Talk:List of Pokémon with unique type combinations: Difference between revisions

Talk:List of Pokémon with unique type combinations (view source)

Revision as of 05:48, 6 December 2016

14,769 bytes added , 6 December 2016

New sections go at the bottom.

Pumpkinking0192

13,668

edits

@@ Line 457: / Line 457: @@
 technically they are different pokemon but whatever. [[User:0danmaster0|0danmaster0]] ([[User talk:0danmaster0|talk]]) 16:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 :I believe the reason they're here is because both genders of Nidoran can lay eggs of the other gender, so the assumption is that programming limitations in Gen 1 are the reason they're separate evolution lines rather than a Burmy/Wormadam/Mothim-style gender split. But yes, I agree that they don't belong here because they aren't technically evolutionarily related. Latias and Latios need to be removed for the same reason. [[User:Pumpkinking0192|Pumpkinking0192]] ([[User talk:Pumpkinking0192|talk]]) 17:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
+::Latios and Latias are related in the same way as the Nidos, though--male and female members of the same species.  You just can't see it "in-game" because the game mechanics don't allow you to breed legendaries (in order to keep them rare)... even in the case of legendary Pokémon that are clearly a whole species (not a "one-of-a-kind" thing) and ''should'' be capable of reproducing: like Latios/Latias which are males/females of one species (and were even mentioned in the Pokédex to live in "colonies" somewhere), and Heatran which is a species with both males and females. [[User:FnrrfYgmSchnish|FnrrfYgmSchnish]] ([[User talk:FnrrfYgmSchnish|talk]]) 16:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
+:::That's anime canon. In the games, Latias and Latios are separate species because they cannot breed; their legendary status is irrelevant, and attempting to impose logic ("should be capable of reproducing") onto the game mechanics is fanon. Our mission is to report, not to make up explanations. [[User:Pumpkinking0192|Pumpkinking0192]] ([[User talk:Pumpkinking0192|talk]]) 20:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 == Pangoro ==
@@ Line 475: / Line 477: @@
 It seems someone asked this question over a year ago and it probably just fell through the cracks. Is it possible there is enough information to warrant a page on ''unused'' type combinations (possibly as of Gen VI if it's put off until after X and Y are out), with a few pieces of information on that combination, including the weaknesses and resistances it would have by using {{template|Type effectiveness}}? [[User:Schiffy|<font color="000999">Schiffy</font>]] ([[User_talk:Schiffy|<font color="FF6600">Speak to me</font>]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/Schiffy|<font color="FF0000">What I've done</font>]]) 12:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 :Since no one has even said anything, I just decided to start on a [[User:Schiffy/Unused_Type_Combinations|test page]] to show what my idea entailed. It's only got two so far, but the point is there. [[User:Schiffy|<font color="000999">Schiffy</font>]] ([[User_talk:Schiffy|<font color="FF6600">Speak to me</font>]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/Schiffy|<font color="FF0000">What I've done</font>]]) 20:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
+::It doesn't have the type effectiveness charts, but [[List of type combinations by abundance]] does list every possible combination in a sortable chart, which you can sort so you can see all the ones that are unused. [[User:Pumpkinking0192|Pumpkinking0192]] ([[User talk:Pumpkinking0192|talk]]) 20:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
+:::The first chart that has the sprites only lists used combinations, but the next one has unused ones as well. Regardless, that page I made is only a sketch idea. I may fill it out later. [[User:Schiffy|<font color="000999">Schiffy</font>]] ([[User_talk:Schiffy|<font color="FF6600">Speak to me</font>]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/Schiffy|<font color="FF0000">What I've done</font>]]) 22:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
+== No other type combination ==
+You know how on the trivia section it says no other Pokémon has this type combination. Well, they are alot of Pokémon that are that way. So I think it is not notable as my opinion. --[[User:Ethan7|Ethan7]] ([[User talk:Ethan7|talk]]) 22:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
+:I'm not sure whether it's notable or not, but I agree that it's unnecessary clutter in the trivia section. I'd suggest that, if people are insistent on keeping it in individual Pokemon articles, we move it to the Biology section instead? That's where we include signature moves, and unique type combinations don't seem too different from that, at least to me. [[User:Pumpkinking0192|Pumpkinking0192]] ([[User talk:Pumpkinking0192|talk]]) 22:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
+::Ok, that seams like a good idea. Maybe then it would not be so cluttered.--[[User:Ethan7|Ethan7]] ([[User talk:Ethan7|talk]]) 22:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
+== Why they aren't unique anymore ==
+Do you think it would be a good idea to, in the Formerly unique section, add a column with other Pokémon of their type combo? Just for convenience; I can't think of any other {{t|Dragon}}/{{t|Electric}} guys and it's really bugging me. And yes, I do know how easy it is to find this out, but I'm just lazy. '''~[[User:Zaffre|<span style="color:#0000CD">Za</span>]][[User talk:Zaffre|<span style="color:#0014A8">ff</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Zaffre|<span style="color:#000060">re</span>]]~''' 01:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
+:I would say no, simply because there are too many to list. Ampharos's Mega Evolution is Dragon/Electric, if you want to know.--[[User:Force Fire|<span style="color:#025DA6">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#5A96C5">orce</span>]][[User talk:Force Fire|<span style="color:#EA1A3E">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#F16A81">ire</span>]] 03:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
+==Mega Sceptile ==
+Should Mega Sceptile be added to the list? [[User:Vienna Waltz|Vienna Waltz]] ([[User talk:Vienna Waltz|talk]]) 18:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
+:Not yet. It's possible that there are other Grass/Dragon types in ORAS.--'''[[User:Dennou Zenshi|<font color="#AB0909">電</font><font color="#063A73">禅</font>]]<small>[[User talk:Dennou Zenshi|<font color="#fff" face="Tahoma"><span style="text-shadow:#000 0.2em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Den Zen</span></font>]]</small>''' 20:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
+== Megas listed as forms? ==
+Should Mega Pokemon also be listed as alternate forms sharing the same unique type combination? Both Mega Tyranitar and Mega Abomasnow share their unique type combination with their regular forms. I think it would be worth mentioning them at least, since it looks like Mega Sceptile and Mega Altaria will be added once ORAS is released and its confirmed those combinations are unique. I can't get the coding to work for Mega Abomasnow either, and I imagine I'll have the same problem with Mega Tyranitar.
+Edit: I added additional Mega sprites but that's not really what I set out to do. I feel like we should list the Megas too.
+:--[[User:Terry152|<font color="#0000FF">'''Terry152'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Terry152|<font color="#000000">Talk</font>]]) 08:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
+:I vote yes.  [[User:FoggyMoor|FoggyMoor]] ([[User talk:FoggyMoor|talk]]) 20:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
+::A few months later, I have edited the UniqueType template and made it so form=Mega Evolution results in the Mega sprite. No they're considered differnet Pokemon, but the same thing was done with Rotom and its forms so I think it's okay. It looks neater now anyway, imo. --[[User:Terry152|<font color="#0000FF">'''Terry152'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Terry152|<font color="#000000">Talk</font>]]) 02:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
+== Shouldn't Carbink & Diancie go here? ==
+IIRC, Diancie is just a mutated Carbink, right? So don't they technically count? [[User:Unowninator|Unowninator]] ([[User talk:Unowninator|talk]]) 05:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
+:No. This page is only concerned with Pokemon related by evolution/breeding. Diancie and Carbink are not. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 06:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
+== Formerly Not Unique ==
+Under trivia, would it be worth mentioning Pokemon like Magnemite and Marill that were ''not'' unique type combinations when introduced, but have become so in a later generation because of the addition of a new type? [[User:Masternachos|Masternachos]] ([[User talk:Masternachos|talk]]) 18:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
+:The table pretty much already implies that. Just like the Rotom Electric/Ghost appliance forms are only marked for Gen IV. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 19:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
+::Fair enough. [[User:Masternachos|Masternachos]] ([[User talk:Masternachos|talk]]) 22:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
+== Pokéstar Studios Opponents ==
+To be clear.... we're counting Pokéstar Studios opponents as unique if no Pokémon has that typing, (Brycen-Man being "formerly unique" due to Inkay and Malamar), but the presence of a Pokéstar Studios opponent (like MT2) with a typing formerly unique to a Pokémon (like the Magnemite line) doesn't disqualify that Pokémon's typing as "unique" as of Generation V? [[User:Draceon|Draceon]] ([[User talk:Draceon|talk]]) 03:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
+:Yes. What's ''really'' important is Pokemon with unique typings. Just Pokemon. Nothing else needs to enter that consideration, and nothing else but a new Pokemon can disqualify an old Pokemon's unique typing.
+:The Pokestar Studios opponents are there because it's sort of notable that there's been ''some'' "thing" that's had types ''like'' Pokemon and that's had a typing no Pokemon ever had. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 03:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
+::Thank you! That was a helpfully concise explanation. [[User:Draceon|Draceon]] ([[User talk:Draceon|talk]]) 02:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
+== Solrock/Lunatone and Latios/Latias ==
+Even though Solrock and Lunatone are also counterparts, Latios and Latias are still on the list. I think they shouldn't be on there because despite being part of the Eon duo they are not related by evolution or breeding which what this unique typing page is about. And just because in the 5th movie they say that they are both related by blood/family or something, doesn't mean it's the same way in the games. Plus this list is more based on the games, not the anime.
+But if you guys still think Lati@s should still be on the list, then you should at least add Solrock and Lunatone as well. They are no different than Lati@s in terms of being a counterpart just like them. They both have the same type combination that no other Pokemon has yet, they both similar themes with each other (they're rocks based on celestial symbols) and they are both version exclusive (Solrock is in Ruby and Lunatone is in Sapphire, just like Lati@s.) It's only fair to add them as well, in my opinion, since you guys think Lati@s being there is totally fine.
+Edit: It appears they have just been removed by someone. I think that is fair because Solrock/Lunatone weren't on there either. [[User:PsychoZoid|PsychoZoid]] ([[User talk:PsychoZoid|talk]]) 18:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
+Edit #2: Yeah, I also think it's a good idea to still note about them in the Trivia section. And wow, I didn't expect changes to made about it so soon. This is great. [[User:PsychoZoid|PsychoZoid]] ([[User talk:PsychoZoid|talk]]) 02:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
+Edit #3: I made a huge mistake. I think Latios and Latias should actually be on there because they both have similar names, similar designs and their Mega Evolutions are almost completely identical (their Mega menusprites are exactly the same.) Even though they are Legendary Pokémon that don't evolve or breed, I think they still have a relation to each other so technically they are one of the same with an unique Dragon/Psychic typing. Also, I think it's obvious that Minior will evolve into Lunatone and Solrock via the Moon Stone and Sun Stone in Pokémon Sun and Moon, so they will eventually be on the list too if it's actually gonna be true, so both will be on there and all will be good. (If it doesn't turn out to be true, then I would be wrong about Minior evolving into them and that is that.) Anyway, please forgive me about Lati@s, and I hope you will keep them on there until a new Dragon/Psychic Pokémon will eventually be confirmed. :-) [[User:PsychoZoid|PsychoZoid]] ([[User talk:PsychoZoid|talk]]) 21:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
+== Sorting logic? ==
+what is the logic in the sorting of the table? I see that types are grouped together, but there doesn't seem to be any particular order in which type should be first. We sort everything else by Pokedex number - why is this page different? [[User:Nutter Butter|Nutter Butter]] ([[User talk:Nutter Butter|talk]]) 02:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
+:The Pokemon's primary types are listed in the same order in which they're listed in the game's internal data. This is also the order used in the navbox at the top of [[Type]] and on our [[Type/Type chart|Type chart]] article. [[User:Pumpkinking0192|Pumpkinking0192]] ([[User talk:Pumpkinking0192|talk]]) 02:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
+::But it makes the table (specifically, the checkmarks) look very weird and disorganized, and isn't consistent with listings of Pokemon on [[Tackle|move pages]], [[Normal-type|type pages]], [[Frisk|ability pages]], [[Signature move]], [[Signature ability]], and basically every other page I can think of that lists several Pokemon in this manner. [[User:Nutter Butter|Nutter Butter]] ([[User talk:Nutter Butter|talk]]) 02:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
+:::Most of those pages don't list things anywhere near "this manner" in the first place. At best, you could argue that the signature move/Ability pages are similar (but they're still kinda different too).
+:::I don't think it's a terrible thing. And I think I like that the types are grouped more than I might like if the Pokemon were in National 'Dex order. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 02:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
+::::In design, the table is identical to the tables used to show what Pokemon can learn certain moves via TM, which are sorted by dex number. The only difference between it and the table showing what Pokemon can learn certain moves via leveling up is the use of checkmarks instead numbers, and Signature move/Ability are the same except with names of moves/abilities instead of numbers or checkmarks. The type page removes generations at all, but besides that is the same kind of table, which is what I meant by "this manner".
+::::We sort Pokemon by dex number on every move page, every ability page, every type page, and a few others. This is the only one that isn't sorted that way, and that's just a really weird inconsistency. [[User:Nutter Butter|Nutter Butter]] ([[User talk:Nutter Butter|talk]]) 02:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
+:::::And again, those all aren't actually in "this manner"&mdash;some of those are ''bad'' analogies. Anything that includes columns for Pokemon types is not automatically analogous to this page. Certainly the tables on pages like {{m|Tackle}} for learning by TM/level are not an analogy. There is a reason to sort the tables here by the types; there's ''no'' reason to do so on something like Tackle. If the move was in a column of the table, ''that'' might be analogous&mdash;but it's not.
+:::::I think this page is a ''little'' uniquely focused on types. I think ''that'' justifies this page's difference well enough. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 03:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
+== Alolan Forms New Unique Type Combo ==
+Can we add new unique type combos to table now or do we have to wait until the games' release? Because I'm anxious to put Alolan Rattata and Alolan Raticate to the page. --<span class="explain" title="^_^">AwesomeDJPokemon</span> 16:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
+:They are already in the page's code, but hidden. For new generations, we never add the newly revealed Pokemon until they're all out and we know the whole Pokedex. That's because we don't know whether Sun/Moon is also going to introduce another Normal/Dark Pokemon, which would make Alolan Rattata/Raticate's type combination not unique after all. [[User:Pumpkinking0192|Pumpkinking0192]] ([[User talk:Pumpkinking0192|talk]]) 16:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
+==Alolan Raichu==
+I believe that Alolan Raichu has a unique type combination yet it is not listed, I checked and the only other Pokémon with the same type combination is the Pokestar Studios Opponent UFO 02, and I feel like it is unfair that Alolan Raichu is not included in the list, as the UFO 02 did not appear in Pokémon Sun and Moon, so Alolan Raichu does have a unique type combination, shouldn't it get added? [[User:Peripuff|Peripuff]] ([[User talk:Peripuff|talk]]) 02:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)