Talk:Type/Type chart
Outdated type charts
As someone who likes to go back and play Generations I (before Dark and Steel were added) and II-V (before Fairy was added), I believe those "previous type charts" should be added to Type chart, instead of on their own page referenced below the current chart on that oage. The "Type/Type_chart" page is considered Incomplete, anyway. Why was this separated? Can we put it back on Type chart so it can be more easily accessed? (I've also posted this on Type chart's Talk page) - poikins 21:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Current type chart
Could we not include the current type chart here as well? I know it's redundant, but I guess if someone searches for this page, they'd also like to see that. The only real page linking here currently is the type page, where we're promptly directing back to if someone wants to have the current type chart. When we're linking to a main article, we should have all information there, and not redirect back to a section that links to the main article. Nescientist (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is for the past type charts, the current type chart is already on the Type page itself.--ForceFire 02:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, yes, ok. I guess my question is, why is this page only for past type charts, why not (introduce redundancy and) show the current chart here as well? Also, see below. Nescientist (talk) 09:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand the logic of not including the current type charts. The article isn't titled "Previous Type Charts" or "Historical Type Charts" it's simply labeled type charts. Seems very intuitive to go to a page called "Type Charts" and not find the most recent one there (and it certainly isn't a page bursting at the seams). Hawthornen (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Move
I guess the subject of this page deserves its own page independent of the Type page. The suggested title is officially used, but if some official handbook (which I do not own) uses just "type chart" or "Type Chart", it can/should be moved there. Nescientist (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Worth noting that FRLG call the in-game list of matchups the "Type Matchup List" (it is a list not a chart though). In context, it is clear this is meant to be capitalized. --SnorlaxMonster 09:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Alternatively, this glossary on the official site indicates that "type matchup chart" is not capitalized. --SnorlaxMonster 11:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- As that is the only (known) official occurence in sentence case, we should not be moving it to the capitalized variant. (Too bad.) Nescientist (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Pokémon X & Pokémon Y: The Official Kalos Region Guidebook also apparently has an updated "type matchup chart". Still haven't found any official mention of "type chart". Nescientist (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- As that is the only (known) official occurence in sentence case, we should not be moving it to the capitalized variant. (Too bad.) Nescientist (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Alternatively, this glossary on the official site indicates that "type matchup chart" is not capitalized. --SnorlaxMonster 11:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Merge
I originally thought this needed to be split from type for some technical reason, but it seems I was mistaken there. Details can be seen at the discussion I've recently had with Dennou Zenshi, but the gist is: we could just as well include all the contents of this page at type. (This is instead of having the exact same prose here and there, and rather than moving this to an independent article, as suggested earlier. Also note that "type chart" currently redirects to the appropriate section on the type article rather than this page, and that that already is the preferable redirect target in my opinion.) My/our suggestion is to hide past generation type charts behind a "hide/show" button, as otherwise it would probably distract from the rest of the type page rather much. Nescientist (talk) 10:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
The old type charts were on the type articleType chart was its own page with all the type charts on the page but it was a candidate and approved to be split off from that page and to give the old type charts their own page, while the current type chart went to the type page. I could link the thread, but you wouldn't be able to view it as it is in a restricted part of the forums.--ForceFire 11:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)- To add, the whole point of this page is to have the old type charts, whilst the current type chart goes to the type page. Hence why Type chart redirects there and not here.--ForceFire 11:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- There isn't actually any non-trivial discussion about this page in that thread either. Regardless, this new change (where Type/Type chart no longer documents all of the type charts) is incredibly counter-intuitive and unhelpful to readers. It's one thing to put the current type chart directly on the type page and have other type charts on a separate page; however, if that's the goal then this title should not be used (since any reasonable reader would expect to find all iterations of it on a page with such a title). Moreover, it really doesn't make sense to exclude the current type chart even if it's also displayed on another page—the page isn't so long as to make including another type chart unreasonable, and it only serves to improve the page. --SnorlaxMonster 12:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- I definitely agree with SnorlaxMonster and Nescientist; the current state of affairs is incredibly unintuitive to anyone who isn't intimately familiar with this page's history and the staff intentions associated therein. Putting everything on type seems like the best solution to me, but I don't think even a show/hide button is necessary — after all, they've been removed where they previously hid form/Mega base stats and type effectiveness charts on species pages, and previous generations' type matchup charts on type pages have never to my knowledge been hidden. I think subsection headers are enough for the average user to understand what they're looking at. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Force Fire, I urge you to do something about this. Not only did I repeatedly look for the current type chart here by mistake (despite knowing it isn't here; because it is the straightforward, obvious thing to do), but also I am currently unable to find a Generation VI type chart anywhere on this wiki, or to verify it is the same as Generation VII's. Nescientist (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
- I definitely agree with SnorlaxMonster and Nescientist; the current state of affairs is incredibly unintuitive to anyone who isn't intimately familiar with this page's history and the staff intentions associated therein. Putting everything on type seems like the best solution to me, but I don't think even a show/hide button is necessary — after all, they've been removed where they previously hid form/Mega base stats and type effectiveness charts on species pages, and previous generations' type matchup charts on type pages have never to my knowledge been hidden. I think subsection headers are enough for the average user to understand what they're looking at. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- There isn't actually any non-trivial discussion about this page in that thread either. Regardless, this new change (where Type/Type chart no longer documents all of the type charts) is incredibly counter-intuitive and unhelpful to readers. It's one thing to put the current type chart directly on the type page and have other type charts on a separate page; however, if that's the goal then this title should not be used (since any reasonable reader would expect to find all iterations of it on a page with such a title). Moreover, it really doesn't make sense to exclude the current type chart even if it's also displayed on another page—the page isn't so long as to make including another type chart unreasonable, and it only serves to improve the page. --SnorlaxMonster 12:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- @SnorlaxMonster, Nescientist, Force Fire, Pumpkinking0192: I implemented this merge since it seems rough consensus is in favor of merging the page. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
