Talk:List of Pokémon by evolution family: Difference between revisions

Talk:List of Pokémon by evolution family (view source)

Revision as of 03:45, 22 December 2016

592 bytes added , 22 December 2016

→‎Professor Rowan trivium

Paintspotinfez

700

edits

Revision as of 03:29, 22 December 2016 (view source) Pumpkinking0192 (talk \| contribs) (→‎Professor Rowan trivium: new section) ← Older edit		Revision as of 03:45, 22 December 2016 (view source) Paintspotinfez (talk \| contribs) (→‎Professor Rowan trivium) Newer edit →
Line 170:		Line 170:

	With the addition of several ambiguous groups this generation (the guardian deities, Ultra Beasts and Type:Null and Silvally) — not to mention the split between Legendary and Mythical Pokemon that wasn't accounted for before — this trivium is becoming extremely overcomplicated for very little benefit to my eyes. We can't even use any easy shorthand for the groups we're excluding with a word like "special Pokemon" because that's [[special Pokémon\|already used in canon]] for a different thing, so I had to make up the term "ordinary Pokemon" as shorthand for "everything that's not Legendary/Mythical/tapu/UB/Type:Null/Silvally". At this point, I think this trivium is just more trouble than it's worth. Does anyone have an actual reason we need to have it at all? [[User:Pumpkinking0192\|Pumpkinking0192]] ([[User talk:Pumpkinking0192\|talk]]) 03:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)		With the addition of several ambiguous groups this generation (the guardian deities, Ultra Beasts and Type:Null and Silvally) — not to mention the split between Legendary and Mythical Pokemon that wasn't accounted for before — this trivium is becoming extremely overcomplicated for very little benefit to my eyes. We can't even use any easy shorthand for the groups we're excluding with a word like "special Pokemon" because that's [[special Pokémon\|already used in canon]] for a different thing, so I had to make up the term "ordinary Pokemon" as shorthand for "everything that's not Legendary/Mythical/tapu/UB/Type:Null/Silvally". At this point, I think this trivium is just more trouble than it's worth. Does anyone have an actual reason we need to have it at all? [[User:Pumpkinking0192\|Pumpkinking0192]] ([[User talk:Pumpkinking0192\|talk]]) 03:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

			:Yeah, as the person who tried to do the math for a Gen VII update, I feel it's getting a bit complicated on what counts anymore. Still I'd recommend keeping at least some (but maybe not all) aspects of "Rowan said this, but it was more like this when Gen 4 came out and it's now like this in Gen 7." Also, with this weird category, I'd definitely count Legends and Myths, and probably Tapus and UBs, but ''would'' you count Type: Null and Silvally in this weird "Legendithical" group? [[User:Paintspotinfez\|Paintspotinfez]] ([[User talk:Paintspotinfez\|talk]]) 03:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)