Jump to content

User talk:Cyclonebiskit/test

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Content idea -/+

[edit]

I figured I'd start any discussion that's more specific here. I don't think the content idea of listing reception with a + or - is a good idea. Though I can appreciate the idea, I don't think simply listing whether critics liked it or not on average is the right way to go about it. I don't know if anyone wants to discuss it, but either way, this talk page is a good place to discuss anything specific about the list (such as specific Pokémon notes) until it gets moved to the mainpage ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 12:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Maplestrip: Those are notes for future research (the +/- is the general reception of the designs so there's some semblance of balance when the lede is fleshed out). The prose there is definitely not meant to represent a final form or anything. I just jotted down ideas to be considered for the article so it has some substance to it when we get around to that aspect. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 13:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few suggestions

[edit]

As promised over at the discussion that spawned this page, here's my suggestions and concerns, in no particular order:

  • Delete the color key. People unfamiliar with Pokémon will be paying more attention to the names; people more familiar with it will usually know the colors, and if not, a key at the top of the page won't really help.
  • Should we also have a note about Pokémon whose type changed in Gen II, like we do for Gen VI? I know it's much older news, but Steel and Dark also weren't always types, so maybe a note with ones like Magnemite would be good.
  • I would add a paragraph about each generation at the beginning of each one's section, like you suggested.
  • Jigglypuff, Charizard, Mewtwo, and Lucario are all playable in Smash Bros as their own characters (I know it's a small thing, but I'd still rather not edit someone else's userspace page without their go-ahead).
  • Keep the Mega Evolution format the way it is. I know there was some debate about whether or not to include them, but it's a useful piece of information, and when it's subdivided like it is, it avoids confusion about individual species.
  • Do we have a guideline on linking to Wikia in the italicized bit at the beginning? I've never seen it link to anything other than other Wikipedia pages, so not sure if that's really a good idea or not.

Just a few thoughts, feel free to take or leave whatever from it. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 18:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, my respones, in order:
  • I personally like the color keys simply because they create some visual variation. A purely white table this long gets tiring on your eyes fast. That isn't really the best reason to argue for the color key's inclusion, though... Is there any reason not to use them, other than them not actually being needed?
  • I definitely believe that if we want to list how types have changed in gen 6, we should also do so in gen 2. However, I wouldn't be against simply listing the Pokémon latest type and putting footnotes stating that the type "was changed at some point." This is getting more complicated than it needs to be, as it is still an in-universe game mechanic.
  • A short paragraph would be a good idea. I don't know into how many different lists we will split this draft (probably 3 - two generations per list?), but a short explanation about the games that are part of the generation would be a good idea. Prose is always nice :)
  • I'm not sure if "playable as their own character" vs "is playable" is a notable distinction, though please add that a Pokémon is playable in Smash Bros. if it isn't listed yet :)
  • I too like Mega Evolution as it is listed right now, eventhough I would argue against its notability. Regardless, I was thinking about removing the "Mega Evolution" in the "Evolves into" column. Evolution and Mega Evolution aren't really the same thing. Thoughts?
  • I'm not sure about the Wikia link in this form either. I don't think it is particularly necessary either.
That's my take on your points... It might be a good idea to split some of these into separate discussions on this talk page, if we want to go into more depth :p ~Mable (chat) 19:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)@Supernerd11: Thanks for your input! You're more than welcome to help out with adding content to the Notes sections, there's a lot of information lying around that needs to be condensed and integrated. In response to specific comments:
  1. The color key is mainly there to make editing the tables easier for me (just have to copy/paste the HTML code and tweak it as needed). Haven't been able to think of any useful ways to incorporate it into the article myself—best I could come up with is a count of Pokémon by type, but that's trivial at best—so it'll probably be deleted once I finish adding colors to Gens VI and V.
  2. Already ahead of you on that one Magnemite and Magneton were the only two with type changes in Gen II and have a note accordingly.
  3. The current format is mainly there for ease of editing (smaller tables allows for smoother editing). When all is said and done, everything should be merged into a single, gigantic table in accordance with WP:MOS. However, I think given the massive length of these tables, separating them is certainly an option. Only downside to separating them is the inability to sort across the entire franchise.
  4. Notes section is a big work in progress, lots of missing info. :P
  5. Glad the Mega Evolution bit is acceptable~ Went back and forth on the formatting for a bit before settling on the current style.
  6. It's an internal link to Wikia (not an external link). As you said, I don't believe we're supposed to link directly to them so I made it as clear as possible where the desired in-universe information is best found (Serebii or Bulbapedia would be more useful to directly link, but oh well).

~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to clarify: I was only saying not to keep the key at the top, not to delete all the colors. Perhaps keep it in a hidden note for the copy-paste ability?
As far as "Playable as their own characters" go, I simply phrased it like that since Charizard is already listed as being playable in Brawl as part of the Pokemon Trainer, but not as his own character. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 05:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I misunderstood the typing thing. I like the key table on the top, but I suppose there's no reason to keep it once the list is done :) About (6), we can always put Bulbapedia and Serebii in the external links section. That's what it's for, after all.
[edit]
Kalos

~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note – Commentary on some of the in-game mythos (or at least some details from the PokéDex) might be useful for encyclopedic value...not sure yet. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly add external link column linking to official artwork due to fair use restrictions. Need some way to visualize most, if not all, Pokémon to be more useful. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a lot of awesome detail, and I have to say that it's incredible how much you add to the list with all of this. A lot of these sources may also be useful for any possible individual Pokémon articles in the future. It is... a lot, though. I don't even know where to start... ~Mable (chat) 12:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Maplestrip: There's probably even more lying around that takes a bit more effort to find. These are all from basic searches (for the most part) using WP:VG's custom google search, which only let me go to 10 pages. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Color chart and MOS:CONTRAST compliance

[edit]
HTML color codes for typing and WCAG compliance via Snook's colour contrast tool
Original format New Format Text color New background
color 		Contrast Ratio WCAG 2 AA
Compliant 		WCAG 2 AAA
Compliant 		"Are the colors
compliant?"
Bug Bug #000000 #A8B820 9.54 Yes Yes "Sort of..."
Dark Dark #FFFFFF #5C483B 8.59 Yes Yes "YES"
Dragon Dragon #FFFFFF #700AEE 7.08 Yes Yes "Sort of..."
Electric Electric #000000 #F8D030 14.06 Yes Yes "YES"
Fairy Fairy #000000 #EE99AC 9.79 Yes Yes "YES"
Fire Fire #000000 #F08030 7.84 Yes Yes "Sort of..."
Flying Flying #000000 #A890F0 7.91 Yes Yes "YES"
Fighting Fighting #FFFFFF #94352D 7.48 Yes Yes "YES"
Ghost Ghost #FFFFFF #614C83 7.32 Yes Yes "Sort of..."
Grass Grass #000000 #2DCD45 9.93 Yes Yes "Sort of..."
Ground Ground #000000 #E0C068 11.91 Yes Yes "YES"
Ice Ice #000000 #98D8D8 13.15 Yes Yes "YES"
Normal Normal #000000 #A8A878 8.54 Yes Yes "Sort of..."
Poison Poison #FFFFFF #883688 7.17 Yes Yes "Sort of..."
Psychic Psychic #000000 #FF6996 7.71 Yes Yes "YES"
Rock Rock #000000 #B8A038 8.12 Yes Yes "Sort of..."
Steel Steel #000000 #B8B8D0 10.81 Yes Yes "Sort of..."
Water Water #000000 #149EFF 7.36 Yes Yes "Sort of..."

For future reference and verification. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-lists

[edit]

Splitting this behemoth into sub-lists by Generation...should make it easier to handle down the line.

~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this I like. I think this is a perfect way to split up the content, keeping a comparatively low amount of articles (compared to the current situation, that is) while also keeping the lists nicely short. The only real issue would be that you can't easily filter and compare between generations, though I don't think this would be Wikipedia's purpose anyway. ~Mable (chat) 10:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you should wait with moving the gen7 list to the mainspace until more of it is confirmed. Currently, I haven't seen anyone specifically referring to this as the "seventh generation", and it may be considered an expansion of the sixth generation by fans. There's a good chance that the "seventh generation" won't come until there's a new handheld generation, as gen 6 thus far only contains 72 new Pokémon (a low number compared to other generations). We shouldn't decide the cut-off point of generations ourselves ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 10:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Maplestrip: Sorry I didn't see your comments earlier for some reason (best to {{ping}} me if it's a new conversation ). Generation IV and V were both on the Nintendo DS, so the handheld console doesn't really matter. The main differences that define generations are a new region and new Pokémon (both of which are confirmed for Sun/Moon). While sources aren't explicitly saying "Generation VII" for the most part, many are calling it a new generation. None of these articles are going to be published until everything is ready, so there's no loss of content in the mainspace, but I don't plan on publishing the Gen VII list regardless until there are at least 10 confirmed new Pokémon (probably will have at least a few within two or so months via CoroCoro or something). It's mainly just there as a placeholder to prep things. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm sure it'll be fine when more Pokémon are confirmed and journalists catch up with calling it the new generation. I just mean to stop any possible citogenesis: you never know how it goes. The two (four?) Black and White games are all part of the same generation, and the same could possibly happen here. ~Mable (chat) 07:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts

[edit]

Now that this article has been divided into lists...this really can't be considered a "List of Pokémon". I think it's evolving into an article more on what Pokémon (the creatures) are, which we presently don't have an article on as far as I can tell. Possible article title could simply be Pokémon (characters). Not exactly sure how I want to proceed with this article at the moment, but the main goal is to have it serve as a "hub" for the six generation lists and have general information on the design and development of the Pokémon species. If it changes into a "characters" article, aspects on the concept of having the creatures and critical reception, to some extent, might be needed for coverage. It would still replace the present List of Pokémon mess, which is borderline useless anyways. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really like this way of dividing the lists and have a central hub talking about the general evolution of Pokémon designs, creators, and reception. "Lists of Pokémon" could be a possible title, as it links to multiple lists of Pokémon, though "Pokémon (characters)" sounds pretty good too. ~Mable (chat) 10:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cyclonebiskit/test&oldid=1144367364"