The Bird & ??? types
I added Bird and ??? type to the template. Although they are not really conventional types. I do think they should be included, maybe you should seperate them a little? I really can't get my head round metawiki's silly table formatting code. - Ferret 21:26, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Disagree with including Bird, but the ??? I can concur with. Evkl 21:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Bird should probably be linked to in the Glitch article then. Can you take it out of the template? I'ld only screw it up. o_o - Ferret 21:31, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm trying, and...well, screwing it up. XD
I think that the Bird type needs to come out of the table and for the ??? to go under the other special types so that the table is symmetrical. It's not really neccessary to make explicit reference to the Bird type in the table if its a type that isn't meant to appear in normal gameplay. Also, the ??? page doesn't exist and should it include the Missingno.s in RSE where they are repesented by the ? enclosed by a circle?
That's weird I had made the ??? page, look in my contributions. Looks like metaiwki doesn't like the question marks... - Ferret 08:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
k then what does "The (type) type is one of the seventeen elemental types." need to be changed to? Nineteen, eighteen, or leave it? --Jshadias 10:11, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Methinks they need to be separated from the main 17 and listed separately... -- 刘 (劉) 振霖 10:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, the BIRD type has been removed - it only needs to be mentioned in maybe one of the game mechanics pages or in a missingno. article.
I think that the ??? isn't a type to itself - its more a lack of a type. So really ??? shouldn't be classed as a type because it has no defining features like pokemon to represent it, no type weaknesses and resistances and the Curse changes effect with types and does no damage at all.
Curse does indirect damage when used by Ghost-types. Evkl 01:46, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Exactly, indirect damage. ??? has no effect other than display. Curse could be grass type and still do the exact same thing. --Jshadias 01:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is minor, but shouldn't the "normal" elements be listed as "physical" elements? Is not that the generally accepted term for the opposite of the special elements?--ANinyMouse 06:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The ??? type DOES have a Pokémon to represent it.*cough*Arceus*cough*--Frostagin 18:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Several people here have expressed (to greater or lesser degrees) that they think there should only be said to be a total of 17 types as they believe the ???-type isn't really a type. However, this wiki should really be based more on the fact (as opposed to people's beliefs) and the fact is ??? appears in the type category for pokémon eggs in gen III. It also has a move and Arceus can technically turn into it. Does that not make it a type? What else does it really need?
Therefore, based on all the evidence before us I reckon the page should state there are 18 types to include ???. Does anyone have any problems with that??? Wikid 00:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Meh, that was from practically a year ago, and it is one of my stupidest edits. And also, to future readers, please don't edit this conversation again, because bumps are bad.if a conversation is more than a month old, then adding would be a bump.Or so I've found through the site.Frostagin 01:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Disambig?
Should this be moved to Elemental types (game), so that the main page can be converted into a disambig for the TCG one? --TTEchidna 21:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Even if you do that, it'd still be confusing because they're both games, persey . . . aren't types more often refered to as "Energy Types" in the TCG anyways? --Zeta 21:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, they are. --Paperfairy ☆ ・ 23:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Then should Elemental types (TCG) move to Energy types (TCG)? --TTEchidna 00:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd say... just "Type (TCG)" seems good enough. That's all it's actually called, anyway. Well, that and "Color." I'd just go with "Type (TCG)." -Happy Mask Man 01:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, most just call the GB types types... --TTEchidna 23:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Added a little known fact
Ah yes, it appears this fact I added is not very widely known, so I figured I'd post a little comment to let everyone know I'm not making this up. ^__^
I was randomly paging through my Pokemon Gold/Silver Player's Guide: the official one released by Nintendo, it has this really cool drawing of Lugia and Ho-oh on the cover and- I digress. Anyway, on the last page it features the type chart, with next to it some explanation about attack damage multipliers. Among the obvious ones about effectiveness of the types, it also mentioned "Damage x 1.5 when the attack type is the same type as the Pokemon that's using it".
Since this is the official guide, I do assume this is indeed a confirmed fact for the Gold and Silver series; it'll likely also work in Crystal. I proceeded to test said finding in Ruby and Fire Red and found that it applied there too. For reference, in Ruby I used the example stated in the paragraph I added with the Aron. In Fire Red I used an Ekans with the Poison Sting and Wrap attacks.
Still requiring confirmation: Japanese versions of the games Original Red/Blue series New Diamond and Pearl editions Spinoffs such as Mystery Dungeon
I'll leave that spot of research to the real Pokémaniacs. (read: I'll leave checking this to the ones who DO own and/or can afford said games. ^__^;; )
--Democalypse 18:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Items such as Metal Coat and Charcoal now boost moves of their designated type by 20%, an increase from the previous 10%. --ANinyMouse 13:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
That Damage x 1.5 thing is known among the fandom as STAB, Same-Type Attack Bonus. If it wasn't in there already... I dunno why not.
And the Hold Item boost thing's now 20%? Is that as of DP? --TTEchidna 17:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I remembered that term for it just now, thanks for editing it into the text. ^__^ Haven't come across it a lot though; because of that I was mistaken into thinking it was a less known feature. =S My apologies for the sillyness. ^^;
--Democalypse 23:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Nah, it's cool. --TTEchidna 23:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, as of D/P the type-specific items boost 20% instead of 10%. Makes them somewhat worthwhile on heavey hitters. --ANinyMouse 14:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Singular over plural?
We do it with Plate and others, why's this still plural? TTEchidna 09:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
A possible idea for dual types
Instead of making seperate lists for "Primary (type)-type Pokémon" and "Secondary (type)-type Pokémon", how about we have just one list? For example, with Normal, it'd be like this:
| # | Sprite | Name | Types | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 016 | File:016MS.gif | Pidgey | Normal | Flying |
| 017 | File:017MS.gif | Pidgeotto | Normal | Flying |
| 018 | File:018MS.gif | Pidgeot | Normal | Flying |
| 021 | File:021MS.gif | Spearow | Normal | Flying |
| 022 | File:022MS.gif | Fearow | Normal | Flying |
| 083 | File:083MS.gif | Farfetch'd | Normal | Flying |
| 084 | File:084MS.gif | Doduo | Normal | Flying |
| 085 | File:085MS.gif | Dodrio | Normal | Flying |
| 163 | File:163MS.gif | Hoothoot | Normal | Flying |
| 164 | File:164MS.gif | Noctowl | Normal | Flying |
| 176 | File:176MS.gif | Togetic | Normal | Flying |
| 203 | File:203MS.gif | Girafarig | Normal | Psychic |
| 276 | File:276MS.gif | Taillow | Normal | Flying |
| 277 | File:277MS.gif | Swellow | Normal | Flying |
| 333 | File:333MS.gif | Swablu | Normal | Flying |
| 396 | File:396MS.gif | Starly | Normal | Flying |
| 397 | File:397MS.gif | Staravia | Normal | Flying |
| 398 | File:398MS.gif | Staraptor | Normal | Flying |
| 400 | File:400MS.gif | Bibarel | Normal | Water |
| 441 | 
|
Chatot | Normal | Flying |
| 468 | 
|
Togekiss | Normal | Flying |
Currently, it's like this:
Primary Normal-type Pokémon
| # | Sprite | Name | Types | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 016 | File:016MS.gif | Pidgey | Normal | Flying |
| 017 | File:017MS.gif | Pidgeotto | Normal | Flying |
| 018 | File:018MS.gif | Pidgeot | Normal | Flying |
| 021 | File:021MS.gif | Spearow | Normal | Flying |
| 022 | File:022MS.gif | Fearow | Normal | Flying |
| 083 | File:083MS.gif | Farfetch'd | Normal | Flying |
| 084 | File:084MS.gif | Doduo | Normal | Flying |
| 085 | File:085MS.gif | Dodrio | Normal | Flying |
| 163 | File:163MS.gif | Hoothoot | Normal | Flying |
| 164 | File:164MS.gif | Noctowl | Normal | Flying |
| 176 | File:176MS.gif | Togetic | Normal | Flying |
| 203 | File:203MS.gif | Girafarig | Normal | Psychic |
| 276 | File:276MS.gif | Taillow | Normal | Flying |
| 277 | File:277MS.gif | Swellow | Normal | Flying |
| 333 | File:333MS.gif | Swablu | Normal | Flying |
| 396 | File:396MS.gif | Starly | Normal | Flying |
| 397 | File:397MS.gif | Staravia | Normal | Flying |
| 398 | File:398MS.gif | Staraptor | Normal | Flying |
| 400 | File:400MS.gif | Bibarel | Normal | Water |
| 441 |
|
Chatot | Normal | Flying |
| 468 |
|
Togekiss | Normal | Flying |
Secondary Normal-type Pokémon
None.
We could also adjust it for the types that do have secondary Pokémon of that type. For example, it'd be like this for Fighting:
| # | Sprite | Name | Types | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 062 | File:062MS.gif | Poliwrath | Water | Fighting |
| 214 | File:214MS.gif | Heracross | Bug | Fighting |
| 256 | File:256MS.gif | Combusken | Fire | Fighting |
| 257 | File:257MS.gif | Blaziken | Fire | Fighting |
| 286 | File:286MS.gif | Breloom | Grass | Fighting |
| 307 | File:307MS.gif | Meditite | Fighting | Psychic |
| 308 | File:308MS.gif | Medicham | Fighting | Psychic |
| 391 | File:391MS.gif | Monferno | Fire | Fighting |
| 392 | File:392MS.gif | Infernape | Fire | Fighting |
| 448 | 
|
Lucario | Fighting | Steel |
| 453 | 
|
Croagunk | Poison | Fighting |
| 454 | 
|
Toxicroak | Poison | Fighting |
| 475 | 
|
Gallade | Psychic | Fighting |
Currently, it's like this:
Primary Fighting-type Pokémon
| # | Name | Type 1 | Type 2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 307 | File:307MS.gif | Meditite | Fighting | Psychic |
| 308 | File:308MS.gif | Medicham | Fighting | Psychic |
| 448 |
|
Lucario | Fighting | Steel |
Secondary Fighting-type Pokémon
| # | Name | Type 1 | Type 2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 062 | File:062MS.gif | Poliwrath | Water | Fighting |
| 214 | File:214MS.gif | Heracross | Bug | Fighting |
| 256 | File:256MS.gif | Combusken | Fire | Fighting |
| 257 | File:257MS.gif | Blaziken | Fire | Fighting |
| 286 | File:286MS.gif | Breloom | Grass | Fighting |
| 391 | File:391MS.gif | Monferno | Fire | Fighting |
| 392 | File:392MS.gif | Infernape | Fire | Fighting |
| 453 |
|
Croagunk | Poison | Fighting |
| 454 |
|
Toxicroak | Poison | Fighting |
| 475 |
|
Gallade | Psychic | Fighting |
I think my version is much better, because it saves us the time of making 2 lists for dual types, while still allowing people to see the primaries and secondaries. Discuss. Chocolate 22:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- If there are no oppositions by tomorrow, I'll apply this new format to the type pages. Chocolate 01:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- See, you say this'll "save us the time of making two tables," but the tables are made. Doing this will only take more time.
- At any rate, I can't see any real advantage to doing it... why do you think it's a good idea? --((Marton imos)) 01:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Because it saves the reader the time of looking at two tables for dual types. We can easily fit all the information into one. Chocolate 01:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. And also saves time for adding new Pokémon for the next Gen. And unless there's any actual difference between being Primary- and Secondary-typed, I vote for merging. Heck, I would gladly do that! =D -- Professional Mole (Talk here) 22:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Because it saves the reader the time of looking at two tables for dual types. We can easily fit all the information into one. Chocolate 01:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Stat averages
I was thinking we should list the stat averages of not only all Pokémon of the type, but also all fully evolved Pokémon of the type. Does anyone else think we should do this?- unsigned comment from Giga Hand (talk • contribs)
Secondary/Primary
I think it deserves its own section: is there any actual difference, game-wise, if the Pokémon is primary-typed or secondary-typed? I fail to see any... -- Professional Mole (Talk here) 22:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- We at Poképédia are actually discussing on that matter on the IRC-chan : what's the big difference between Lapras being Water-Ice and Spheal being Ice-Water ? Did Game Freak put the types "randomly" (wich I doubt, as we could almost rename these guys "Stats-Freaks" considering their evergrowing work on the series...) ? If anyone could bring some answer to that deep mystery, it would greatly be appreciated --InvocK 23:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
2 things
1.) This page is starting to look like a project's talk page. Would it be a bad idea to make a Bulbapedia project on the elemental types?
2.) Do we have pages for each type that list all the moves of that type. If we don't, it would be a good idea to start that.
-- Landfish7 16:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Nvm about #2. He he -- Landfish7 21:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it would be. There are 17 articles to cover, not including the glitch articles which are covered by GlitchDex anyway. There is no need for a project with such small a scope. —darklordtrom 21:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Non-damaging moves
Is it REALLY necessary to have a cat that states it's Status? I mean, they're all the same... ht14 03:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Do you mean this? We have this and this, so it makes sense to have one for status moves. —darklordtrom 08:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry. I didn't mean category. I mean column. Under the Status section of a move type such as this under the non-damaging moves section, there is a list of moves that have the status category. Isn't that implied that these moves are of the Status category? ht14 02:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hrm. Yeah, it would be. I like having them separated; it makes searching easier. I wouldn't be opposed to mashing them together, though, or perhaps doing three subsections for each category. —darklordtrom 08:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry. I didn't mean category. I mean column. Under the Status section of a move type such as this under the non-damaging moves section, there is a list of moves that have the status category. Isn't that implied that these moves are of the Status category? ht14 02:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Index numbers
What are the index numbers for the types?--Stuart P. Bentley 19:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
All the Combinations
This is mostly for reference in this talk page, and doesn't directly assist the actual page, but it is important information nevertheless.
Eventually we are going to get close to having every type combination covered. So, here's some information.
With the current amount types, there is a total of 272 + 17 different type combinations (counting Ground/Dragon Flygon and Dragon/Ground Garchomp as separate). If we are to ignore these duplications, there is only 136 + 17.
I won't list them all here (for sake of space!) but I think this is important. Do we have a page with all the possible type combinations yet?
BTW - The math used for this kind of thing is called a permutation. -- PokémaniacJohn (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I like this, so I added it to the page. —darklordtrom 22:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)