Bulbapedia talk:Manual of style: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
Personally, I'm more in favor of the Unnamedpokemon template - it looks better to me, and the only problem with it could be fixed pretty easily, I think. --[[User:Pie|Pie]] 22:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC) | Personally, I'm more in favor of the Unnamedpokemon template - it looks better to me, and the only problem with it could be fixed pretty easily, I think. --[[User:Pie|Pie]] 22:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
The style used in {{template|Unnamedpokemon}} is more suitable when a user may have arrived at that article by mistake (via redirect, for example, or by lack of a disambiguation page). Such a thing should be present, for example, on [[Battle Frontier]] and not [[Battle Frontier (song)]]. But that doesn't seem likely here, not since we abandoned the idea of redirecting [[Pikachu]] to [[Ash's Pikachu]]. The related articles style seems better. - [[User:Zhen Lin|振霖]]<sub>[[User talk:Zhen Lin|T]]</sub> 02:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:18, 2 July 2006
Evolution Chain Standardisation
The references to how a Pokémon evolves and into what creature is unstandardised across every species article. I propose that we create a section for each species page with the evolutionary chains of that particular species. Such standardisation would make navigation simple, as well as a give a way to describe exactly how the Pokémon evolves in each case.
- That's only for the two-way forks with two or three-stage chains. For Eevee, use vertical layout - Eevee on one row, the rest on the next row.
Real people Japanese names
What is the policy regarding names of Japanese real people?
There doesn't appear to be one, so I will show a proposal.
As we all know, in Japan the last name goes before the given name, BUT in the U.S. the names are usually switched.
So to reflect both naming orders, I would like to use this convention:
"Junichiro Koizumi (Japanese: 小泉純一郎, Koizumi Jun'ichirō, born January 8, 1942)"
Now, with historical figures, there is usually no need to repeat the Japanese order unless macrons are involved: "Tokugawa Ieyasu (previously spelled Iyeyasu); 徳川 家康"
Also I would like to have a page on here that explains Japanese naming conventions.
WhisperToMe 12:35, 7 January 2006 (CST)
Perhaps Misty's Togepi and Jessie's Wobbuffet should be at the top of each episode's Pokémon list along with Ash's Pikachu and Meowth (Team Rocket), as they (have) appeared in every episode their trainers made an appearance in since their capture (with the exception of Togepi, which evolved and left). --Argy 00:27, 18 September 2005 (CDT)
- It's hard to say yes or no to these cases. Pokeani gives those two their own articles. The same argument could potentially apply to James's Chimecho. - 振霖T 03:13, 18 September 2005 (CDT)
- I'd argue that they do deserve to be named simply on the basis that they are featured, and they all do play a significant role in the anime in general. evkl 08:03, 18 September 2005 (CDT)
For things both in the games and in the anime, do we want something like what I've done for Bill's page to be the standard? If so, should we incorporate that setup into the Manual of style?
~Evan
Individual Pokémon vs. Pokémon species?
That seems to be the best, if not most thorough, format.
I have another issue to bring up, though. Do you think it's important to define the difference between individual Pokémon and Pokémon species in the Manual of Style? For instance, EVs, IVs, and so on are characteristics of individual Pokémon, while base stats, types, and so on are characteristics of Pokémon species. If so, perhaps an article called "Pokémon specie" might be created, and links in articles referring to Pokémon species, not individual Pokémon, might lead to it. It could look like this:
A Pokémon specie is a "kind" of Pokémon, such as Bulbasaur or Zubat. Pokémon of certain species can change into some other species by evolving, such as a Bulbasaur evolving into an Ivysaur.
Oftentimes, a specie's name can refer to an individual Pokémon of that species instead. For instance, "Bulbasaur is a Grass-type" refers to the Bulbasaur specie, but "Bulbasaur uses Vine Whip" refers to a single Bulbasaur. In the National ID system, they are numbered from 1 to 151.
Initially when the Red, Green (in Japan only), Blue, and Yellow versions were released, there were 151 Pokémon species.
When the Gold, Silver, and Crystal versions were released, 100 more species were added, making a total of 251.
When the Advanced Generation games were released, 135 more species were added, making a total of 386.
Currently, two species from the fourth generation have been officially revealed to the public, Munchlax and Lucario (Japanese name).
It might also be useful to disambiguate this in the Pokémon article, talking about how the term "Pokémon" might refer to Pokémon species (Charmander is a Fire-type Pokémon), individual Pokémon (Pokémon which receive 4 Attack EVs have their Attack stat increase by 1), or the franchise (Pokémon was first conceptualized by Satoshi Tajiri).
Pokémon anime characters articles standarization
We've got two styles for articles in Category:Anime characters (Pokémon) to refer back to the main article of the Pokémon in general. One's found on Ash's Pikachu, Meowth (Team Rocket), and Jigglypuff (anime), where it has on the top an "Unnamedpokemon" template pointing the main Pokémon's article to people right off the bat. The other's on pages like Brock's Bonsly, Ash's Butterfree, and Mewtwo (anime), where it mentions the main Pokémon's article down at the bottom in the "Related articles" section.
They both have their advantages - I mean, the first one makes it very easy for someone to find the article on the Pokémon's species since it's right there at the top rather than way down at the bottom, while on the other hand the second is better adapted to Pokémon which have evolved, as on the article for Ash's Butterfree.
It's bothering me that both styles exist - can we standardize them? Which style is better? Should we make alternate Unnamedpokemon templates for Pokémon with multiple stages, and switch all the Pokémon anime characters articles to it? Or should we ditch the Unnamedpokemon template completely, and change all the articles which use it to having the "Related articles" reference? Or should we go for some third style that trumps the other two completely?
Personally, I'm more in favor of the Unnamedpokemon template - it looks better to me, and the only problem with it could be fixed pretty easily, I think. --Pie 22:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The style used in {{Unnamedpokemon}} is more suitable when a user may have arrived at that article by mistake (via redirect, for example, or by lack of a disambiguation page). Such a thing should be present, for example, on Battle Frontier and not Battle Frontier (song). But that doesn't seem likely here, not since we abandoned the idea of redirecting Pikachu to Ash's Pikachu. The related articles style seems better. - 振霖T 02:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
