77,660
edits
Talk:First partner Pokémon: Difference between revisions
→Definition of starter Pokémon
| Line 181: | Line 181: | ||
:::Splitting like that completely ignores the point. The idea is that the Pokémon I listed are a group of Pokémon, while this page just lists the first Pokémon of a bunch of Trainers. If we want to redefine starter Pokémon as "the first Pokémon a Trainer owns" rather than the traditional "the three Pokémon that Trainers can choose from to start their journey" and give the traditional grouping their own name, then while I wouldn't prefer it, it would be better than what we have now. What I'm saying is that we have a distinct group of Pokémon that the fandom have always called "starter Pokémon", and this page seems to have merged that group with everyone's first Pokémon. So regardless of what you want to call "starter Pokémon", the traditional starter Pokémon need a separate page from people's first Pokémon. --[[User:SnorlaxMonster|<span style="color:#A70000">'''Snorlax'''</span>]][[User talk:SnorlaxMonster|<span style="color:#0000A7">'''Monster'''</span>]] 06:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC) | :::Splitting like that completely ignores the point. The idea is that the Pokémon I listed are a group of Pokémon, while this page just lists the first Pokémon of a bunch of Trainers. If we want to redefine starter Pokémon as "the first Pokémon a Trainer owns" rather than the traditional "the three Pokémon that Trainers can choose from to start their journey" and give the traditional grouping their own name, then while I wouldn't prefer it, it would be better than what we have now. What I'm saying is that we have a distinct group of Pokémon that the fandom have always called "starter Pokémon", and this page seems to have merged that group with everyone's first Pokémon. So regardless of what you want to call "starter Pokémon", the traditional starter Pokémon need a separate page from people's first Pokémon. --[[User:SnorlaxMonster|<span style="color:#A70000">'''Snorlax'''</span>]][[User talk:SnorlaxMonster|<span style="color:#0000A7">'''Monster'''</span>]] 06:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
::::For what it's worth, I would define the starter pokemon as the sets of three plus Pikachu and Eevee. We categorize pokemon beyond their obvious classification by their secondary characteristics. Legendary Pokemon, other than those explicitly called out as such, are typically unique pokemon within the games that may or may not have a defining role in the story- even beginning trainers have a pretty good idea what you're talking about when you say "legendary". Pseudo-Legendaries bear some explanation, but fall within obviously recognizable parameters- 600 base stats, typically a double weakness to something, general badassedness, etc. The "starters" of the main series of games are typically in line in terms of stats and evolutions without significant variation- It would not surprise me if next generation we had to call out Charizard and Typhlosion as the exceptions to the "Fire/Fighting Rule". Spinoff series games should at best get their own page and at worst be merely mentioned on their own page. "Games" that are effectively pokedexes shouldn't be listed at all outside the article affirming their existence, as there is no meaningful way to interact with them. Eevee and Pikachu get to be the exceptions because they ''are'' the exceptions- the only main series game not to play by their own rules. You might not even list Eevee, as it's not technically an option for the trainer- It's not a "starter" pokemon, it's a "rival" pokemon.[[User:TheHateHat|TheHateHat]] ([[User talk:TheHateHat|talk]]) 04:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | ::::For what it's worth, I would define the starter pokemon as the sets of three plus Pikachu and Eevee. We categorize pokemon beyond their obvious classification by their secondary characteristics. Legendary Pokemon, other than those explicitly called out as such, are typically unique pokemon within the games that may or may not have a defining role in the story- even beginning trainers have a pretty good idea what you're talking about when you say "legendary". Pseudo-Legendaries bear some explanation, but fall within obviously recognizable parameters- 600 base stats, typically a double weakness to something, general badassedness, etc. The "starters" of the main series of games are typically in line in terms of stats and evolutions without significant variation- It would not surprise me if next generation we had to call out Charizard and Typhlosion as the exceptions to the "Fire/Fighting Rule". Spinoff series games should at best get their own page and at worst be merely mentioned on their own page. "Games" that are effectively pokedexes shouldn't be listed at all outside the article affirming their existence, as there is no meaningful way to interact with them. Eevee and Pikachu get to be the exceptions because they ''are'' the exceptions- the only main series game not to play by their own rules. You might not even list Eevee, as it's not technically an option for the trainer- It's not a "starter" pokemon, it's a "rival" pokemon.[[User:TheHateHat|TheHateHat]] ([[User talk:TheHateHat|talk]]) 04:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
:::::I going to say that there needs to be a distinction between "starter" and "first". For example, in the TCG a "starter set" is a set intended for people just starting to learn the TCG. However, it does not have to be their first TCG set, and their first TCG set is not necessarily a "starter set". A "starter Pokémon" is a Pokémon given to Trainers when they begin their journey to get them started. Therefore, instances like Wally's Ralts are not starter Pokémon; it is his first Pokémon, and if people want that to have a page that's fine, but they shouldn't be here. --[[User:SnorlaxMonster|<span style="color:#A70000">'''Snorlax'''</span>]][[User talk:SnorlaxMonster|<span style="color:#0000A7">'''Monster'''</span>]] 15:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Eevee in Yellow == | == Eevee in Yellow == | ||