238
edits
Talk:Gallade (Pokémon): Difference between revisions
→Possible new category
Tiddlywinks (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
::::::If you think "So?" is in response to, "Actually, there's several Pokemon that can fit the category", casually dismissing that, you're quite mistaken. That's in response to the category idea itself ("They lose a type. OK...so?" I.e., IMO it's not very interesting/worthwhile.) | ::::::If you think "So?" is in response to, "Actually, there's several Pokemon that can fit the category", casually dismissing that, you're quite mistaken. That's in response to the category idea itself ("They lose a type. OK...so?" I.e., IMO it's not very interesting/worthwhile.) | ||
::::::The BST categories are ''automatic'' (generated by the base stats template), and for all intents and purposes you can consider the evolution method categories automatic too (there's plenty reason for those). Categories like those are the exact reason I said "generally" right from the get-go; they're not what I was talking about. Something like {{cat|protection moves}} is a far better analogy. If we only had {{m|Protect}}, we wouldn't have created that category; but once a few more such moves appeared, it became a worthy grouping to make. 04:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC) | ::::::The BST categories are ''automatic'' (generated by the base stats template), and for all intents and purposes you can consider the evolution method categories automatic too (there's plenty reason for those). Categories like those are the exact reason I said "generally" right from the get-go; they're not what I was talking about. Something like {{cat|protection moves}} is a far better analogy. If we only had {{m|Protect}}, we wouldn't have created that category; but once a few more such moves appeared, it became a worthy grouping to make. 04:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC) | ||
:::::::I think the fact that it's rare makes it noteworthy. Pokémon overwhelmingly remain the same type, or gain a secondary type upon evolving (after being single-typed). The fact that only eighteen Pokémon share this distinction makes it notable enough that it's not a "regular" occurrence that should just be overlooked, but at the same time, the fact that an ''entire'' eighteen Pokémon share this distinction makes it more than just a blip on the radar that would only be worth mentioning on the pages of the few that it pertained to. The logic I'm looking at here is, it's too many examples to list them on those Pokémon's pages as trivia. But for that reason there should be some sort of category page for it. I really don't see a reason why not; and it is somewhat notable from a gameplay standpoint, as these Pokémon's strengths and weaknesses may change drastically when they evolve. There's a huge difference between a Normal/Flying type like Swablu and a Dragon/Flying type like Altaria. In short, these eighteen Pokémon go against the unwritten expectations that come with evolution. Why shouldn't that get the slightest bit of acknowledgement? — [[User:Kianglo|<span style="color:#6900CC"><b>KiAN</b></span><span style="color:#000000"><b>GLO</b></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kianglo|<span style="color:#6900cc"><u>TA</u></span><span style="color:#000000"><u>LK</u></span>]]</sup> 05:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC) | |||