Open main menu

Bulbapedia β

Template talk:Evobox/Necrozma

< Template talk:Evobox

Mega Evo Template Adaptation?

Given that Ultra Necrozma is a temporary form like Mega Evolution, should we give other mons with Mega Evos the same template treatment? Mega Evolutions are still evolutions after all. Lanthanum (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to stop this can of worms before it starts — previous new users have tried to claim "Mega Evolution is a type of evolution" before and the resounding consensus of staff and established users has been that it's not, it just happens to be named similarly.
Since we list forms like Castform's, Deerling's, and Arceus' in the evobox, I agree with you that we should add Mega Evos to the template (and keep Ultra Necrozma there as well). Even though they are not evolutions, they are still forms, and the established status quo seems to be that forms go in the evobox, as far as I can tell. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
The likes of Castform and Arceus do not evolve, they form no reasonable basis to add Mega Evolutions to the Evolution section.
The likes of Deerling do not have interchangeable forms, they are not a reasonable basis to add Mega Evolutions either.
Only Cherrim, Darmanitan, and Silvally both evolve and change forms. Cherrim didn't have any form data under Evolution. Darmanitan did but it was definitely a kind of odd format. Silvally does as well but it has yet another format...that IMO looks alright (but that doesn't exactly map to Cherrim, Darmanitan, or Mega Evolution).
In short, the Pokemon you suggest to support adding Mega Evolutions don't support it; and among the ones that might but you didn't suggest, there's no consistency... No status quo. Tiddlywinks (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, okay, I'm a little stupid. I forgot Deerling's forms can be changed, their Evolution section is just formatted like Shellos and company who can't. So Deerling's a little special; but its current format still makes no analogy for Mega Evolution. Tiddlywinks (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
(Well, I didn't look at every Pokemon with forms; I just looked at the first three that came to my mind, sorry about that...) I'm really not sure there's a point in distinguishing evolution-but-no-forms, evolution-plus-forms, and forms-but-no-evolution from each other? From my perspective, we ought to either do it all one way or all the other (i.e. forms always go in the evobox or never go in it). I don't understand why the status quo has no consistency. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Things get weird if you want to try to combine two different kinds of progressions, evolutions and some form change. Like Darmanitan was. Where there's only one of these (only evolution, or only form changes; or where the form differences are completely separate) that's not a problem. Tiddlywinks (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I think it's important to have clean templates to use in special scenarios, so I threw one together: User:Celadonkey/Template:Evobox/EvoForms
I'm not great with templates, and it obviously wouldn't fit all scenarios, but it's just an example of what I think we should do.
Also, my input on whether megas should be added is that it should be, I don't really have a reason other than it's a form, which are usually recognized in evolution templates. --Celadonkey 00:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, yeah they are essentially forms they take on after all. If we have mons like Castform's temporary forms in battle in the Evobox, I don't see why Cherrim, Darmanitan, Mega Evos, etc. can't have the same applied to them. Lanthanum (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Return to "Evobox/Necrozma" page.