!