Template talk:Pokémon
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to thePokémon template. |
|
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
 | This template was considered formerging withTemplate:Pokemon directory on28 September 2010. The result ofthe discussion was "no consensus". |
This new template sucks! It's way way way too big and it's impossible to find anything because there's too much info in it. I think that it should be reverted to the old layout because it's too hard to find what you're looking for when there's tons of links.--67.174.128.249 (talk)23:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The template is a mess, overflowing with links. Wouldn't it be wiser to have a seperate Anime template rather than sharing it with the game series, then merge the Pokemon and Spin-off templates?DancingCyberman (talk)09:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OLD
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NEW
Then we could reviveTemplate:Pokemon media with this.
Who thinks we should swich? =D --Blake (talk)14:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Pokemon directory has been nominated for merging withTemplate:Pokémon. You are invited to comment on the discussion atthe template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.Bsherr (talk)23:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there a links of Pokémon species when there is a navbox already for it. And this navbox isn't even placed in those articles for good navigation.Jhenderson77716:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever the IP user was that said I'm wrong and my points are invalid does not have a valid argument either, especially since all you did was simply disregard my points (which was heavily abridged to fit the edit summary character limit) just so you can keepMy Pokémon Ranch on the main console series games list where it doesn't belong. Just becauseRanch is compatible with some of the main handheld games for its generationdoes not make it a console series title;Pokémon Box: Ruby & Sapphire (which is not even in the "Console series" list) was also compatible with the main handheld games (specifically, the main Generation III games on the GBA), but it is not a main series title either.Box was a utility for storing large amounts of Pokémon in PC boxes and for playingPokémon Ruby andPokémon Sapphire on a TV via emulation, but you could not battle Pokémon outside of the emulator (which required someone to plug in a Game Boy Advance withRuby orSapphire in it). Granted,Ranch is similar toBox and the main Pokémon console games in that it can connect to a main handheld title (in this case,Diamond,Pearl, or in Japan only,Platinum; all for DS), but it is somewhat different fromBox andgreatly different other console titles on how it works and plays as a game.
This leads me to my argument about gameplay (and, although admittedly it's not agreat way to make video game-related arguments, graphics). The one thing that all the main console games (theStadiumgames,Colosseum,XD, andBattle Revolution) have in common is that they all allow players to play a full-fledged Pokémon battle like in the main handheld games, but on a big television screen via a console with fully-animated, well-shaped, semi-realistic, three-dimensional Pokémon models in various grand enviroments, with orwithout any handheld games connected; not even for a one-time party transfer.Ranch may have Pokémon attacking one another from time to time, and players do get to see their Pokémon on TV via console with sort-of animated 3-D Pokémon models, but there is no real battle system inRanch at all; players cannot hold a Pokémon battle, players cannot tell Pokémon to use moves against another Pokémon, there are no stats involved, and any "battles" in the game are simply animations that may happen when wandering Pokémon interact with one another in the ranch. The graphics inRanch are also stylized and toned-down where the Pokémon look like origami sculptures hopping around in a pop-up book-styled, petting zoo withMiis walking around. These low-polygon models (and Mii avatars) are used to save data space for the Wii's low-capacity internal flash drive of 512MB. (A GameCube disc can go up to 1.4GB, almost three times that of internal storage for Wii.)
Which leads me to my last argument on media distribution and data content. All the main console games (again, theStadiums, theGameCube RPGs, andBattle Revolution) were originally released at retail stores at full or near-full prices (around US$40 - US$50) for games that were released for their consoles and they containedtons of data. (For their times; theStadium games and their now-considered low data sizescould be re-released onVirtual Console, but it wouldn't make sense without a re-release of the main Game Boy games.) The GameCube RPGs used well more data on disc than what the Wii has for available flash storage space.Ranch was designed with theWiiWare service in mind, limitations and all. It was releasedexclusively on WiiWare for just US$10, well below the original $40s and $50s for the retail titles, and therigidly strict file size limit for WiiWare is just 40 MB. (It's this size limit that's what prevented downloadable games likeSuper Meat Boy and the re-release ofSonic CD from being released on Wii.)
So, mysterious IP user. With all these arguments I've made, you should stop insisting that your "main handheld game compatibility" argument is the end-all to any discussion about whetherMy Pokémon Ranch is a main game or a spin-off game and accept that the game should be in thespin-off games template. (By the way, the Pokémon spin-offs template is found on theMy Pokémon Ranch article itself instead of the main Pokémon template!) WPA 04:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I think that now that the honeymoon is over, we should decide which articles actually stand out as notable characters in fiction rather than notable Pokémon. So I'm proposing that we figure out which articles cut the mustard. Here's which ones I think do...
Any unlisted are not necessarily ones I think should be merged, but I'm just not sure what I think of them at the moment. Any comments on what's up and what isn't? -New Age Retro Hippie(talk)(contributions)22:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see people adding the other games that are redirect articles (e.g.Pokémon Emerald) before being reverted, so I've decided to propose it here. I think weshould add the other games to these template. Here's why. Itsconfusing. Although navboxes link valid content pages with each other, people would think that it lists valid Pokemon games. This would just confuse them as it does not state the entire number of games in the Pokémon franchise.Why couldn't it be something like this:
[[Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire#Pokémon Emerald|Emerald]]
Its clearer and it shows all the games.
Also, thereare problems with this template if the games aren't added, but are there any problems if the gamesare?. I don't see any. Basically: there are no real negative effects with adding the games. ("Clogging the template" isn't really a problem here...) So yeah, just my idea.CyanGardevoir06:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well that explains what I'm asking. But anyway they both have more games than the remake section and Mystery Dungeon has more games than the console games section if you include the wiiware games--Ditto51 (MyTalkPage)10:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the{{split}} tag ("It has been suggested that this page be split into multiple pages accessible from a disambiguation page."), as there is no point in having navboxes as targets of a disambiguation page. This should not be confused with questions of whether to merge or split this template, a different matter entirely. --NSH002 (talk)08:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What value does this bright and irritating yellow bring? It should violateWP:COLOR, and unless somebody has legit reasons for keeping it, I say we use the default template color. ~Dissident93 (talk)06:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The template is already large and surely it will get bigger and bigger. Perhaps we should split it into four templates: one main template containing manga, characters, etc., another one for the anime, another one for films and another one for video games. Thoughts? --LoЯd۞pεth19:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No support as its fine the way it is— Precedingunsigned comment added byFlow234 (talk •contribs)09:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The backlash surround Pokemon Sword and Shield should warrant a spot, right? --SansUT (talk |contributions)22:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Inthis edit, @DecafPotato merged all four Pokémon navboxes into a single one. In this same talk page there are several discussions regarding the problem with the handling of a single navbox for such a large topic. Even the "Media" subsection is large enough, with the articles being poorly distributed among the subsections (for example, the Music or Songs subsections are gone and the articles on such media are displayed after season articles or so).
The intention of this discussion is to determine whether thePokémon topic should have this massive single navbox, or to retrieve the previous ones. The previous version had four navboxes: one for general topics including Universe, one for the video games, one for the anime seasons/episodes, and one for the films and shorts.
Thoughts? --LoЯd۞pεth19:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that the upcoming Scarlet/Violet DLC needs an article now that more has been recently revealed, especially the release date for the first part which is September 13.Visokor (talk)14:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the remakes should be listed with the generation they were created under. ie.Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen under Generation III. Partially because we list it under the proper order ourselvesseen here. It is also stated in the game articlesPokémon FireRed and LeafGreen,Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire, andPokémon Brilliant Diamond and Shining Pearl. These definitions are used byUSA Today and Bulbapedia. Due to this, I feel as if it will be most useful for navigation that they are listed under their proper generation, as new users could be easily confused if they were trying to look for the remakes, as I was multiple times during this research.(Oinkers42) (talk)15:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should the characters be moved under the "Media section"? I mean, Ash, Misty, Brock, and the Team Rocket are known mainly because of the anime.Redjedi23 (talk)10:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kung Fu Man: Inyour revert of my re-addition of a separate "Universe" section in the navbox (characters, Pokémon, locations), you said it was becausethe "Universe" section was a royal mess
. Could you elaborate on that?DecafPotato (talk)03:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Nintendo Music could be included? It does have the whole ScVi soundtrack available (including the DLC music).Visokor (talk)19:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
