Talk:List of glitch types (Generation I)

Pre-merge discussions

• Talk:99||9 (type)
• Talk:Bird (type)
• Talk:Pokémaniac (type)
• Talk:CoolTrainer♀ (type)
• Talk:L (type)

Type effectiveness

Considering all glitch moves will have neutral type effectiveness, is it really necessary to use

Offensive			Defensive
Power	Types		Power	Types
2×	None		½×	None
½×	None		2×	None
0×	None		0×	None

--SnorlaxMonster 11:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Pictorial representation. It makes it easier to see these things. It's also how things get done on the standard types pages. —darklordtrom 23:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, but because they are all the same with no strengths and no weakesses, couldn't we just have 1 for all of the types?--SnorlaxMonster 02:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It's still best to do things individually. —darklordtrom 02:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Whose bright idea was this?!?!

It's bad enough that you people don't consider glitch moves to be notable enough individually, but now you've gone on to the types?! When was this ridiculous course of action voted upon? I don't recall anything of the sort taking place! I would think that something this major would've been announced somewhere! Missingno. Master wants YOU! Join the Order of the Glitch! (my talk page) 12:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

So, someone just SUGGESTS it on the Pokémaniac talk page, and you automatically do it?! What about the vote?! This is major! Glitch types are just as notable as the regular ones! I move that we vote upon whether or not this travesty continues. And for the record, as if it wasn't clear enough already, my vote is to undo the merging. Missingno. Master wants YOU! Join the Order of the Glitch! (my talk page) 12:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I somewhat expected someone to go nuts about this... The editorial board had apparently discussed and decided that 1) glitch types are not notable to have their own pages and 2) glitch Pokémon available only via use of GameShark are not notable to be mentioned at all (see User:UltimateSephiroth/Evacuated glitch Pokémon articles for the saved data, which I will process later into a single page). I agree that while I find glitches very interesting, this is a Pokémon wiki, not a glitch Pokémon wiki. Also, cool down. UltimateSephiroth ^{(about me · chat · edits)} 12:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I agree with the Gameshark-only Generation I Glitch Pokémon not being notable. That was actually my stance from the start, really. OK. I'm sorry, I'll cool down. Missingno. Master wants YOU! Join the Order of the Glitch! (my talk page) 12:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The current direction of the encyclopedia, Missingno. Master, is to build higher quality articles about each topic. By putting all the glitch types on the same page we're getting a better article with a wider scope. Look at each section. There is one sentence, a box that says it takes normal damage and gives normal damage, and one or two glitch Pokémon with that type. I'm sure you'll agree that one full article is better than fifty tiny sucky articles that need cleanup and expansion and God knows what. And to be frank, the glitch section of the encyclopedia does suck at the moment. We're cleaning it up. If you can help, that'd be great. —darklordtrom 05:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well to be honest, MM, each of the glitch types only has one or two Pokémon or moves corresponding to it. So instead of 95383086943 tiny articles, we have one big article which can be expanded and organized into a truly comprehensive resource on glitch types. It's just a more efficent and effective way to present the information. ZestyCactus 06:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hex Values etc.

Assuming these types use the hex values for types after the "official" types, you could use a GameShark to change the types of Pokémon to glitch types. This could help find out more info. about the types. However, when you change a type with a GameShark, it doesn't actually tell you what the type is (it simply has the effects of that type.) As most glitch types are very similar, they could be hard to differentiate without already knowing which hex value corresponds to which type. Is there any way this could be found out? Mattiuscn 13:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Same-type attack bonus

The "'l) m) ZM" section says "Functionally, it is identical to the Steel type.", but wouldn't it differ functionally by not having Steel's (or it's own) Same-type attack bonus], since it tecnly isn't Steel type, and that there are no l)m)ZM moves? Wouldn't a better wording be ""Functionally, it is otherwise identical to the Steel type, but does not receive any Same-type attack bonus] as it is teacnly not a Steel type and there are no l) m) ZM moves"

Scene all glitch types (except lmZM) have the same type effectiveness wouldn't the glitch types without moves be functionally identical (due to the lack of STAB), i.e. do the types have any difference other then the name, are they just duplicates of the same type? If those moveless glitch types are literally the same type in all but name, is there a point in having different sections for them? It seems to me that the current system has two downsides. First of all, it clutters the page, and makes it harder to find the functionally different types in the mess of duplicate types. Secondly, it splits Pokemon of effectively the same type into multiple lists. Wouldn't be better to a single list of moveless glitch type Pokemon?

Mind you I've never played the games before and I don't know much about them, so it's quite possible that I'm just missing something here. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Restructuring

1. I would rather this were organized by generation, which would allow... 2. Not including type effectiveness data for RBY glitch types. They don't have any, and just mentioning that before listing them would make this page a lot smaller. --FSX (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)