The Dragon's Den V.4

[Mew~]

THANK YOU!!!
Reshiram is a bird, but we'll talk about that when the time comes, i guess...

Chicken!! Its Dragon/Fire isn't it =P

Well anyway, I agree Dialga and Palkia cannot be dragon, theres nothing dragon about them, they are both um, just kinda, Aliens xD

 

[dragoniteuser]

This one, on the other hand, I can see it as a some kind of mecha-dragon...

So, Amore, shall we vote on Palkia and Dialga aswell?

 

[Time Guardian]

I see no resemblance to Dialga and a Horse. And I would know a horse if I seen one considering that my mom collects model horses...

But looking things up, I think they both were intended to be based on dinosaurs instead. Which would make some sense in that concept. But again, they also have a few thigns that make them look draconic in my eye as well.

As for Zeakrom....he make me think of Metal Gear RAY for some reason. :/ Even though they both don't look remotely alike.

 

[Halcyon]

I don't like Dialga and Palkia, so they are not dragons. LOL, my opinion is biased. >__>

 

[tkallab]

Dialga and Palkia are dragons because all legendaries are. I say don't doubt the legendaries. By the way, I think you'd all be okay with Dialga being a dragon if he looked like this:

 

[wolf]

In my opinion, all Dragon-types should be considered dragons because they're considered dragons in the game. Though, Altaria is no longer a dragon so this point is moot probably. Just my two cents.

Dialga isn't similar to a horse, other than being a quadruped. Dialga doesn't have any of the following: snout, mane, ears, hooves, fluffy tail, and fur.

Also, here's some support banners if you want to use them:

 

[dragoniteuser]

OK, tkallab, you practically changed nothing, and no matter what you do to it, Dialga is Dialga, and as such, it's not a dragon, no matter what Game-freak says!
And to think that a Pokemon is a dragon, cause it has Dragon type, is the worst argument you could probably have! Use your own head for God's sake! If game freak assigned dragon type to Meowth, would you consider it as a dragon?!
Besides, Mew~ already supported me in Dialga/Palkia matter, so by the current rules, we should vote on it!

 

[tkallab]

...Yeah, it was dumb of me to think that would work. I was hoping that small change would be enough, and then say "It's such a small difference, it could also be a dragon without it," but I guess it backfired. Sigh... I wish I could veto this.

Can we at least leave Palkia alone? He's a dragon. Let me try my previous strategy again.

 

[dragoniteuser]

Um... NO!
It's feet are... WHAT IS THAT ANYWAY?!?!?!
those arms sure aren't helping it one bit! And that Shoulder shield!! How on Earth is that dragonic?!

 

[Amore]

Ok...well, personally, I'm going with TKallab...they're both dragons because they always have been, and also their signature moves are dragon-type! Giratina's not a conventional dragon either, but nobody disputes that...and its' signature move is ghost-type....

Also, I don't see how the Gen V dragons look "dragony" either.

However...moving on, and shutting you up before this club gets locked for obsessive arguing:

Voting Time!

You can vote only once for each dragon. And no, you don't have to vote on all of them, if you're impartial or something.

The dragons eligible for voting are:

- Milotic
- Tyranitar
- Dialga
- Palkia
- Giratina

Spoiler:

The latter two are there to head you off before you start arguing about them xD.

As usual, votes go to me via pm, and I'll tally them....

Closing date is: November 30th, 23:59pm. I won't be online at that time, I'll simply ignore votes sent in December.

I will tell you the results, but if there are less than 5 votes on an individual pokémon, then that one will be declared null, and unlike what I've stated below, will be eligible for voting in January / February 2011. I just think it's not a good representation of the opinions of the majority if only one person votes.....




Oh, and finally, if I've missed any pokémon out of an act of idiocy, then yeah...I'll add them, and they'll be eligible for voting.



p.s. Yes, Lugia and Altaria had more than 5 votes (9 each, overall), so my new criteria works.

Oh, and one final thing: No more arguing / persuasion! I want people's opinions to be given time to form, rather than being intimidated by Draggy, Tkallab and, to a lesser extent, Xilfer.

 

[dragoniteuser]

Oh come on, there's nothing wrong with a little friendly "argumentation" between tkallab and me! ;)
OK, my votes are coming at once!

 

[Amore]

Yes, I know, but I just know you'll bring out all sorts of argument now....and I want those legendaries to stay un-argumented, as nobody's previously had a problem with them...

I personally dont' see how a shark is a dragon, but let's not go into that until I get a good look at Gen V's offering

 

[tkallab]

Alright, where is your proof dragon feet don't look like that? That dragons don't have shoulder plates and arm guards?
By the way, I think dragons are the kind of creature Game Freak can use their imagination on as much as they want, because, even if they turn out to be real, we know absolutely nothing at all[/s] about dragons.

And, typing is very important. In my opinion, Dragon typed Pokémon are not to be removed from this club unless it's entirely obvious that they're somthing else. Like with Altaria, it was completely obvious he's a bird (to me, at least). Well, what are Dialga and Palkia? Don't say horse, because the only thing Dialga and a horse have in common, is that they both have four legs.

 

[dragoniteuser]

Trust me, it's offering barely anything good...
And I don't see garchomp's evo line as sharks. sure there are some similarities, but it's very dragonified IMO...

 

[Amore]

Well, most references do say he's a shark...

For example, Gible's Pokédex entry lists his species as "Land Shark Pokémon", and Garchomp's head is similar to that of a hammerhead shark. He also has the fin (on the back) and tail of a shark.

Appearance-wise, Garchomp seems like a cross between an European dragon and a hammerhead shark. It may have the genuine appearance of a land shark. It also seems to have the appearance of a jet.

Appearance-wise, Gabite seems like a cross between a European dragon and a shark; it may be based on the Landshark.

Appearance-wise, Gible seems like a cross between a European dragon and a shark. Gible and its evolved forms may also be a reference to the book series "Dougal Dixon's After Man". One species mentioned is a type of land shark that lives in desert regions.

 

[dragoniteuser]

No, no, you didn't get me...
I know that both pokedex and Bulbapedia says it's based on sharks, but it doesn't look that much of a shark to me, that's all...

 

[tkallab]

Alright, so Garchomp is a mix between a dragon and a non-dragon, and it's considered a dragon.
Why not Palkia and Dialga? They're dragons, mixed with... Interdimensional fantasy dinosaurs? I dunno. But they're dragons.
By the way, Amore, can't you just veto the vote on Palkia and Dialga? There should not be messed with Dragon-typed legendaries.

 

[dragoniteuser]

No he shouldn't! The suggestion has been made, and it was supported by more then one member! And what's so special about legendaries that they should be off the hook?! The reason they have a Dragon type is BECAUSE they're legendary pokemon! And that's just WRONG!

 

[tkallab]

Well then, what type should they be?

 

[Amore]

Exactly.

This is like the "what makes a pokémon look like a pokémon, not a digimon?" (Whatever they are) argument.

No, Tkallab, I'm not lifting the vote, as two people have already voted. However, I've just noticed the Dialga argument looked very one-sided on the other page, so arguing is open again in order to give fairness and equality to all :D

this has nothing to do with me liking dialga and palkia ;)