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:Cipher Peons in Pokémon Colosseum

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

So... should I use the {{shadow color}} for the templates, or something like Normal? R.A. Hunter Blade 23:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Just go for the regular list one, like on all the routes. They aren't that important, are they? Seems to me these are the Grunts of the Colosseum World. —darklordtrom 00:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Ehh... yeah. That'd work better, plus I won't have to do 4 hours of work to get all of the moves and things from YouTube. R.A. Hunter Blade 00:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Wait... no it won't. I don't have any of the levels, exp. gain, or Japanese names... the Japanese names I could take out, but I guess I do have to do about 2-3 hours of YouTube surfing to get the levels and hopefully exp. Meh. R.A. Hunter Blade 00:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Just so you know, experience is calculated by the table. —darklordtrom 00:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Alright, that helps. I didn't know that because I've only done the other templates. But still... that'll take a while to get the levels. I'll start eventually then. :| R.A. Hunter Blade 00:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Remil

Something's wrong with his templates. They should display four Pokémon, but they only display three... anyone know how to fix this? .GreenPhoenix. 02:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability

What makes these guys notable enough to get their own page, same with Cipher Peons in Pokémon XD. Shouldn't they just be listed in the location they appear? No other grunt pages have a big list like this. --Spriteit 00:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

They're notable because they're the Cipher Peons who have Shadow Pokémon. For both pages. --P S Yライダー 00:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Still, would it not be easier to merge the pages? Gliscorguy54 00:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
They're not the same games. --P S Yライダー 00:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but they are all Cipher Peons. Gliscorguy54 00:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm aware. But they aren't in the same game. Plus the page would get bigger and then someone will undoubtedly complain about how big the page is and it would end up splitting anyways. --P S Yライダー 00:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so we keep it apart. Gliscorguy54 00:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
More then just the Cipher Peons have Shadow Pokémon though, we have a List of Shadow Pokémon (which gives all the info on the Pokémon in question) already can't this page be split into the location articles it would serve the exact same purpose, these pages are redundant. --Spriteit 00:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not gonna lie, I don't know of anyone who actively edits the Colosseum/XD pages on a regular basis other than me. No one really cares about this games. This page is kinda here so that, like most pages, if someone gets the game, they can get the information quickly and without having to search. Plus a big long page, especially with the party templates gets heavy and long, so someone with a slower computer would be bogged down by the load. Keeping them separate kinda relieves that. --P S Yライダー 00:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
So basically its here for conveniences sake? --Spriteit 01:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Something like that. I actually would try to update the pages if I knew where my gamecube was. Frozen Fennec 01:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The pages would probably break from having too many templates on them. It's okay to keep them separated. —darklordtrom 03:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Delete? (Notability redux)

In no other case (excepting the XD Peons) do a regular/large class of Trainers get a page where all their movesets are laid out.

In the Notability section above, it is suggested that this page is supposed to be for the Cipher Peons who have Shadow Pokemon, and that's what makes it notable. There's a few things questionable about that.

  1. Cipher Peons are not the only Trainers who have Shadow Pokemon.
  2. It seems this may have be a result of expansion after the above discussion, but right now, this list is not devoted exclusively to Peons with Shadow Pokemon. Sema and Doven for instance have no Shadow Pokemon.
  3. For some reason, the Cipher Peons that do have Shadow Pokemon also have a later team listed without their Shadow Pokemon listed. (This isn't the consequence of later edits, because it was already like that when the above discussion started.) I do understand that if you snag the Shadow Pokemon, it won't be on their team later, but, again, if this page was supposed to/should be about the Peons with Shadow Pokemon, then it shouldn't matter what their teams are when they don't have one. (I sort of remember that you can miss a Shadow Pokemon and have another chance to get it somewhere later, but the fact remains, the later teams that are currently listed do not have a Shadow Pokemon.)

One sort of solution to the first two problems may be to move this page to something like "Trainers with Shadow Pokemon in Pokemon Colosseum". If Shadow Pokemon are really what makes this notable, then we should be doing it right, for all applicable Trainers, not just for the Cipher Peons. (On the other hand, at that point, you'd almost have to question the point of List of Shadow Pokémon.)

In short, this page should either be deleted, or changed so that it's actually about something notable.

Tiddlywinks (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm actually with Tiddlywinks on this. As informative as it is, I don't think it's particularly notable to list out the movesets of all Cipher Peons with Shadow Pokémon. All his other arguments are quite reasonable as well. I personally prefer keeping the list of Shadow Pokémon. ht14 03:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Seconded, although this came up at such a crazy time, with me editing 40% or so of the XD Peons in. At the very least, just move the trainers that have the Shadow Pokémon onto one page (both Colo and XD), and you can remove the rematchable stuff. Informative, yes, needed, not really. Woodenfan (talk) 04:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Wood
Maybe it will be like this: User:Pokéfan95/Cipher Peons that have Shadow Pokémon (Pokémon Colosseum) --~~ThePokémonFanSince1995~~-- 02:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I think the page should stay as-is; even though no other Trainers get such a list, this is roughly equivalent to a wild Pokemon table in other games. --MandL27 (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Since they only reason this exists is for the Shadow Pokémon and their Trainers, we should move the Peons with Shadow Pokémon to Shadow Pokémon Trainers in Pokémon Colosseum and the rest can be summarized on Cipher Peon (Trainer class). --Abcboy (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the Peons with Shadow Pokemon should be moved to Shadow Pokémon Trainers in Pokémon Colosseum since the title of that article suggests that ALL trainers with Shadow Pokemon should appear there, regardless or not of being an official Cipher Peon. Nairbnroh (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I created this article (apparently over eight years ago according to the edit history, wow). Admittedly, I did not have the best grasp on Bulbapedia policy (which I still do not since I do not contribute here much) or indeed, of wikis in general (which I'd like to think I do now have a very firm grasp on). I would assume that if this is deleted, the content would be moved to the location pages (where I likely should have put all the info in the first place)? I feel like the info should be retained somewhere. I believe most location pages for main PKMN games do indeed have the trainers and their Pokemon listed, with moves when possible? Cheesedude (talk) 05:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
We don't detail the full movesets for just any Trainer on location pages (that would just make many pages much longer than would really be pleasant), only major/notable Trainers. Most of the Cipher Peons are not notable enough to warrant that. Tiddlywinks (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah, fair enough, then. That's understandable. Cheesedude (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)