Talk:Dynamax

Gigantamax article in here or seperate?

I don't know, but Gigantamax in seperate article or here?Kirsten Thomas (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC) Kirsten Thomas

The way I see it can go two ways. 1, we combined both into one page as the both one but different from each or 2, make a sprat so that it is easy to find and related section. As Gigantamax is now just like the case with Ultra Burst and Primal Reversion.--Jacob Kogan (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

From what I can tell it seems to be simply a stronger variant, rather than an entirely separate mechanic. I think we should put Gigantamax information here FOR NOW, and then if when the games come out it seems to be different enough to warrant its own page, we can make that call when we cross that bridge. Besides, this page is a little bit on the small side. --celadonk (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I second this option. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Intro Change

I feel that the first sentence should be rewritten slightly. The way it is written could be read as saying that only Gen 8 Pokémon can use it. --HoennMaster 03:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

While I do see what you mean, the image automatically contradicts that assumption. Kai * the Arc Toraph 17:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand what Hoenn Master means. The part that says

"Dynamax (Japanese: ダイマックス Daimax) is a temporary transformation affecting Pokémon that was introduced in Generation VIII"

could be rewritten to say

"Dynamax (Japanese: ダイマックス Daimax) is a temporary transformation that was introduced in Generation VIII"

instead. I think that would alleviate the problem.--celadonk (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

More Dynamax information

So this video link https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=28&v=5SlzAXoO6CE, revled more information on Dynamax. The Dynamaxed Pokémon is a visual projection. And the Pokémon is in the actual projection. Should this be added in?--Jacob Kogan (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Gigantamax?

Why is Gigantamaxing not mentioned on here at all?? Nutter Butter (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Because it has its own article? GrammarFreak01 (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a highly related mechanic. It should at least be mentioned here, regardless of whether it has its own article or not. --celadonk (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)