Talk:Toxic SP (TCG): Difference between revisions
From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to navigationJump to search
Politoed666 (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
FireMeowth (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
::I actually thought of that. Problem is that it's really not. An archetype is usually a deck generated by players. It ''can'' be out of a guide, but generally, it's not. Biggest problem with this is that there are far better SP Toolbox lists out there, and I plan to write an article on those. --[[User:Politoed666|<span style="color:#30D5C8">ニョロトノ</span>]][[User talk:Politoed666|<span style="color:#FF69B4">''666''</span>]] 20:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC) | ::I actually thought of that. Problem is that it's really not. An archetype is usually a deck generated by players. It ''can'' be out of a guide, but generally, it's not. Biggest problem with this is that there are far better SP Toolbox lists out there, and I plan to write an article on those. --[[User:Politoed666|<span style="color:#30D5C8">ニョロトノ</span>]][[User talk:Politoed666|<span style="color:#FF69B4">''666''</span>]] 20:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
:::TPCi says it's a theme deck. Why shouldn't it be listed as one here? [[User:FireMeowth|FireMeowth]] 19:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::The problem is more that initially, the article is written as though this is a traditional theme deck. The kind that actually includes the cards in it, the kind that you can buy in a store. Unfortunately, I don't see any way to overcome this short of simply not referring to the article as a theme deck. --[[User:Politoed666|<span style="color:#30D5C8">ニョロトノ</span>]][[User talk:Politoed666|<span style="color:#FF69B4">''666''</span>]] 20:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::There's an exception to every rule. That doesn't mean that the exception shouldn't be included. The article clearly states that it's different from other theme decks, so what harm could it do? Besides, seeing as it ''is'' an official theme deck, not referring to it as one would be wrong. [[User:FireMeowth|FireMeowth]] 22:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 22:34, 4 February 2010
This really shouldn't be referred to as a "theme deck." I'm considering merging this with the article on Galactic's Conquest, unless anyone objects or has a better idea. --ニョロトノ666 20:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, we could put it down as a deck archetype...--Shiningpikablu252 20:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- I actually thought of that. Problem is that it's really not. An archetype is usually a deck generated by players. It can be out of a guide, but generally, it's not. Biggest problem with this is that there are far better SP Toolbox lists out there, and I plan to write an article on those. --ニョロトノ666 20:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- TPCi says it's a theme deck. Why shouldn't it be listed as one here? FireMeowth 19:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is more that initially, the article is written as though this is a traditional theme deck. The kind that actually includes the cards in it, the kind that you can buy in a store. Unfortunately, I don't see any way to overcome this short of simply not referring to the article as a theme deck. --ニョロトノ666 20:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- There's an exception to every rule. That doesn't mean that the exception shouldn't be included. The article clearly states that it's different from other theme decks, so what harm could it do? Besides, seeing as it is an official theme deck, not referring to it as one would be wrong. FireMeowth 22:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
