Talk:Pokémon types

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikitendo logo This article is part of WikiProject Nintendo, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Nintendo related merchandise and video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
GFDL PokéBall design
Pokémon Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Pokémon, which aims to improve the encyclopedic coverage of the Pokémon universe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project, ask for advice, and see what our current focuses are.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
PCP To-do:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pokémon types article.
Article policies
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-10-13. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-01-09. The result of the discussion was keep and remove OR.

Contents

[edit] Define types

I suggest all definition of "types": ice, water, fire, etc to be moved to this page. We don't need stubs. -- (Allyunion 10:50, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC))

The thing is, those pages are serving as lists of all the pokémon of that type. I don't think we're going to put one huge article saying each type all 386 Pokémon are, its better having each type listed in its own article.
--Fern 11:56, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've created List of Pokémon by Type for that purpose. The article needs some cleanup. I think a table on that page would be more useful than to explicitly have different entries. The redirection could point to the specific portion of the list, if the list was divided up accordingly. Besides, if there's a List of Pokémon, List of Pokémon by Name, & List of Pokémon by Stage... it would be better organization to have it as List of Pokémon by Type. Otherwise, you'll have all those entries as stubs. Especially when they are listed on the Most Wanted Stub list... thereby taking up space for other articles that need to be fixed. - Allyunion 23:18, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Andros 1337 22:21, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Attempt at coherant organization.

Well, here you go, folks. I just organized the article some in Word, added all the type advantages and disadvantages, alphabetized (well, except for Bird-type – no clue on Missingno. and 'M :)), status effects, etc., and will copy/paste the edits into the article in a minute. Here's some stuff I removed, along with with my reasoning:

[edit] Red/Blue/Yellow starters

"The weakness chain is especially important a player when chooses his or her first Pokémon. In Pokémon Red and Blue, a first choice of a Grass-type sets the game on "easy," a first choice water-type sets the game on "medium," and a first-choice fire-type sets the game on "difficult." This is because Water and Grass types are strong against rock-type pokémon, and fire-type pokémon are not.

The first Gym Leader controls mostly rock-type pokémon, so first-time players of the game should probably choose a grass or water type instead of a fire type, since fire is not strong against rock."

This was under Fire, Water, and Grass, if I recall correctly. I removed it since I feel it's too much of a game guide thing rather than telling about the types themselves. Perhaps Bulbasaur, Charmander, and Squirtle should go into their respective types as notable Pokémon, along with all the other starters, for this reason.

[edit] Double type Pokémon

  • "Please note that the following entry in no longer complete due to the addition of different elements.
Rock-Flying types are 50% resistant to Normal, Fire, Bug, Poison, and Flying attacks (That is, the attack will only do half the damage it is supposed to do). Water, Ice, and Electric attacks will do twice as much damage than normal to them. Rock and Ground attacks have no effect.
Rock-Ground types are 50% resistant to Normal, Fire, Rock, Poison and Flying attacks. Ice, Ground, and Fighting attacks do twice as much damage. Water and Grass attacks will do four times as much damage. Electric attacks have no effect. Contrary to what the anime would have one believe, it is not the Rock type that offers the immunity, it is the Ground type.
Rock-Water types are 50% resistant to Normal, Ice, Poison, and Flying attacks. They are 75% resistant to Fire attacks. Electric, Ground, and Fighting attacks do twice as much damage. Grass attacks do four times as much damage."

Removed this because of redundancy - I think the new Terminology section takes care of the dual-types, and I also think the Wikipidian readers are smart enough to be able to calculate dual type advantages and disadvantages with the info I added...

[edit] Especially notable Pokémon

Oh, and the "Especially notable X-type Pokémon" sections still need plenty of work...

For example, I took out the Alakazam and Starmie notes under Psychic because, while they are strong Psychic-types, they're not on the level of fame as, say, Mewtwo, Mew, and Unown. I also tried to neutralize the POV of that bit, too... and, let it be known that although I despise the first three Pokémon movies, haven't seen any others but the direct-to-video sequel to the first, I concede that starring in the movies definitely adds to a Pokémon's noteriety.
  • I think we need to come to some kind of agreement on what makes a Pokémon particularly notable. I'll nominate these groups:
    • the Legendaries
    • movie stars (who are mostly legendaries anyhow, but whatever)
    • starters in all of the games
    • otherwise unique Pokémon of that type (example: maybe Girafarig, the only Normal/Psychic as of G/S/C)

[edit] Ghost/Psychic relationship

I duplicated the bit on Ghosts and Psychics under each section (with the title swapped, ehe), thought it should be said in both, like the Foresight thing. Also, do Confuse Ray and Nightmare work on Fighting-types?

Yes, all Ghost attacks work on Fighting-types. Confuse Ray works on Normal-types though.

It should be noted that Ghost attacks in Red/Blue/Yellow are ineffective against Psychic pokemon despite what the booklet/cartoon series says. If anyone wishes to try this out try licking a Psychic pokemon and see what happens. Don't try this with Night Shade or Confuse Ray though. This was of course changed in Gold/Silver where Ghost attacks are strong against Psychic. Pasajero 11:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If Psychic attacks are ineffective to Ghost types, why is Ghost listed on the immunities for Psychic?

[edit] Ruby/Sapphire not included

And, one more thing - I have not had a chance to play Ruby and Sapphire to death like I have the other incarnations. I'm afraid I therefore don't know a whole lot about the Ruby/Sapphire Pokémon... so the article is showing a definite bias for pre-Ruby/Sapphire Pokémon examples. Somebody help even it out, huh? ^^' --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 10:31, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bird type

There are no Bird-type attacks. It is only a glitch type. As for Missingno's weakness/resistance, I am not sure. Andros 1337 03:45, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe someone will have to get out Red or Blue and mess with a Missingo. sometime. As I said, I don't have a clue...
On a different note, does anyone think it would read better or worse with colors on the types inside the Advantages and Disadvantages sections? --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 17:46, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, good idea. I think it may possibly be a good idea to use these colors on Pokedex infoboxes as well. Andros 1337 03:10, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, and good job adding 'em all in. Think we should remove the cleanup and expansion tags now? Besides Bird-type, it looks pretty cleaned up to me at this point, and Bird-type is... well, Bird-type. --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 22:07, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone know where to find screenshots of early "Bird-types"?

Just curious. Don't know how relevant they'd be here, but the Missingno. and 'M articles would probably do good with them. Posting it here as that's where it came up, yes. --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 02:53, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Boy this page is getting long.

When I edited just now, I got informed that the page is over 32 kilobytes long. Maybe we need to do some pruning... personally, I think if anything should go, it should be the notable Pokémon of X type sections. They are kind of useful, but a lot more vulnerable to POV things than the rest of the article; I've tried adding only Legendaries, starters, strange evolutions, and the like, but... and I suppose this article should really only be about the types, not the Pokémon in them. That's what List of Pokémon by type is for. --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 20:10, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

No one's responded for a few days, so... *gives them the chop* And, it looks like we're under 32 kb again. --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 16:25, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] New Type Chart

The current Type Chart is inaccurate. Quite a while ago, I posted a comment regarding this on Mastgrr's talk page, but he has not responded.

As a result, I have created a new Type Chart, and double-checked all the information. I've not yet uploaded it to Wikipedia, as I would like to hear if there are anything that should be improved before I do this.

The image can be seen here. If there are nothing that needs improvement, I shall upload this file to Wikipedia in a week (November 22nd, 2004). --Pidgeot 16:24, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Looks okay. You did make one large error, though. You've switched the defending Grass and Electric boxes with each other on everything except Grass as an attack type. : ) --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 21:49, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
I KNEW there was something I'd forgotten. Came from setting it up in the wrong order to begin with.
Image has been updated, same URL. --Pidgeot 07:52, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I've uploaded the new image and edited the article to use this one. --Pidgeot 18:18, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is it possible to use a table instead of an image? KramarDanIkabu 22:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I uploaded a larger image of the type chart. If there is another one, ignore it, the license on it is wrong. I've tried making a table, however in standard HTML, it will take up around 400 lines, which makes editing the a bit of an eyesore when you have to scroll down some 10 pages. Besides, the picture is only 20KB. XenoL-Type 22:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I should bring this issue up. Should we use color fills or symbols for type charts? I personally am finding color fills an eye sore (no offense). Also there's an issue with uniformity in spacing. XenoL-Type 13:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moves changing types.

I don't know how encyclopedic type-changing moves are, but it is an interesing little phenomenon. Perhaps they could be added somewhere in Wikibooks, or maybe to either this article or Pokémon move? --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 20:07, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

  • I've done this in the sections about the types. (Psychic/Ghost was done before with an explanation, so I didn't comment there. I did all the others both with the Attacking type and with the Defending type.User142 08:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OUCH

Ouch, this hurts my eyes! Somebody please remove all the funky colors from the plaintext, it makes it very illegible! Radiant_* 14:04, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How about a section on effective/not effective attacks with dual-types?

Most Pokémon aren't single typed, so it would be much more helpful if the weaknesses and resistances of dual-types are added. I'd do it right now myself, but it's 1 AM here. Maybe tomorrow. Any one else have some input? Kirbytime 08:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An apology

I'd like to apologise for the mistake(s) i made trying to edit the page earlier today.

[edit] Dragon Type RBY

There should be a mention of the first generation having only one dragon type move, dragon rage, which always dealt 40 damage.

[edit] About the non-dragons that look like dragons...

I don't think most of the non-dragon Pokemon mentioned look like a dragon. [I only think Charizard, Gyarados, and Milotic do] As I think Lapras looks like a large turtle, Aerodactyl a pterodactyl, Feraligatr a crocodile or alligator, Steelix some huge steel snake thing, Tyranitar a T-Rex, Sceptile a huge lizard[although, it AT LEAST, along with Char, Gyara, and Milo, is in the dragon egg group, despite being moreso a different reptile], and Aggron, some type of armored dinosaur thingy? Anyway, I truly think if anything should be mentioned for dragon-like Pokemon that aren't dragon type, I think Charizard, Gyarados, and Milotic are the only ones worthy enough to mention. --RandomOrca2 04:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dark type

Is "evil" the proper name for the type in Japanese? I thought it was called "devil" (as in a trickster). - Emerald Melios 13:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dragon Section

I removed the part saying "Remember though, only a true pokemon master can train a dragon." It was too casual. 24.124.121.242 18:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Double-type advantage

In this article it says that with STAB and a double-type advantage an attack can do 3 times the initial damage. This is incorrect; it would do 6 times: 1.5 x 2 x 2 = 6. It appears that a previous edit of the page had this information correct, yet for some unknown reason it was changed. 86.20.219.123 14:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing a section

Anyone else wondering why there's no section on Water type? Dac 09:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone deleted it. It's been restored. Good catch! --Sparky Lurkdragon 17:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese Type Names?

A useful feature of this article would be, in my opinion, a little note in every type's section that says what the type is called in Japanese. For example, in the Water Type section, we put a little note that says "Japanese Type Name: 'Mizu taipu'" or something like that, with it including the Japanese text (katakana, etc.). Since the Pokémon articles have the Japanese name in them (Beautifly - Agehanto, etc.), shouldn't the type article have something similar?

The only reason I can't do it is because I don't know what most of the types are called in Japanese... TheSlyFox 11:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but like you, I don't know Japanese. ~Crowstar~ 13:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One missing dual-type scenario

What happens if an attack is resisted by both types of a dual-type pokemon? Such as, rock attack against Steelix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.134.39.35 (talk • contribs)

It's been added. :) --Sparky Lurkdragon 23:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resistance vs Not Effective descrepancies

Fighting is given resistance of Rock. However, Rock does not have Fighting in its not effective list. Similarly, Fire is given resistance of Steel, yet Steel does not have Fire in its not effective list. I'd fix the descrepancies myself, but I don't know enough about Pokemon to choose between removing the resistance or adding to the not effective list. --Justyn 6:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I added them. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 18:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Couple of Concerns

This article is way too helpful; thanks to it, I had to fix up my Pokemon team! While this would be good for a site such as GameFAQs, this is bad for Wikipedia (if you're not sure why this is bad, please see Wikipedia is not a video game guide, under #4.). This means that all of these details such as specific weaknesses need to be removed. Also, in most of the sections it says "examples include:", but instead of naming one or two examples, it's a list of every Pokemon that falls under that example! Way too much information.

My suggestion, in short: remove those little blocks of text that say Weaknesses, Resistances, etc., and limit the examples given to one or two Pokemon instead of listing every single Pokemon that fits in that category. Both of these things fail WP:NOT. Thank you, that is all :) SuperDT 09:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "X-type"?

Where did the term "X-type" come from? I've only known it as "???". --Brandon Dilbeck 07:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the games always use the three question marks. "X-type" may be a fan term. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 08:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The change happened back in October, and nobody noticed. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_types&diff=prev&oldid=83181332) Good catch, Brandon! I'll change it back, since "X-type" isn't an official term.~e.o.t.d~ 01:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what about rocks effect with electric?

seems to be missing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.52.67 (talk)

Rock attacks are ordinarily effective against Electric-type Pokémon—the multiplier is 1. It's neither strong nor weak. It's the same the other way around, but keep in mind that several Rock-type Pokémon are also half Ground-type, and the Electric attacks have no effect against Ground-type Pokémon. --Brandon Dilbeck 18:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Examples of types

Since it seems some people are unclear about why certain Pokémon were chosen as examples and other weren't, and since I'm sick of writing it out in the edit summary, below are the criteria I've tried to adhere to for selecting an example Pokémon for each type in order of importance.

  1. The generation that the Pokémon was introduced in is not yet represented (i.e. all generations should be accounted for).
  2. The article about the Pokémon is well written.
  3. The Pokémon itself has played a notable role in either the anime/movies/TCG/manga - enough so that the respective section on it's article page is of considerable length (e.g. Meowth is a better example than Rattata).
  4. When all other criteria are met:
(a) The type as a single type has not yet been represented (i.e. At least one Pokémon should be a single type).
(b) The dual-type represented has not yet been included (e.g. Flying-type examples should try to include only one example of a Flying/Normal-type Pokémon).

-ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Further explanation: i'm not trying to own the article and I invite anyone to discuss alternate criteria or alternate priorities for the criteria. It's just that we need to follow a standard guidline or else the examples will keep being changed to suite a person's personal favorite. My most recent reversions were becuase the new examples were either of poorer quality or of poorer notability. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 19:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see more "non-typical" Pokémon expressed—less Charizard and Pikachu and maybe a little more Houndour and Flaaffy. It would be good to mention some Pokémon that people think of less often. --Brandon Dilbeck 20:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
How would that help give an example of type? If I want to know what fire-types are like, Charizard is a great example. If I don't know very much about Vulpix, why would it be a good example of a Fire type? In contrast, which is a better example of a fruit: an apple, or a lychee? I'd say an apple is an excellent example because it's far better known than the lychee. -JC 22:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, while I agree that stylistically Flaafy might seem a better choice, the point is to try and give the best possible example by providing the best articles. Quite honestly, the Flaafy article is pretty pathetic when compared to the vast variety of options available. Hopefully, this can encourage people to try and improve articles they'd like to list as examples. Ironically enough though, Flaafy could easily replace Chinchou as they both appear to have the same info, but I chose Chinchou because it wasn't a pure Electric-type like the already included Pikachu. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 04:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TABLE OF POKEMON TYPES

I was the one who has changed the position of the types electric and grass in the table. There are many sites where the table is shown like that. For example:

       http://guidesarchive.ign.com/guides/12865/basics.html

or the spanish site:

       http://groups.msn.com/PokemonMisdreavusversion/tabladetipos.msnw

One thing that is bad is that an attack of type grass isn't super effective to a Pokémon of type ghost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.103.1.236 (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

THEY NEED TO HAV CHARTS FOR THE ORIGINAL GREEN RED BLUE YELLOW GAMES N THEN WAT HAPPENED WEN THE GAME WAS CONTROLED BY THE SHOW IN SEASON 1 WITH SOMIN THAT HAD 2 DO WITH PSYCHIC N GHOST ELEMENTS IF MEMORY SERVES RIGHT INSTEAD OF THE REVERSE SO THE RULES CHANGED THERE N U NEED 2 HAV SEPARATE CHARTS CUZ ITS CHANGIN WIT SHIT LIKE DAT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.195.132.253 (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

The old type affinity chart used before Gold & Silver is in my opinion largely obsolete now, but the table in the article does have footnotes pointing out variation between the old chart and newer one. Also, there is a section already in the article that points out variation or errors made in the anime already. The anime isn't believed to be canonical, so the changes in the anime aren't reflected in the table in the article. --Brandon Dilbeck 20:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What about Ground vs. Grass? In this [1] Pokemon Red (ROM?) video, at about 4:00, you can clearly see a Dig attack being "super effective" against a Grass/Poison type Bellsprout. I remember a similar situation occurring in my Blue cart. Was Grass-type always resistant to Ground-type? SubStandardDeviation 07:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Bellsprout is Grass/Poison, and in Red/Blue only one message can be displayed. "Super effective!" takes priority, despite the attack doing regular damage due to Grass's resistance. The only non-poison Grass-type in Red/Blue that I can recall is Tangela (pure Grass) which was relatively out-of-the-way. Similarly, an electric attack will say it's "Super effective!" against Zapdos (Flying/Electric) despite being obviously "not very effective" against, for example, Electric-type Pikachu. -JC 09:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

actually, when the message "super effective" appeared, it DID do twice the normal damage. i think the problem was that they didn't handle dual-types in a consistent manner until GSC. They even tried to rectify it in Stadium, but it still didn;t really always work right. I'd like to include this info, but i don't know of ANY published material (serebii or otherwise) that details these inconsistencies. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

So basically, in the RBY games, this

  • The attack is super effective against one type but not very effective against the other type, as in a Grass-type attack used on the dual Grass- and Water-type Lotad. The attack does double damage against one type but half damage against the other, so the attack ends up doing normal damage.

rule was ignored, and an attack that was "super effective" against one type always did double damage, regardless of the target's other type. No citations though...

I'm also seeing varying reports on the Internet of Lick being "no effect" against Psychic versus Lick actually damaging Psychic. Is this a confirmed glitch in the RBY games? If so, should be mentioned somewhere. SubStandardDeviation 21:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

yes... the equations for damage multipliers were handled inconsistently for dual types (an attack may affect gloom differently than it affected bulbasaur), but there is NO writing on this so it can't be included because i'd have too many peple fighting me on it it and it would consitute OR. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 19:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
No, no. It displays that it's super-effective, but it does normal damage (as it should). In RBY, Lick was the only Ghost-type move that was affected by type (the only other ones being Confuse Ray, which works on anything, and Night Shade, which does damage equal to the user's level regardless and even against Normal-types in RBY (this was fixed later, along with Seismic Toss vs Ghost types). However, Lick had no effect on Psychic-type Pokemon --- even though it should have been Super-Effective. This was, again, fixed (I believe in Yellow, actually). -JC 06:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OR tag

Ok, i think all the stuff that could have been construed as OR was either rm or reffed, does ne1 object to me rm the OR tag? -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 05:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and remove it. If someone still thinks that there's original research, they'll re-add the tag. --Brandon Dilbeck 18:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mewtwo

hey, in master of merough pokemon, didn't Mewtwo use shadowball agenst ursering? i do not care how powerful it was, you just can't do that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.211.83.82 (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

i don't remember if they actually said what attack it was... at any rate.. i think trying to list all the times the anime screwed up is a little much... we could potentially end up with a very long list that doesn't really contribute much by the time the show is over (of course as long as they make game... sigh). i've been thinking about just paring it down to the first example of each type-discrepency. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 05:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Who knows. (Or cares? This is the TYPES page >>) He used a very Shadowball-y attack in Mewtwo Strikes Back!! as well, but the attack didn't exist yet.—ウルタプ 05:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
that's kinda my point... there's too much speculation when the names of the attacks aren't mentioned (of course, for most pokemon, you hear the name of the attack when their trainer says it), and we don't really need to be listing every time we think the anime screwed up... -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 06:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lt. Surge

In US version of Fire Red at least, the guy who always gives you advice mentions at Vermillion Gym, that BIRD/water types are weak agianst electric attacks, anyone else eer notice that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.185.192.83 (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

yeah... it's kinda funny... didn't know it was in the remakes (i stopped talking to that guy after the i restarted my Red for the fourth time). i suppose it would be interesting to note under bird-type where we talk about how the type was later changed to flying, and this is a leftover of that change..... -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 18:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rhydon sweet chariot

Perhaps it should be noted that (in Ruby and Saphire) one of Rhydons abilities cause him to be vunerable to Electric attacks (i.e. Lightning Rod).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.171.4 (talk • contribs)

Is that only in RS? Did it get fixed or something? I'm pretty sure LightningRod draws in the attack and Rhyhorn/don negates it with its Ground type (lawl).—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ 21:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
u r right, Lightning Rod does not negate Rhydon's immunity to electric attacks. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 21:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Haha. One of the wonderfully exploitable things the programmers forgot to mess with. Now if only they let you Skill Swap Wonder Guard.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ 21:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.105.218.27 (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Call for Bird-type's removal

I have yet to see any of these screenshots with Bird-type as a precursor to Flying. Unless someone can produce them, I submit its deletion for approval. Either that, or we give equal attention to the "Pokémaniac-type" observant in other "Missing Number" Pokémon. Also, wasn't "Shadow" an actual type used in Colosseum and XD? If so, doesn't it have a place here?johnboy3434 18:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Shadow isn't a type. It's...for lack of the word "type"...a different sort of Pokémon. The most likely reason a "Shadow type" isn't here is because it's expressed as the ??? type in the games. i.e., all Shadow attacks are shown as ???-type attacks.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 23:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh. I didn't know that. But the problem of Bird-type still exists. Does it stay or does it go?johnboy3434 01:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I want to call attention to Shadow again. It's not a type of Pokémon, but it's a type of move, isn't it? So it should have a place in the article, then. --Brandon Dilbeck 01:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Urutapu just said that the Shadow Pokémon's moves are displayed as "???-type." So, they'd actually fall under the same category as Curse.Johnboy3434 01:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I guess all the question marks in his message confused me. --Brandon Dilbeck 02:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
if i had an emulator, i'd do it myself... but no such luck. and the shadow type (i believe) is discussed under ??? if not, someone is more than welcome to discuss it there. but lo! i found a pic... didn't take too long either. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 15:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replace table with image

Would it be a good idea to replace the table of type affinity with an image (preferably an SVG)? The table is so large that it doesn't fit very well in a narrow browser window, and to fit the words horizontally, the columns wind up not being the same width. I think an image would convey the info just as well, provided that it's well made. --Brandon Dilbeck 20:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

i had originally intended an image but was worried about copyright infringment by using a scan, and worried about getting the right size by creating my own. i think the table has worked out the best though because it's easier to update and annotate. plus i think the links provided in the table add extra convenience. but that's just my opinion.... -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 13:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the point about having the links in the table has changed my mind. Plus, the only "good" way to make the table would be to make an SVG and I don't know how to do that. Oh, I already mentioned that. --Brandon Dilbeck 21:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Are the type circles or bars protected by copyright? <3 bunny 01:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
You mean the checks, dashes, and Xs used in the table? They're all fine to use in the table. The dash image, however, has a white background that isn't perfect against the light gray color of the table (it's really hard to see). It's no biggie, though. --Brandon Dilbeck 21:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rock, Paper, Scissors

I was thinking that maybe we should try to explain the reasoning for certain type immunities and super- or not very-effectiveness of certain types, such as why rock is weak against ground, why normal is immune to ghosts, etc. Of course, we probably don't need to explain such obvious ones as grass vs. fire vs. water. I just thought that someone who was wondering why, say, dragon is weak to dragon, then this might answer their questions. Opinions?Leprechaun Gamer 18:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, and it's quite a weird thing, the game doesn't really explain why most of these type affinities exist. Why are Bug attacks super-effective againt Psychic Pokémon? Why is Ice strong against Dragons? A lot of these things seem to be "just because" (or grounded deep within some oddball reasoning), and I don't think we could add any explanations for most of them without just making things up. --Brandon Dilbeck 21:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
There's no real like, source that you can get this RPS info from, although it is fairly obvious, so it might still be rather opinionated. <3 bunny 01:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Damage multiplier calculation

It doesn't exactly work like how it should; sometimes (especially in GSC), even if an attack is supposed to not affect (super/no effect) it still hits for super effective damage. An example of this is an electric attack hitting the Rock/Water Kabuto/Kabutops/Omanyte/Omastar is still super effective when the multiplier should really be at 0x. <3 bunny 02:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. That worked perfectly. It's Ground type that's immune to Electric type. It's just a coincidence that most Rock-types are also Ground-types, which has spread a false perception that all Rock-types are immune to Electric-type attacks.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 02:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Interesting, I didn't notice that. I guess it's kind of annoying how there are few pure Rock types =\. Thanks for the clearup. <3 bunny 02:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fancruft

Some of the information in this article, especially the Type balance throughout gameplay section reads like fancruft. It's based almost primarily on fansites, and though it's probably true, is of no encyclopedic value. I think this section should be deleted. <3 bunny 02:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's rather interesting and I'd hate to see that info go. The section could be considered somewhat notable due to the nature of the flaw/imbalance of the early games and provides a bit of history to what would otherwise be just a big list. If you're concerned about the sources used, you're welcome to find more reliable sources and cite them in the article. --Brandon Dilbeck 20:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ice vs. Rock

Okay, who keeps saying that ice is super effective against rock? Ice is even weak to rock! Unless there's some wonky D/P type changing that I don't know about, it NEVER HAS BEEN super effective except against ground/rock and Aerodactyl. I'm changing it back. SubStandardDeviation 18:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What about Aerodactyl? It's a Rock/Flying Pokémon—its Flying half is weak against Ice attacks. --Brandon Dilbeck 19:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The point is, against just the rock type. That's what we're talking about.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 20:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contesting prod

I've removed the deletion prod. I think that most of the reason it looks like a game guide is because for each of the types, it is explained what attacks are effective against it and what Pokémon its attacks are strong against and so forth, so it's a bit excessive--the table at the top of the article does that just fine while still explaining the relationships. I've removed each affinity list from each type section. Others may wish to take further steps. --Brandon Dilbeck 06:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

i agree, it's redundant to the chart, but what about users with text-only readers? i'll add alt text to the chart so hopefully it will still work out for them. it would have been nice for the person tagging the article to be a little more specific, especially considering this article has survived two AFDs which argued basically the same thing. you know brandon, i like playing with these articles a lot more than arguing about stunky... how about you? -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 23:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm also tired of arguing about mudkipz. --Brandon Dilbeck 05:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] last type match-up

that one ground vs steel needs to be wikified

[edit] Serebii.net

Can we do something to start changing some of this pages' sources from Serebii.net? According to Wikipedia's policies, fansites do not count as credible sources, and this article's primary list of sources comes from Serebii.net. Since most of this information can either be found in the games or officially-published strategy guides, it may be time to switch to those sources instead so that the article doesn't come across as one large advertisement for that site. King Zeal 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

unsigned comment added by 196.207.32.37 (talk) 21:42, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Sometime I'll modify some of the sources to one of the Pokédex books I have, when I get some time. <3 bunny 03:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fire type mis-information.

Its an old wives tale that Fire type pokemon cannot be Frozen. However Fire type pokemon can be frozen, they are only immune to the Frozen status effect if they have the ability Magma Armour. 203.171.66.225 (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they can be frozen but, like the article said, they will instantly defrost. Artichoker (Discussion) 03:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have proof of this? In my experience they do not instantly unfreeze, as that makes the ability Magma Armour redundant. They may, however, have a reduced time of being frozen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.66.225 (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Foresight and Oder Sleuth errata.

Foresight and Oder Sleuth do not make ghosts lose their immunity to normal/fighting moves, Foresight and Oder Sleuth ignore the ghost type, therefore losing its immunity to normal and fighting type moves. This is proven by a pokemon (such as machop) use a fighting type move on a gengar after using foresight, the hit will be not-very-effective, as the poison type is still there.

203.171.66.225 (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean't, but you contradicted yourself: "do not make ghosts lose their immunity to normal/fighting moves", "therefore losing its immunity to normal and fighting type moves". Can you clarify? <3 bunny 01:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the difference, 203.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 01:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the ip-user might have confused immunity with non-effectiveness (as demonstrated by their example). Immunity in this case simply suggests that the ghost-type can now be hit by a normal/fighting-type move (once, of course, a lock-on or duplicate move has been successfully used). Does that clarify it at all? <3 bunny 02:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ice type

Ice type is missing from the links on the side with all the other types —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.48.9 (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arceus Typing

Under the "???-type" section:

Interestingly, one of the sprites of the Nintendo Event only Arceus shows it as a ???-type (since it can alter its type wearing different plates). However, Arceus is a Normal-type. There are no plates that change Arceus into a Normal-type or ???-type.

There may not be any plate that names Arceus Normal-type, but isn't Arceus normally normal (when it isn't holding any plate)? Also, "the Ninendo Event" isn't v clear. Which one? (Also: I thought this was just found in the game's data, and that it might be a future Nintendo event.)--99.228.5.128 (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Arceus without holding any plates is a normal-type, like the article says. And yes, it will be a future Nintendo event. Artichoker (Discussion) 13:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fighting vs. Electric?!?

What about the fight scene in Mewtwo Strikes Back implies that Electric is weak against Fighting? Ash's Pikachu (the genuine one, not the clone) was just refusing to fight back. --Luigifan (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying. Are you saying that it was never said in the Anime that Fighting is strong against Electric? Artichoker (Discussion) 19:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. --Luigifan (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I think so too. I'm removing that content from the article. Artichoker (Discussion) 14:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)