Please remember to follow the manual of style and code of conduct at all times.
Check BNN and Bulbanews for up-to-date Pokémon news and discuss it on the forums or in our IRC channel #bulbagarden on irc.systemnet.info.

Talk:Diancie (Pokémon)

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Revision as of 15:15, 14 February 2014 by Blazios (Talk | contribs) (Diancie and Carbink)

Jump to: navigation, search

Userspace

Out of curiosity, is this meant to be part of your user talk, or the actual page for Diancie (Pokemon). Because the page for Diancie (Pokemon has no text on it.--BigBadBatter (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Pages are occasionally developed in the userspace and moved to the mainspace later on, rather than making it directly in the mainspace. It should be moving to the mainspace soon though. --Pokemaster97 23:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, I was pretty confused!--BigBadBatter (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Category

Just wondering, why is Diancie listed on this page, when it does not fit that category? --GoldenSandslash15 (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It's because the BaseStat template on the page was empty, so the cat is added by default when that happens. Kai * the Arc Toraph 05:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
It's just because the base stats template has all 0's in it right now. The math that that template does interprets that (or rather, the SpAtk and SpDef parts) as "Special stat became both Special Attack and Special Defense". The template could be commented out for now (which got done), or we could just let it sit, as is, until we can put the right stats in there. Or someone could also just change the 0's to -1's. That'd still be recognizable as dummy data, and it wouldn't set the category.
I would point out, ArcToraphim, that Zygarde has a TCG section that looks exactly like Diancie's did before you hid it (that's what I took it from in fact). I just think they should be treated the same (one way or the other). (Likewise the manga section...) Tiddlywinks (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Unknown Pokémon

Would Template:Unknown Pokémon be appropriate here? Miles (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

biology

wouldn't it be more accurate to say headdress instead of hair?Yamitora1 (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Since I was the one who added in the biology, I think headdress sounds better now that I think about it. Will change it if it's okay with everyone...or I would have, but it's protected. Berrenta (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Ability

It was recently revealed in clearer CoroCoro scans that Diancie's ability is Clear Body. Could someone add this? --GoldenSandslash15 (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Diancie and Carbink

Would it be worth mentioning in the Trivia section that Diancie shares several similarities with Carbink, including its type? Eskay64 (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Their shared species name should be put, but that's about it. Lots of Pokémon have the same type combinations and similar origins. Glik (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
It's not just that they have the same type combination, they're the only Pokémon to have it. Also, they have the same regular Ability (and similar stat distibution, though the exact numbers aren't known). I think they have so many similarities that they all are worth noting.--Den Zen 14:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Not to mention the similar Japanese names: Melecie, Diancie. Too many similarities to ignore. - Taylor (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Shared species name? Maybe. Same type combination? No, even if they're the only ones to have it, they are not related. Base stats? No. We don't even know Diancie's base stats. Name? Leaning towards no. Origins? It could be mentioned in the origin section, but not as trivia.--ForceFire 14:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I thought we axed comparison trivia a while ago. Just because two Pokemon are very similar doesn't mean we should have to note it. I agree with the shared species name, but we don't need to state the obvious IMO. --Pokemaster97 18:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Its a waste of time and resources to note every single thing two Pokémon or more share in common. Why does any of this have to be on this or Carbink's pages? If anything it would more fit in with the fannon page, even if I think its just a waste of productive resources IMO Yamitora1 (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, now there's an official link between the two, since one of Diancie's Pokédex entries calls Diancie "A sudden transformation of Carbink". - Blazios talk 15:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Plus, Diance was discovered by a hacker.

Diance was discovered by a hacker. applys to the other 2 as well. Igor The Mii (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

That's not really relevant to the article..... Schiffy (瀬藤健二) (Talk Contribs) 19:07,2/13/2014 (UTC)

Base Stats

According to http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pokemon-diancie-legendary-character-arrive-pokemon-x-y-113013968.html#G3DXfZk Dianice's base stats are Her base stats: HP 60, Attack 75, Defense 175, Special Attack 75, Special Defense 175, Speed 50, total 610.

I'm not sure how reliable this is, but I thought I would bring it up. If this is true, we know that Dianice is not this Gen's "Mew". Yamitora1 (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)