5,080
edits
User talk:Maverick Nate/Archives/5: Difference between revisions
User talk:Maverick Nate/Archives/5 (view source)
Revision as of 16:01, 9 January 2010
, 9 January 2010→Regarding the Value Packs and Sets article: new section
m (moving message down and making header smaller) |
(→Regarding the Value Packs and Sets article: new section) |
||
| Line 580: | Line 580: | ||
Sorry, I didn't know I needed to check with anyone first. I've redone them all in HGSS style rather than FRLG style, and the location is always represented by a blinking coloured blob - before it was either a static blob or a white box. If there's anything I need to change, let me know straight away. ;) | Sorry, I didn't know I needed to check with anyone first. I've redone them all in HGSS style rather than FRLG style, and the location is always represented by a blinking coloured blob - before it was either a static blob or a white box. If there's anything I need to change, let me know straight away. ;) | ||
-[[User:Teeth|Teeth]] | -[[User:Teeth|Teeth]] | ||
== Regarding the Value Packs and Sets article == | |||
Since the larger blister packs have ''finally'' been given an official name, and we can assume the smaller ones will be called Two Pack Blisters if they ever resurface, would it be a good idea to use those names throughout the article, for sake of consistency? They can still just be referred to as "blister packs" in the descriptions, I guess. Also, in terms of the Arceus blister having a placeholder image... [http://www.collectorscache.com/StoreModules/ProductImages/784/arceusblisterdarkrai.jpg this] and [http://www.collectorscache.com/StoreModules/ProductImages/784/arceusblistercresselia.jpg this] are on the Collector's Cache - would we be allowed to use 'em and, if so, are they good enough quality? Or do you just wanna stick with the placeholder? [[User:Cipher|<font style="color:#1874CD;">'''''Cipher'''''</font>]] [[User talk:Cipher|<small style="color:#003F87;">'''''(Talk)'''''</small>]] 16:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC) | |||