Talk:Flamethrower (move)

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

Image

New Flamethrower pic

Flamethrower pic: 270px I think its better than one of the current pics. Collol 14:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not. This was taken from youTube, wasn't it? It's small, and grainy. I can tell it's from YouTube because if this really was a PNG I wouldn't be seeing what I'm seeing now. -Sketch 14:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Descript of Houndoom's flamethrower

"Houndoom opens its mouth and a red-orange ball appears. A red-orange flame is released from the ball." ..Except in Harrison's article, its Flamethrower clearly is being launched from between its horns? Luna Tiger * the Arc Toraph 15:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not Houndoom's Flamethrower, lol. It is using Counter on Charizard's Flamethrower. Littlmiget123 19:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually it isn't Flamethrower at all. That is Houndoom about to get hit by Snorlax's Hyper Beam, while it is using Counter. Snorlax hit it between the horns and the return strike came from its side. It couldn't have been Charizard's Flamethrower anyway - Charizard never battled Houndoom. After it knocked out Snorlax with the countered Hyper Beam, Bayleef defeated it. Charizard only battled Blaziken. Werdnae (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, yeah. I wasn't sure, I knew that Houndoom was like Harrison's second to last Pokemon, I think. Anyways, bottom line, it's using Counter and its blocking an attack that isn't its at all. Littlmiget123 19:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Pelipper, how in the world?

I was searching for images of Flamethrower, my favorite move, and I found an image of a Pelipper using Flamethrower. How in the world was it able to do that?! Did it even happen in the show? - unsigned comment from Mr.Char (talkcontribs)

The main characters later discovered that the reason that Pelipper could use moves it normally couldn't, such as Flamethrower and Thunderbolt, was that it was holding several other Pokémon in it's mouth. Werdnae (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

What?! Which Pokémon could fit in Pelliper's mouth and Flamethrower and one that knows Thunderbolt? There are none small enough to fit in that beak, are there?- unsigned comment from Mr. Char (talkcontribs)

Read this.----無限の知性DENNOUZENSHI 21:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Grr! that makes me so mad that Anthony's a cheater! But thank you for leaving that link.

WHY?!

Why do we have image of other moves in Generation V but not Flamethrower? I keep coming to this page and I can't find one! - unsigned comment from Mr.Char (talkcontribs)

Because no one has uploaded one yet. Jellotalk 01:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

AM I able to?- unsigned comment from Mr.Char (talkcontribs)

Remember to sign your posts please.The Sandwich Oven 01:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes you are allowed to, that's if you know how to upload it.--ForceFire 01:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I uh I don't know how. Mr.Char 01:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

How do you upload images? Mr.Char 02:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

What the?!

What about the Mirage Mewtwo?! That was there a few months ago and now it's gone! What happened? It was Flamethrower wasn't it?22:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Also didn't Groudon use a Flamethrower in a video that Team Magma was watching? Mr.Char 01:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I got rid of the Mewtwo section because it isn't possible for a Mewtwo's hand to form into the form of an Arcanine. It only used Flamethrower because it absorbed the powers of all the Pokemon. Arcanine and it's Flamethrower were part of that deal. And I'm not sure about the Groudon bit. Any idea what episode that was? Littlmiget123 01:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it was Jirachi wish-maker. Mr.Char 22:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I also slowed down Ubeatable and a Groudon uses Flamthrower in it. Can we add a thing on theme songs? Mr.Char 23:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

May

What other episodes did May's Combusken use Flamethrower in? Mr.Char 22:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Every Fire-type knows Flamethrower

Should it be noted that every single Fire-type Pokémon knows flamethrower (unless of course, there's one that doesn't)? --Kid Sonic (talk) 01:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Far too obvious.--ForceFire 05:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Translation "Flame Emission" redundant at best, misleading at worst

火炎放射 means "flamethrower". See [1]. ALC (which often gives very dubious pedantic translations) says that 火炎放射 means "fire radiation" (?) and 火炎放射器 means "flamethrower", but this is not born out by the fact that a large number of Google hits for 火炎放射 and not 火炎放射器 are clearly for flamethrowers and not "fire radiation", as well as the fact that If there is any difference in meaning between this and "flame emission", then it is inaccurate to translate 火炎放射 as "flame emission", although I suspect this is just pedantry and the two are functionally identical, thus meaning the translation is redundant and unnecessary. Satorukun0530 (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

火炎放射 doesn't exactly seem to be a word in Japanese. (Your tangorin link shows this, but I don't know if you were unable to recognize this—possibly don't even understand Japanese really—or what.) 火炎放射器 is literally "flame throwing/emitting machine", and when you take off the last part (器/machine), you don't really get "flamethrower" still or even "flame throwing", it'd be more like "thrown flame" at best. Flame emission is fine. Tiddlywinks (talk) 11:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I did misread the tangorin entry, but it doesn't show that 火炎放射 is not a word; it just shows that if it is a word it doesn't appear in tangorin. 大殿(おほとの)籠(こも)る is certainly a Japanese word, even if neither it nor any other word including the same characters is included in tangorin. Actually I was basing my assumption that "火炎放射で物体を焼き殺した" meant "[they] killed the Thing with a flamethrower" rather than "[they] killed the Thing by throwing flame". The former is a more natural English sentence, but I guess without external context one couldn't be certain.
But yeah, I guess you're right overall. Except that "thrown flame" would be 放射(された)火炎 rather than 火炎(を)放射(する). :P
Satorukun0530 (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
By the way, I'd encourage you to read BP:COC#Writing on talk pages, in five words if you haven't already. Your speculating (twice, if you include the especially snide side-comment between the mdashes) that I don't understand Japanese as well as either you do, or as well as I might have hypothetically said I do, or even at all, adds nothing to this conversation. FYI I have a BA in translation studies with Japanese and have worked as a J-E/E-J translator; flamethrowers just never came up before. Satorukun0530 (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I looked at a few decent dictionaries, 火炎放射 didn't show up in any of them except as part of 火炎放射器. That's kind of like saying flamethrow could be a word even if English dictionaries only show flamethrower. You might be able make to sense of it, but it's certainly not standard. (And FW/eIW, I found 大殿籠る easily enough.)
And no part of what I wrote, including the bit about your knowledge of Japanese or possible lack thereof, should be "snide" or in any particular rude/not "nice". I didn't know for certain whether you knew Japanese. Now I do. Tiddlywinks (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
My Japanese knowledge is not the subject of this talk page, or of this particular discussion, and there was absolutely no reason to bring it up. My having a confirmation bias that caused me to briefly misread a dictionary entry had nothing to do with my Japanese ability. Anyway, whether it appears in dictionaries does not really relate to whether it is a phrase that is used, any more than whether "flame emission" is a word in English. Virtually all English dictionaries will include both "flame" and "emission", and the simple fact is that Japanese websites use the phrase 火炎放射 in non-Pokemon contexts quite frequently. Admittedly, Magic: The Gathering, Final Fantasy and The Thing being the most prominent contexts in which this compound appears to be used appears to indicate that it's only used in recent popular culture contexts, but still. Satorukun0530 (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Really? Come on, I said it wasn't disparaging or anything. I had no idea why you didn't notice what exactly was on your tangorin link. I listed the possibilities. Not being able to read what you linked was a strong and perfectly plausible (and innocent/not accusatory) one. That's it. There's nothing to take offense at, it wasn't gratuitous...
But if you want to argue whether your Japanese knowledge is relevant, then I'd say if you want to argue what the Japanese means, then yeah, it should be pretty relevant. Just parroting dictionaries isn't exactly a strong strategy, after all.
As far as I can tell, flame emission is still fine. This discussion mostly seems to be veering off topic rapidly. Tiddlywinks (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)