Introduction

This is a response to some revisions regarding Pokémon some years ago in terms of how its canon works. Many of the claims are ignoring vital things such as context, consistency and any semblance of unbiased judgment, or being flat out wrong. such as the many claims made regarding events that happen in-game or the likes.

More specifically, this is debunking the following threads:

Gotta Revise ‘Em All, Part 1: Splitting the Pokemon Canons (Massive Pokemon CRT)

Gotta Revise ‘Em All, Part 2: Getting to work

Part I: Canon Split (And How Pokémon Canon is Misunderstood)

• Every argument Ayewale made will be in quotes and highlighted inside of a box. This is done so it’s easier to note what’s being refuted.
• Secondly, any comments in the thread itself will be ignored for the time being. They can go in another section and not just this one, as this is solely on refuting the arguments in the OP .

So, to start off this document:

Before continuing, credit is to be given to ExecutorN0, whom of which found a good majority of the stuff that’s being used, with it hailing from this blog, and to SuperBearNeo as this doc is based on one he did in collaboration with others.

While this premise seems good at first, this is something that’s constantly debunked with known information about the setting.

The idea that every piece of Pokemon media shares the same canon is something that is outright confirmed by major developers (WoG), and also supported by the games themselves.

 Everything that is a quote from WoG or a supporting source will be highlighted in green, so as to distinct it from Ayewale’s refutes.

Gameinformer: What’s the deal with the Pokémon timeline?

Masuda: It starts to get a little complicated if you pay too much attention to timelines. Like, there might be a professor that appears and it wouldn’t make sense at all if we applied that kind of timeline logic. So we try not to apply it too rigorously. Maybe one hint is that if a character is appearing with Professor Oak, they’re living in the same era. Rather than some series where it makes sense to have the timeline progress as you go and the story evolve, the approach that Pokémon takes is expanding the world, like what the regions are, and making it richer as we go. Rather than a timeline, it’s more of a physical space thing.

According to an interview done by Gameinformer with Masuda, he subscribes to this notion that Pokemon is less akin to a timeline but more akin to a “physical space thing”, which is more in line with a setting. This might not sound like much, but Masuda further elaborates on this in other interviews:

Pokemon.com: How do you flesh out characters who have had minimal screen time in the Pokémon RPGs? Did you work with people at The Pokémon Company to ::make sure your new details were in canon?

Mr. Sasaki: We have worked with The Pokémon Company closely on details in the ::game, and they have of course checked our new details to make sure they fit in the world of Pokémon. One of the major new features of this game—and the content that we want to highlight—is the interaction between various Trainers. Players will be able to enjoy new and exciting interactions between Trainers who may not have ::interacted before. To create these interactions, we considered the personalities and backgrounds of these Trainers and made sure that our content did not deviate from that. If a character would never say or do a certain thing, we made sure that they do ::not in our game.

Another interview on Pokemon.com clarifies that The Pokémon Company oversees everything that is worked on in regards to the Pokémon IP, making sure everything is fitting for the world of Pokémon and also making sure there is consistency maintained among the series.

This is important to note because that means things that are put into Pokémon games are approved by The Pokémon Company and is an acknowledgement of something that is possible within the general setting of Pokémon. This isn’t even the only interview that clarifies this as there are many others that say the same thing in different ways:

Unno: Right. If the gameworld were a movie, anything would be possible, so I thought I could broaden the gameworld.

Iwata: What do you mean by "anything would be possible"?

Unno: Like a space fantasy that wouldn't usually be possible in the Unova region.

Iwata: Huh? A space fantasy in Pokémon? (laughs)

Unno: Or romance.

Iwata: Huh?! Romance in Pokémon?! (laughs)

Unno: Yeah! (laughs) But I wasn't sure how far I could go. There is, of course, the worldview that The Pokémon Company has preserved, and GAME FREAK treasures certain things, so when I submitted the proposal, I was pretty nervous.

This was an interview that regarded the production of Pokémon: Magikarp Jump. This once more supports this idea that Pokemon follows a setting type of canon and even more telling is the fact that even when spin-offs are made (no matter how outlandish they are and the likes), they have to follow the “setting” that The Pokémon Company approves of.

What this is pointing towards is that The Pokémon Company doesn’t abide by typical “canon” but more akin to everything in the series contributing to this larger “setting” that defines what is canon and not in Pokémon. In other words, all things in Pokemon, whether it be the main games or spin-offs (including things like anime, manga and so on) are just merely part of a “setting” and are canon because of the fact they are showcasing what can happen in the general Pokémon world and not just a single canon or something

We still aren’t done here though as there's another interview regarding Magikarp Jump! that states the following:

――People who have played Pokemon games have the image that Pokemon has ::some kind of worldview (世界観). When I played "Splash! Magikar" I thought you ::were conscious of expressing the unique world of Pokémon. Were you aware of ::that?

Nakahata: We wanted to express the world view well, partly because we love Pokémon. I think that our "Splash! Magikarp" has elements that Pokemon hadn't so far, such as being able to laugh at it, seeing a slightly ridiculous side, and making mistakes. But this is the part that we put our own colors in it. On the other hand, when a Pokemon game comes out, Pokemon fans want to get in touch with the world of Pokemon. This game is a game that you can play as many times as you want in a day, and I think it's great for fans to be able to enjoy the world of Pokemon many times a day. That's why we wanted to give Pokemon fans a solid sense of the world of Pokemon. We wanted to bring out both our own colors and the worldview of Pokémon, so we were conscious of the original Pokémon setting.

What this all amounts to is everything needs to fit into what the “Pokémon World” is and if something breaks the rules, it needs to have a very good in-universe explanation to explain how some outliers happen. It doesn’t even stop there with just the games as the same even applies to the anime and manga, case in point with an official website that outright says the manga is actually more closer to what Satoshi Taijiri wanted to portray with the “Pokemon World” than what the games could allow or a clarification from Hidenori Kusaka that the manga is made to showcase what can’t be shown in the games

I myself am fond of the Pokémon series, which is the source material, so I write the story wanting aspects that can’t thoroughly be seen in games to be shown through the manga, such as Pokémon unleashing their moves or how they connect with trainers.

As far as the anime is concerned, it’s outright said that  the anime is basically reflective of what can occur in the games. The anime simply takes place in “The Pokemon World” and could even be seen as a parallel world to the games or the likes (hinting that they share the same canon but are different continuities).

 So, there isn’t war in the world of Pokémon where armies of Pokémon are fighting for the ideals of their leaders?

Masuda: Long ago, there may have been wars. Actually, if you look at one of the movies featuring the character Lucario, there are maybe some hints about the past of the Pokémon world.

Speaking of the movies and consequently the TV show, do the cartoons and the movies and the video games overlap? Is that all one Pokémon world, or are they two separate universes?

Masuda: basically it’s the same place. Looking at it as a parallel world, or in some select spots being a parallel world might be more accurate.

It should be noted that Masuda also supports the idea that the anime is just an extension of the games and showcases what can’t be shown in them. He outright states that some of the stuff revealed in the anime are things that are in archives at Game Freak that they couldn’t show in the games:

Did everyone see this year’s Pokemon movie? In this movie, “Mew”, a Pokemon appeared in the first series, meets ‘Lucario’ introduced in Pokemon Diamond and Pearl. Unlike encounters in the game, you might feel some distance between the two Pokemon, but I liked the way they met in the movie, as two Pokemon in a movie. This movie begins with a war scene. And what with armors for Pokemon and others, it includes settings that we at Game Freak had tough time making decisions about. At the same time though, there is no certain opponent this time, and it includes many challenging ideas while keeping the world-view of Pokemon intact. So, I like it very much. It also brings you to tears. If ‘Lucario’ will grow in such a nice way, it might become very difficult for us to try to incorporate this Pokemon in a game. (it was very hard with Lugia…) But this time I came up with ideas like ‘Let’s do this, let’s do that!’ after I saw the movie. It’s a secret… You’ll be surprised when you play! In what part of Pokemon Diamond and Pearl does ‘Lucario’ appear? As you enjoy the movie, don’t forget to keep that in mind! By the way, do you remember that thing that looks like Mew’s family tree at the beginning of the movie. That’s based on Game Freak’s confidential documents about Pokemon Diamond and Pearl :) . See ya.

I could go on and on, in fact, the blog I’m pulling this from has even more examples. What we can learn here is that treating Pokemon “canon” like traditional canon is against what the company stands for and also it’s not how Pokemon’s canon is structured.

Everything is a part of Pokemon’s larger setting and thus canon, with there being merely different continuities but not different canons altogether

Going back to what the main thing we were refuting. The idea that “It is not supported by canon” is just patently false and these interviews DO prove that there is a consistent canon that is shared among all the various Pokemon products

“Pokémon Breaks Crossover Rules”

We’ve firmly established that there is absolutely evidence that everything in Pokemon is “canon” to some degree, we should also address this false notion that Pokémon relies on crossovers for many of its fundamental material and that applying it to the wiki would violate the crossover rules. This is what Ayewale had to say about the matter:

Before we even get into why this is wrong. Let’s just address the things that Ayewale stated as they are just objectively wrong. For starters, the actual WoG does not remotely imply that Shadow Mewtwo’s canon is dubious and that the producer knows nothing of the sort. What is actually said is the following:

Because everyone really liked Shadow Mewtwo, I have a personal hope that they'll continue to use it, but it's not really our decision, unfortunately,

So, within the context of this spin-off, [Shadow Mewtwo] is obviously a canonical character. Of course, how The Pokémon Company and Game Freak decide to use the character is up to them, but I think Mr. Hoshino's passion for the character might inspire them and encourage them to use it!

As you can see, it’s very obvious that the statement didn’t outright deconfirm Shadow Mewtwo’s place in canon as opposed to merely addressing the fact that they are unsure if Shadow Mewtwo will be revisited again. The fact that Ayewale could even extrapolate such from that indicates he’s being deceptive in his arguments and while that’s a bold accusation to make…

There’s actually evidence to support this notion… Which ties into our other points:

This notion that Pokken Tournament is a crossover with Tekken and that it’s in the same vein as Marvel vs Capcom is straight up a false one and also deceptive because anyone who actually has played Pokken knows that it has nothing to do with Tekken and is only a “crossover” in the sense that it adopts Tekken’s playstyle, with no Tekken character actually appearing.

What’s worse is that Ayewale also uses WoG out of context to support his arguments too, such as the case with Pokémon Conquest. He argues that since it’s a crossover with Noburaga’s Ambition, that means it’s on the same level as Marvel vs Capcom… Ignoring that it’s, again, a crossover in the sense that it’s an adoption of playstyle and not an actual crossover with characters from both series appearing. In fact, the very same source as before even makes this explicit:

Rather than combining Nobunaga's Ambition and Pokémon as they are - because those are just really two distinct kinds of worlds, and it probably wouldn't work too well - we used an element of fantasy. We've created this fantasy world. From that aspect, it was easier to put the two titles together. Especially because it's a collaboration. If both titles were really trying to bring themselves out, bring their own personas out, too strongly, then it probably wouldn't work well. At Tecmo Koei, we really respect the Pokémon Company, so we studied the game in terms of, well, how can we appeal to the Pokémon user? Especially since a lot of them are kids. How can we appeal to these kids, to the younger users?

So yeah, even the same source that Ayewale uses is straight up not even supporting his own notions (no Noburaga’s Ambition character appears in Conquest either), but are, in fact, debunking his own arguments while supporting the premise of this doc.

The bottom line is that with Pokémon, anything that’s a part of the IP has to be overseen and all things have to fulfill what’s consistent with Pokémon’s setting

“Pokémon Breaks Alternate Universe Rules”

The next argument that Ayewale uses to argue for a canon split is on the basis that apparently Pokémon breaks the standards of alternate universes on the site. He’s referencing the fact that the wiki basically treats universes in Pokémon as being 1:1 with one another with basically very little changes.

Keep in mind, this isn’t usually considered applicable for normal Pokémon but merely just applies to legendaries under the argument that there’s only one of their kind in the world and thus it would be logical to assume that whatever a legendary can do in one timeline would apply to the another timeline. In a vacuum, this makes sense to be contentious about but doing so for Pokémon under the context of how it’s canon works makes absolutely no sense considering Pokémon is less a “canon” and more of a “setting” in which everything is canon but akin to different continuities.

Anyways, let’s just see what Ayewale’s counter to this notion is by quoting his exact words:

Major problem with this argument right off the bat. The first issue worth pointing out is that this logic is ignoring the fact that Pokémon’s canon works like a “setting” and by extension, it’s logical to assume that each “universe” in it are very similar under the basis of Masuda’s own words of how Pokémon canon works.

If it’s in a game or a part of the IP in general, then it’s logical to assume that it represents something that’s capable of happening in the verse in general. If Mewtwo is able to create a black hole that destroys the world, for example, then this would have to apply to ALL versions of Mewtwo under the basis that it represents the capabilities of Mewtwo per Masuda’s own words.

The examples of Batman scaling to The Batman Who Laughs or The Ultimate universe doesn’t scale to Universe 616 completely falls flat when you actually contextualize Pokémon’s unique way of treating canon, meaning this is basically just a false analogy on every conceivable level as opposed to any real refutation to the idea entirely.

So absolutely not, Pokémon should absolutely be composited because not doing so inherently defies what Masuda has already clarified to be how Pokémon as a verse works. If someone has a problem with this, please actually debunk the notions set forth by Masuda over focusing on a inappropriate preference.

“Side Games Are Non-Canon”

In this section, Ayewale attempts to argue that since the wiki doesn’t typically consider side games as canon, we should basically scrap any use of side-games into the mainline continuity.

Once more, this argument doesn’t work considering how Pokémon canon is stated to work but let’s see what Ayewale has to counter this idea:

We’ve already been over this before. Pokémon works more akin to a setting than it does a standard canon in which you are asserting it does. This is an important distinction to make because Star Wars and Marvel don’t have the same exact type of way of treating canon as Pokémon does.

As far I and others behind this document are aware, you don’t have to constantly refer to a set of guidelines for what is accepted for the world and follow what is considered “alright” to be shown. I’m also very sure Stan Lee and George Lucas don’t run on the idea that everything in the verse is meant to represent a “setting” in which only things shown in it that represent what can be done as a whole can be applied to the IP itself. So yeah, this is yet another false analogy and not at all accurate as far as how Pokémon’s canon actually functions

Ayewale seems to conflict “canon” with “continuity”. None of this disproves the canonicity of these games as opposed to prove that they are different universes, which is something that’s already common knowledge at this point.

It’s already accepted that all medium doesn’t necessarily share the same universe but that doesn’t debunk the idea that everything shown in the series is indeed canon and representative of what is “possible” in the verse as a whole

“Inconsistencies = Non-Canon”

The last notable tirade that Ayewale goes on about is how basically the inconsistencies of the many mediums of Pokémon are indicative that not every medium is meant to be canon to the general setting of Pokémon and that they should be objectively split into different canons. Once more, this ignores how Pokémon’s canon actually functions and honestly, this isn’t even worth going in-depth against considering how the previous section already explains why this is simply wrong

To reiterate once more. Pokémon runs on a “setting” and not necessarily a conventional canon, meaning that all things in the verse contribute to showcasing what is GENERALLY possible within the verse and what things can happen universally in the entire multiverse.

Masuda has already clarified this much and many other people who've had a hand in Pokémon’s extension as an IP have as well to cement this notion. Going against this is plain, textbook denial of what was stated and ignored the relevant context for this special case.

I and others could refute every single section here but it genuinely isn’t worth it when many of Ayewale’s issues can be debunked by the simple fact that WoG and other sources state Pokémon is akin to a “setting” as said before in which one can do whatever so long it’s under the general guidelines of what’s acceptable and possible for the verse. So either way, this argument doesn’t hold up and it’s not worth going any more in-depth than the previous section.

Okay, in the end, I will bother refuting some rather questionable key pieces of “evidence” that are used by Ayewale to get his point across. We’re going to only be tackling the ones that are just insanely wrong and are fundamentally dishonest arguments at their core

Let’s start with this one:

This Eevee is regarded as special, as in a trained one that specifically isn’t found in the wild. This can’t work as a counterpoint when it’s a consistency that trained Pokémon can take on drastically different traits and levels of power that they normally couldn’t do on their own without the aid of human bonding, such as several species only evolving with such bonds, several Pokémon reaching tiers far beyond the average to the point of even competing with legendaries (this is even accepted as we have several trainers with their Pokémon scaling to tier 2 by this), and in some cases as shown before unique abilities compared to others of their kind.

Furthermore, the reason this doesn’t happen in the games is simply out of the fact that it’s a video game that was created to have balance, and an Eevee being able to do that in-game would obviously be too broken to account for and thus the devs leaving it out is more than reasonable.

This is relevant as Pokémon in general has an extremely active competitive community that’s also endorsed by The Pokémon Company, let alone the cut of species and other mechanics also being done notably since Gen 8, or Gen 7 if you want to count LGPE, but that’s besides the point.

Yeah, it’s common sense, but somehow that was ignored, anyways back to another quote from Ayewale:

Your arguments fall flat the moment you acknowledge that they either stem from taking the gameplay at face value and as objectively canon, or just nitpicks at best. Hypnosis simply putting the person to sleep is a gameplay mechanic whilst the anime actually shows more accurately how it’d be in the context of Pokémon’s setting, it has been covered before how other media than the games is intended to better showcase their capabilities.

How this argument was even accepted is beyond me since this only takes about 10 seconds (if not lesser) to debunk. Worst part about all this is the fact that this isn’t even necessarily a contradiction or inconsistency but just an elaboration on what Hypnosis can do as moves can have multiple effects in what they can achieve, something Pokémon fans would already be familiar with, given moves having multiple uses is a common topic across the media.

This in no shape or form serves as an actual inconsistency in the slightest and if anything, it seems that Ayewale is just trying to nitpick the smallest of difference between mediums to argue they are inconsistent to a level that ruins any chances of them being composited.

Let’s just get to this shall we? First off, none of this appears in the game because of gameplay purposes as said before with the whole Eevee stuff, Aegislash, a species with worse stats and move options in-game, was nerfed even with the rising power creep as being able to swap between offense and defense mid-battle in practice enables its high stats being capable of competing with boxart legendaries (in the sense of gameplay, again), we’ve also already gone on the games being done with competitive in mind and being officially endorsed on that regard, sometimes the developers mess up and balance stuff later on, still helping here by directly showcasing how this isn’t a good idea.

This is rather clear, yet somehow we are resorting to arguments that are excessive nitpicking and unreasonable skepticism for the sake of it.

What’s even worse is the fact Ayewale uses the differences in the meteor statements as a “contradiction”... Yeah sure… It saying it’ll destroy the world is somehow a contradiction to the fact it can destroy a planet. Next you are going to tell that someone saying that they can destroy a country is a contradiction to the same person saying they can destroy all of Europe? Yeah, this doesn’t work like that, and it sure is inappropriate that this was somehow accepted in retrospect.

Them not showing feats in the anime or games is not an inconsistency of any kind. Do you just expect characters to always be the same level in a narrative and the writers not to focus on stories or anything of substance?

Like, this is on the same level of logical leaps as asking comic readers to prove that Bruce Wayne is Batman whenever another Batman series or comicbook run comes out. The comparison being that this shouldn’t need to be stated because it should be logical that these statements carry over into other mediums because they represent what the Pokémon is capable of in a general sense and the overall lore is meant to clarify stuff to the setting as a whole, as explained several times before on how the canon for this series is intended to work. Overall, this is just a terrible argument and doesn’t even refute anything of substance.

That’s not an inconsistency either, different entries that further elaborate on the characters are not the same as a contradiction or inconsistency in the slightest. This is an “inconsistency” in the same way that Final Fantasy spells aren’t always the same between games.

What this means is that it’s not an inconsistency in the slightest and it’s just merely another descriptor of what the Pokémon can do in general, let alone how it’s shown multiple times that Pokédex entries are written by multiple professors, and thus quite different sorts of information can be found by each, let alone most Pokedexes being able to research in real time, which has been a consistent thing in every single generation, I could get more scans, but this should be more than sufficient.

Sourcing from this official book’s in-universe interview to Professor Oak, a quite reliable character that has been shown to directly test the Pokémon for research purposes, also credit to Executor N0 for the text and translation:

Q3: Even in the new Pokédex, only the Nidoran are registered as a separate species for ♂

 and  ♀, right? Why only Nidoran are treated like that?

A3: Because we can't easily change our standards. Changing the criteria for classification after only 2~3 years of research would lead to unnecessary confusion, and would make the study untenable.  Up until now, I have been categorizing animals based on their physical appearance. That's why Nidoran ♂ and ♀ are different species.

However, Nidoran may not be the only one that has ♂ and ♀ registered as a different species. Tauros and Miltank... I have a suspicion that they are also the case. Oh, wait, wait, don't panic! That is still just a theory of mine. That is something for the future.

Q4 : I see. So, the Unown are considered to be one species at the moment, right? No matter how you look at them, to an untrained eye, they look completely different Pokémon. If the difference in shape is the criterion, shouldn't they be considered different kinds of Pokémon?

A4: Not just the Unown, but there's also the different-colored Gyarados found in the Lake of Rage... This is a discussion about Pokémon biology, even though they have different shapes and body colors, they are biologically the same. For example, we both may look completely different, but we're the same, "human" and "male", right? There is no structural difference such as between ♂ and ♀. Furthermore, also the Unown are at a stage where it is not even known whether there is a distinction between ♂ and ♀.

First, they must be different in appearance. And then, they must be biologically different from each other. Pokémon that satisfy these two conditions are different species of Pokémon. At least those are my "criteria". But, well, some Pokémonologists propose other criteria.  For example, they consider ♂ and  ♀ to be different species, or count evolved Pokémon as one species.

Q5: I see. So, depending on the results of future research, there is a possibility that the "criteria" in Pokémonology will change, right?

A5: Of course. What we humans understand is only just a part of Pokémon. Pokémonology will continue to develop and change from now on. That's why it's fun!

This argument is just actually a stretch in logic overall, Ayewale is basically just acting desperate for any type of “change” as far as this “inconsistency” narrative that he keeps pushing for some strange reason. Anyways, moving on…

As explained before, the canon of Pokémon simply isn’t bound to a single universe, this doesn’t contradict anything as Pokémon objectively is a multiverse even in the narrative. I’m actually puzzled at what this is supposed to prove other than Pokémon having different timelines and continuities… Something that was never discussed against and on the contrary already used in favor to retain general consistency, this is a redundant thing to point out and for that reason I’m going to just move on because this is pointless and against the canon split ironically.

As said before, this is more than explained through the use of multiverse theory, a concept that Pokémon has already touched on even in media outside the main games.

These things just add onto the cosmology of the verse, not take away from it. This “contradiction” can be used on so many series that it isn’t even funny. Are we going to say that Final Fantasy 7 is a different cosmology from the rest of Final Fantasy simply out of the fact the Void isn’t mentioned once in it? The leaps in logic we can pull from this is actually absurd and thus it’s not even worth entertaining as minimal analysis makes this fall apart.

No contradictions here either for similar reasons as before, the argument boils down to “people die in the manga”, when that not being mentioned in the games has to do with the fact those are meant to appeal to kids, while the manga are strictly Japan centered and are targeted not only to older audiences but is generally more lax with what can be shown in it’s contents as opposed to the games, it has been already brought up before how one of the main developers has noted that the manga is a media that allows to show more accurately the world of Pokémon.

It’s not unheard of for series and companies with world-wide appeal to merely have media suited specifically for certain audiences, Disney doesn’t only make content for kids, and neither does TPC, it’s that simple and doesn’t contradict any lore, but rather expands on it.

Part II: How Pokémon SHOULD Be Treated  

So now that we’ve gone  over the arguments presented by Ayewale in the thread itself, it’s time to actually address how Pokémon should be treated as far as canon goes and why the initial way it was treated on site was perfectly fine and logical.

Basically, think of this section as a justification for why the old standards for Pokémon make sense and are far more consistent with Masuda’s own statements on how canon works for Pokémon, splitting canon is basically just ignoring Masuda and going against his clearly defined setting.

This document has gone on for long enough and thus I think it’s about time we bring this to a close with this final section. So yeah, let’s just get into this, shall we?

NO CANON SPLIT

The first thing that needs to be established is that the idea of a canon split is just blatantly wrong and is not something that is supported by WoG or even anything within the Pokémon setting itself. Speaking of which, yeah, Pokémon is not even necessarily “one” canon but a collective of them that makes up a single “Setting” in which creators have to outline as the “setting” is indicative of everything that is possible within the Pokémon world.

The idea that there are multiple canons is straight up not true whatsoever and the only thing that would hold true is the idea of multiple continuities, which is a very distinct thing from multiple canons, which as this doc already established before is not supported and is completely contradicted by basically all sources imaginable. This alone completely destroys any argument that involves the use of “contradictions” or whatever other discrepancies that are used to “prove” that Pokémon’s canon should be split as far as canon is concerned

Unless there is anything that contradicts what Masuda has said in regards to how both he and The Pokémon Company, then the idea that a canon split is the best course of action to treat Pokémon scaling basically is just headcanon

Legendaries NEED To Be “Composited”

The first thing we must touch on is the fact that Legendaries by virtue of how Masuda treats Pokémon canon, is the fact that Legendaries being composited is basically a given by virtue of what legendaries are intended to be, which are unique entities who are one of kind and aren’t necessarily a “species” to speak of per-say.

Unlike, say, Charizard, legendaries aren’t a species but just merely one individual and this is something that is consistent across all the continuities. Per nature of Pokémon being more akin to a setting, in which all things present in it just merely are representations of what is possible for the world, this would mean whatever a legendary shows in one continuity should be applicable to the general capabilities of that Pokémon. As I’ve mentioned before, if a Legendary Pokémon showcases something in a given continuity, then it’s logical to conclude that any and every version of that Legendary Pokémon can do it as well.

By technicalities, this isn’t actually “compositing” since you aren’t treating the different continuities as the same being but arguing that they would all share the same capabilities per the nature of Pokémon’s unique canon, which aligns with the standards for species profiles (which is how the average Pokémon profile was intended to be, with notable individuals getting their own page (say, Ash’s Pikachu)).

So the argument of “composite” doesn’t even work because it’s not a composite in the first place. The best equivalent would be using supplementary material from Dragon Ball Super’s manga to argue things should be the same in the anime version of Dragon Ball Super, except with way more stuff backing that up.

To bring this part to a close, Legendary Pokémon by virtue of how Pokémon setting work need to be “composited” in order for things to align with Masuda’s WoG and bare in mind, composite in quotations as I explained how it isn’t even necessarily “compositing” but just arguing supplementary material are reflective of the “main” work, meaning any argument that stems from “composite” standards are essentially null.

All Pokémon Material Is Viable For Use

The last thing that is needed to be said is that per nature of Pokémon being a “Setting”, this means that any supplementary material is fair game as far as scaling goes, whether it’s legendaries or not. While standard Pokémon might not be as lax as Legendary Pokémon, the bottom line is that if the case calls for it, supplementary material from the games, anime, manga and all that funky jazz is absolutely fair to use in the “main” timeline or whatever we can considered a “baseline” for the setting

If an anime has a different interpretation of something, such as a move or whatever, then that should be taken into consideration as it’s just a representation of what the move can potentially do within Pokémon’s world. The same can be said when it comes to continuities portrayal of characters or other things that we came to understand differently in the “baseline” setting that can be found in the games or whatnot.

Once more, this is just an extension of how Pokémon’s canon actually works and not just arbitrarily done for reasons we created. What the wiki was doing was actually fairly accurate and this is in part due to Executor N0, whom of which a lot of this can be attributed to as far as establishing a baseline for how Pokémon canon actually functions when compared to other canons. So yeah, with that being said, anything considered Pokémon is absolutely fair to use and unless there’s something to debunked his “setting” concept established by Masuda, then it’s assumptive headcanon to go against this.

Conclusions

This marks the end of this document and hopefully those who read this get an understanding of why Pokémon on the site is simply incorrect as far as its canon is treated. Everything goes against the idea of different canons in Pokémon (in the sense of entirely separate lore, not universes, read from here onwards for more information) and if that wasn’t enough, then there’s the fact it’s just contradicted by the creator itself to say the least as deeply covered before.