30,354
edits
Talk:Gallade (Pokémon): Difference between revisions
→Possible new category
Tiddlywinks (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 103: | Line 103: | ||
::::::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) | :::::::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) | ||
::::::::Here's the problem, actually. Y'all are looking at this as if it's trivia. "This is rare/unique/''interesting''." It's not anything else. Trivia doesn't make for a good category, period, pretty much. Categories should be things that ''need'' linking. And a trivial fact does ''not'' need linking that much. Hell, it's not even worthy trivia, ''because'' it's not unique. (Also, I don't think I'm at ALL with you on the idea that it's unexpected.) | |||
::::::::If there were some compelling reason to link it in some pages' main text, it might be worth creating a category (that's what I've really meant by interesting/noteworthy)—and yes, I mean multiple pages, ''and'' compelling: it wouldn't become worthy just because you could, say, mention on [[Evolution]] that some Pokemon lose a type. Like I said originally, categories group things—things that ''need'' grouping. The only need evident here is "trivial". (And frankly, the fact that it's only come up as trivial, and not for an "actual" need, I think highlights the fact that this truly ''isn't'' needed. And I don't think it's possible to manufacture a truly compelling reason now that I've pointed out that as the problem—again, if such a reason were present enough, it should have come out either somewhere else or before this point.) [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 13:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC) | |||