2
edits
Talk:Novelty Pokémon: Difference between revisions
→Legitimacy of Novelty Pokemon: new section
(→Emolga) |
(→Legitimacy of Novelty Pokemon: new section) |
||
| Line 185: | Line 185: | ||
While I have no problem with being considered a novelty, I think theres more to it: Its in battle animation. It has probably one of the most adorable in battle animations, and does a great job of demonstrating that whole system, in addition to it being a pikachu-like. But this is subjective so didnt want to add anything til I heard commends on it. I still think its a novelty, just for more than one reason. | While I have no problem with being considered a novelty, I think theres more to it: Its in battle animation. It has probably one of the most adorable in battle animations, and does a great job of demonstrating that whole system, in addition to it being a pikachu-like. But this is subjective so didnt want to add anything til I heard commends on it. I still think its a novelty, just for more than one reason. | ||
:Forgot to sign. [[User:PowerPlantRaichu|PowerPlantRaichu]] 03:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC) | :Forgot to sign. [[User:PowerPlantRaichu|PowerPlantRaichu]] 03:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC) | ||
== Legitimacy of Novelty Pokemon == | |||
Since this talk page is almost all debates for or against why or why not a pokemon is considered novelty, why don't we add a section to the table that says "reason against" or something like that? For example, Sableye says it was the only pokemon with no weaknesses and has the ability stall, this is under the "reason" section of the table, then, under the "reason against" section of the table it could include how Stall is only it's ability half of the time and is no longer the only pokemon with no weaknesses. This would help remove the bias of the page. ([[User:Hijinga|Hijinga]] ([[User talk:Hijinga|talk]]) 04:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)) | |||