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.

Template talk:NCS

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
233Porygon2.png This page is a candidate for deletion because Unneeded.

Someone has decided that this article should not be included as part of Bulbapedia. If you agree with this decision, state your reasoning on this article's talk page. If you disagree with deletion, make your voice heard.

When a consensus has been reached, this notice can be removed by an administrator.

Administrators - Remember to check if anything links here and the page history before deleting.

This page was last edited on January 5, 2014 at 9:43 PM.

Conservative

The problem with the new wording is that we can't always distinctively define conservative, especially in terms of Pokémon. --Argy 20:11, 18 December 2005 (CST)

Makeover

Do you think this template diserves a makeover like the others? Here's my idea:

124Jynx.png This article contains information which may conflict with conservative views.

I picked Jynx because as seen in the past, its a controversial Pokémon. --ケンジガール 01:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I agree with Kenji-girl. --Theryguy512 01:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

What about this version?

Should we redesign the template to look like this?:

YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS CHIMCHARRING AROUND WITH THIS.

Giratina Joe - Question Giratina Here- DO NOT DISTURB IT 08:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the template is fine as it is. Trainer-c 08:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
No. Ignoring the style, the article may not be offensive; it may only be seen as offensive by some users. Note that this is not used in any mainspace article and shouldn't be in a mainspace article. It is used primarily for shipping, particularly homosexual ones. Race, as the hiddencomment in the picture suggests, has nothing to do with it. Template stays. — THE TROM — 08:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Gee, I like the message at the end.--ForceFire 09:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this template needed?

It seems this template is mainly used on shipping pages that don't seem to be set apart from other ships for any particular reason, but also on Pokémon controversy and Pokémorphs. I don't think the contents of "Pokémon controversy" is actually controversial—it merely describes controversy. Pokémorphs arn't really a controversial topic either. --SnorlaxMonster 09:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I would like to revive this discussion only in hopes of cleaning up the Candidates for deletion. I don't think this template is really all that necessary either - as far as shipping pages go, well, we do have shipping redirects for a reason. When linking to a shipping article, the shipping redirect should be linked to in most circumstances - see RocketShipping as an example. These are great because they cover all our bases - it literally says "The article you are attempting to reach contains theories of a romantic relationship between [Character A] and [Character B]. If you are offended by such material, please turn away now." this not only covers our butts if somebody doesn't want to read about, for example, a homosexual relationship or a relationship between characters with a large age difference (see DaddyShipping) or that might otherwise be controversial (see FireworksShipping) but it's neutral enough to also cover our bases in the case of a ship that the reader just doesn't care for (using my previous example, let's say you hate RocketShipping. You come across the shipping redirect first. You go "oh, I'm offended by a relationship between Jessie and James! I'll turn away now!" but the facts are still there for those who wish to proceed and read them. With regards to relationships between a human and a Pokémon, we actually have a template for that anyway. Okay, so we've established this template isn't necessary for shipping. Where else is it used... Pokémon controversy, which I agree is not in of itself controversial, it's merely documenting controversies. If I recall, we used to have a message at the beginning which said something like "this article is documenting controversies, any images used in this page is for factual purposes and is not meant to offend anyone, pls understand". Which should do nicely for that situation. The only other one is Pokémorph which I don't really understand how it's controversial anyway. So um yeah. I think it should be deleted. --ZestyCactus 21:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)