Talk:Korrina's Lucario: Difference between revisions
From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to navigationJump to search
Pokemaster97 (talk | contribs) |
(→Separate move templates?: preparation) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
: I agree. Anyone else? --[[User:Rikeo|<span style="color:#799999">Rikeo</span>]] ([[User talk:Rikeo|<span style="color:Grey">talk</span>]]) 00:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | : I agree. Anyone else? --[[User:Rikeo|<span style="color:#799999">Rikeo</span>]] ([[User talk:Rikeo|<span style="color:Grey">talk</span>]]) 00:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
::I agree, it's rather redundant. '''''[[User:Pokemaster97|<span style="color:Blue;">--Pokemaster</span>]][[User talk:Pokemaster97|<span style="color:Blue;">97</span>]]''''' 00:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | ::I agree, it's rather redundant. '''''[[User:Pokemaster97|<span style="color:Blue;">--Pokemaster</span>]][[User talk:Pokemaster97|<span style="color:Blue;">97</span>]]''''' 00:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
:::If the second (or first) move template is gone, what do we do about the images. I agree about the seperate move templates being redundant by the way. [[User:Pattyman|<span style="color:orange">Patty</span>]][[User talk:Pattyman|<span style="color:orange">Man</span>]] 01:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:42, 23 July 2014
Page merge
Shouldn't we merge this page with a similar one since they are the same page but have a different set of useful information? PattyMan 03:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. --Pokemaster97 00:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Mainspace
This is a given isn't it? Diamond Lanturn CodeName: 05308 16:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'd say it's good to go. Korrina's Lucario has been important enough (and will be even more important, with the Gym Battle coming up). ☼ BlazingFist ☼ 17:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Separate move templates?
Is it really necessary to have two separate move templates for Lucario and Mega Lucario. Unlike other form changes, Mega Evolutions don't have exclusive moves and don't learn/lose any upon transforming. Having two tables for what could contain the same information seems pointless. Watchermark (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. Anyone else? --Rikeo (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, it's rather redundant. --Pokemaster97 00:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
