Page history
7 August 2018
16 June 2018
15 May 2018
9 May 2018
8 May 2018
→Trivia: Not listed on any other type page.
−53
Undo revision 2776062 by Randomwaffle23 (talk)Not unique = not notable
m−25
→Trivia: Notably, Flying has been combined with each of the other 17 types.
+25
1 May 2018
2 April 2018
Reverted edits by Sumwun (talk) to last revision by Akurochan
m+1,534
is information about "the metagame" really appropriate for a wiki?
−1,534
→Characteristics
+495
5 January 2018
2 October 2017
→Trivia: Rewriting these so that earlier generations won't have room for mention anyway. It *is* basically the time it took for these things to happen that's really notable
−121
→Trivia: I have concerns about the other one above, but I'm going to pass it over for the time being... But it sounds like this is talking about types with no dual-typed Pkmn, which isn't relevant
m−134
→Trivia
+300
30 September 2017
21 September 2017
3 July 2017
Undo revision 2662833 by KyleRGiggs (talk)It was fine before
−19
→Trivia: Only one is Pure. It is very unlikely that a new pure Flying type Pokémon will introduce, so making the word by exceptional.
+19
26 June 2017
16 May 2017
24 March 2017
22 February 2017
Well, then, you read it wrong. It's not the wording's fault, its yours. If you're going to make such a big deal about it, I guess this is the maximum clarity we can achieve.
−9
The wording should be changed regardless, because what I initially got from that sentence was that it would have an effect similar to an inverse battle; that is, making rock be not very effective to flying.
+17
21 February 2017
Undo revision 2602921 by Felthry (talk) Not quite. Dual Flying-types whose secondary type has a weakness or resistance to Ice, Rock or Electric take half the usual damage, not neutral damage.
+7
→Defense: clarified confusing wording
+3
I changed the names listed as "Tornadus" to their correct names "Thundurus" and "Landurus".
+2
20 February 2017
Undo revision 2602667 by AVulpix4 (talk) Not really relevant to the point, which is about the frequency of a type combination appearing, not the attributes of that combination.
−137
→Trivia
+137
23 January 2017
10 January 2017
→Trivia: "Pokémon type" is supposed to exclude ???
+20
→Trivia: I have no strong feelings about whether or not this trivia should be included, but cleaning it up anyway
+73
→Trivia: You've just made it unnotable. "Can be seen above" requires the thing to actually BE above. The table does not indicate the generation, so this is fine.
−14
→Trivia: Ugh, these still really don't belong here, but at the VERY LEAST they needed to be rephrased to be less blatantly outdated. "Until several generations ago, this was true" is the same as saying "this is false and has been for a long time."
−135
I think these are fine. The first two, you can't really look at the table and see what generations those Pokes are from, unless you expect everyone to know. The last one I see in the same vein as "type has been paired with every other type"-like trivia.
+351
9 January 2017
→Trivia: Oh, and I neglected to notice: two out-of-date trivia that can be easily seen in the tables above, and one unnecessary one that can easily be seen in the tables above.
−351
→Trivia: Exceptions aren't notable, and even if they were, this is way too many exceptions.
−166
→Trivia: Updated Trivia
+50
→Trivia: Removed outdated trivia
−82