Open main menu

Bulbapedia β

Talk:Normal (type)

Glitch Pokémon?

Why is Missingno. included on this page? I thought only real Pokémon were included, like Pidgey, not Glitch or Fake Pokémon! Somebody explain to me why Missingo. should be kept on this page because I believe it should be removed. --Tesh 17:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Because Missingno. has a place in all our hearts and is our best glitchy friend. :) *cough* Well, it's one of the only (I believe?) glitch Pokémon to have a real type (Glitches like .4 have types like Pokémaniac and such) and after all, Missingno is just a very notable glitch. I say keep him. ;D TinaTheKirlia 17:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol. But seriously, it should be left on the Glitch page. Now that we have Missingno. on this page, we may aswell start new pages for other Glitch types for all of the other Glitch Pokémon, and that's just plain ridiculous. Tesh 17:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Bird. All I gotta say. Either way, no Missingno. should not appear here. TTEchidna 17:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

All glitch Pokémon deserve SOME publicity. I'm not saying all glitch types should have a type (they actually do have them too). I am just saying if they have a REAL type they should be listed on that type's page. --I need help Making My User Page 19:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The Attack chart...

really needs to be completed. It's just wrong to have some attacks and not others, as well as inconveniant. We should put it up on other type pages, too.DittytheDitto 15:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


According to the article, the Normal type is one of the best defensive types. I believe that. But if that is the case, why is the Defense and Special Defence stats so low? It is just 56 and 61 respectively. Can the stats be checked? FireHazard 09:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably because of baby Pokémon, useless idiots and the tons of pre-evolved Pokémon. Θρtιmαtum♏Talk|Links10:02 30 Aug 2008

Changer of type!

Should Arceus really be included in the list of pure Normal-type Pokémon? After all, its type changes depending on the plate it holds. FireHazard 10:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's main type is normal tc26 10:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Gimmick" Strategies

I get the rest of them, but why is Spinda included in that? I looked at its moveset and abilities, it cannot change it's type, and cannot learn any move in the game like smeargle can, there was nothing that I could see that made it have a super unusual strategy. It having many forms does not affect gameplay.

Edit request

Pidove and Minccino. CuboneKing 04:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Werdnae (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


I've fixed this in the other articles about elemental types. Often, the name of a type and the word "type" are joined together by a hyphen. This is correct when they're acting as an adjective ("The Electric-type Pokémon are fast", "Electric-type moves may paralyze", "Electric-types are fast", "An Electric-type is fast").

However, this is not necessary when the words form a noun phrase ("The Electric type is useful"). Read the game's text; it's handled that way from the top of my head, at least in Generations III and IV.

Screenshot of a notable case in Generation III.

Examples of wrong use in this article:

  • "(...) Trainers that specialize in the Normal-type include Whitney (...)"
  • "(...) The Normal-type is considered to be one of the best types defensively, (...)"

Examples of good use in this article:

  • "(...) Although Normal-type attacks (...)"
  • "(...) and many Normal-type Pokémon have high stats defensively."

Informal but still acceptable:

  • "(...) There are also many Normal-types that rely on (...)"

Please fix this because people at forums are starting to copy this horrible habit from you fellow Bulbapedians ;) --Johans 23:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. I think I got them all, but if you see any more just point them out. Werdnae (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

A bit of trivia

Ugh, just check its grammar and validness, please... --ЫъГЬ 16:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Not counting moves, which power varies, Normal type moves holds titles of both the most powerfull (Explosion) and the weakest one (Constrict). Notably, both introdused in Generation I.
Excluding moves of varying power, the most powerful and the most ineffective moves are both of the Normal-type. They are Explosion and Constrict, respectively(, and were both introduced in Generation I). I don't know if the bracketed part is absolutely essential, but I've worded it better. —darklordtrom 22:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


Look at the list, and you see Tabunne. It's just speculation! How can you put it there?

Has it been confirmed? Nope.

Has it appeared in a screenshot that is confirmed? Nope.

Anything other proof? Nope.

So it shouldn't be there.--444Zekrom 08:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I've removed it. Werdnae (talk) 08:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Head Charge recoil

Is the recoil of Head Charge ⅓ or 25%? I'll say it's 25% until someone confirms, because the main article says it is and it's the signature move of Bouffalant when there's Double-Edge. --Enervation 23:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It is 25%. Though the amounts of recoil may be the same and the intensity of the description isn't, don't change it. The description of the move we are using is the one the game uses so we copy, even if GAMEFREAK have made a mistake, we copy it. Hope I've cleared that up --Epsilonexus 17:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


If we add in Water(type) that there has been a dual-type Water/Flying Pokemon in every Generation in Trivia section,so we to do the same here with Normal/Flying Rajjoaby (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

"The Normal and Electric types have the fewest weaknesses, with just one." ground and fighting false (talk)

Considering the leak...

Things may change a bit according to CoroCoro leak... *cough* secondary Normal-type Pokémon *cough*. Marked +-+-+ (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

A section for secondary Normal types will be added soon. --Pokemaster97 14:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


Since Jigglypuff has been retconned to be a Normal/Fairy-type in Generation VI, can someone update the page to include Jigglypuff as a pure Normal-type and as a Normal/Fairy-type? Like how Magnemite, Magneton, and Rotom are labeled after their type changes? For example:

# Name
039 Jigglypuff Jigglypuff*

# Name Type 1 Type 2
039 Jigglypuff Jigglypuff* Normal Fairy

--PKMNAdventurer (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

New Move Boomburst says that Noiven learns a new Normal move called Boomburst' "which emits an explosive sound wave that attacks all surrounding Pokemon with the resulting energy. But beware, Boomburst will also strike any nearby allies."Yamitora1 (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


"Almost all Normal-type Pokémon with two types are Normal/Flying, with the notable exceptions of Girafarig and Meloetta's Aria Forme (Normal/Psychic), Bibarel (Normal/Water), Deerling and Sawsbuck (Normal/Grass), Meloetta's Pirouette Forme (Normal/Fighting), and Helioptile (Electric/Normal)." Can someone add "Litleo (Fire/Normal)"? Vienna Waltz (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


Jigglypuff should be added to the group too since it will gain fairy as a secondary type from pokémon X/Y. Male supremo (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

About dual type Normal pokemon

Currently, the characteristics section points out how the majority of dual type normal pokemon are part flying. It then lists all the exceptions, which as of now is a fair amount. I understand why this was notable prior to Gen V when the only two exceptions were Girafarig and Bibarel, but not it seems unnecessary. Given that there are likely to be even more dual type normal pokemon come October, wouldn't it better to move to this to the trivia section?ElementX (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Move request

Can anyone add the move Play Nice because it is the only Normal-type move missing from the list of Normal-type moves? Cinday123 (Talk) 23:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

People, if we don't add the move Play Nice for too long, the moves section will never be completed, can anyone edit this with the addition? Cinday123 (Talk) 01:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
If you're not going to do it yourself, be patient and someone will get it eventually, but I urge you to try doing it yourself. It's really not that hard, and it'll give you practice understanding templates. Just follow the format the other moves are in, and put in the information given on the Play Nice page. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Introduction of Normal-Type moves Trivia

According to the little asterisk in the trivia section beside the number of moves introduced in Gen I, it mentions that it includes those that have changed type. There's nothing wrong with that, but it says it includes Moonlight, Charm, and Sweet Kiss, all of which weren't originally from Gen I. According to the moves' pages, they were all introduced in Gen II. Could someone double check that information and correct it if the trivia on this page is wrong? I apologize if I've misunderstood the information in the trivia section, but I just wanted to check on that. Please And thank you. Shadowkat777 (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


Guillotine should have 30% accuracy, not -%. It is a One-hit-KO move, and its page even says 30% accuracy. SlakingKong 07:04, 8 April 2015 (EST)

Um, no. Its page actually says that its accuracy is —%, and that its accuracy was 30% only in Gen I.--Den Zen 11:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

We Should Mention Ion Deluge

How to do so, though? We have an Interacting with Normal Type section in Abilities, should we add one in Moves too? ArtistKyurem (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

What does it mean by "non-neutral type relations"?

"The Normal type has the fewest non-neutral type relations, with only four." If it means what I think it does, then I'm only counting 3: Rock, Steel and Ghost. Unowninator (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

You forgot Fighting, since every other type is neutral to normal except ghost (immune), fighting (super-effective against normal), rock and steel (both resists normal).Animaltamer702:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, so it means both ways, huh? Thanks. Unowninator (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


The table says that Boomburst affects any adjacent Pokémon, but on the Boomburst article it says that it hits all adjacent Pokémon. Ac2k (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Fixed; Boomburst hits all adjacent Pokémon. Thanks for pointing it out. --Carmen (Talk | contribs) 14:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Former Normal types

I added a new section which was reverted. RubyLeafGreenCrystal (talk) 05:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Why do I never seem to get a repsonse whenever I post on a talkpage? RubyLeafGreenCrystal (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay. Months ago I added a table that was reverted. [[1]]. I went to ABCboy who replied [[2]]. I still disagree (hope I am not doing wrong by dissagreeing with a staff memeber). I still feel my idea months ago is a good one. So, how can I convince staff meembers thatvmy idea is good? RubyLeafGreenCrystal (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I do not want to seem rude but I get fed up that my talkpage comments often NEVER get responded to. Like what is the point of disscussing on talkpage if no one is going to reply? I therefore often choose to poat on user talkpgaes instead. Please do not think me rude but I just have some dissagreements and am not a very good speaker or writer. RubyLeafGreenCrystal (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes it requires posting on users' talk pages to request that they answer your public talk page question. For instance, I have no strong feelings one way or the other, which is why I haven't responded, and I'm sure the same is probably true for most other users who have ignored it. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay. So should I be BOLD, as Wikipedia says it, and readd or no? RubyLeafGreenCrystal (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Readding would be edit warring; being bold is only for before reverts start happening. Like I said, you may have to post on Abcboy or other people's talk pages to get them to come here and discuss. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Let me be a little frank here. I don't have the patience to guess at every person's reasoning. If all you say is "my thing was reverted", I'm not gonna try and make up the reasons that you thought it was good and explain why you therefore might be wrong. If you actually write something informative, people can digest that and either agree or disagree and carry on an informed discussion.
FYI there's nothing wrong with expressing opinions that run contrary to a staff member. (There is such a thing as being a jerk about it, but most people don't have that problem.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
FWIW I agree with this idea, I'm actually surprised we don't do this already. These Pokémon are still Normal in over half the games that exist, including them only in a trivia point hardly seems noticeable enough and feels more like an afterthought than anything.--Cold (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Meta franchise information

I wasn't sure where was the best place to bring this up, but I think statements like "In particular, the combination of Normal and Dark-type moves provides good neutral coverage" are more about the metagame than the real game. Is content like this really allowed on Bulbapedia? sumwun (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

We don't talk strategy because that's kind of opinion (like, there's no "best"). It's also wide ranging and ever-changing. Something like how Normal/Dark is defensively neutral (if not better) against, IDK, 90% of types is based quite solidly in fact. It may be language mostly heard in the context of the "metagame", but it's hardly verboten. Tiddlywinks (talk) 05:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
...Hm. Normal/Dark is absolutely not defensively neutral. I read it wrong and didn't think. Anyway, the line is based in fact. Tiddlywinks (talk) 05:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't know a better way to do this, so I guess I'll break down the section and try to explain what I think about each sentence.
"The Normal type is a mixed bag defensively."
How can this possibly be an objective fact?
"It sports only one weakness to Fighting, but only one immunity (Ghost) and no resistances."
This is redundant. The battle properties section says the exact same thing.
"Normal types have various attributes, although a fair amount of Normal-type Pokémon have high HP and good defensive stats. Normal-types commonly have a defensive stat which is much higher than the other, such as Blissey having high Special Defense but low physical Defense."
This is about "a fair amount of normal-type Pokemon", not the normal type itself. It would be like saying, "most normal-type Pokemon don't have normal as their secondary type." Also, what do "fair amount" and "commonly" even mean? Is 6 a fair amount? 7? 8?
"Prior to Generation III, there were only a few Pokémon capable of learning powerful Fighting-type moves, making Fighting types less of a threat at the time."
Again, what do words like "a few" and "powerful" mean? And saying fighting types are less of a threat is definitely "talking strategy".
"However, due to the proliferation and increased availability of powerful Fighting-type moves such as High Jump Kick, Close Combat, and Focus Blast, Normal-types nowadays require moves or teammates who can check their weakness, such as Psychic and Fairy."
I think this also counts as strategy, and I think it's not necessarily true. Normal Pokemon that play very offensive roles don't care about fighting attacks; they get one-shot no matter what type the attack is.
"Normal-type Pokémon, on average, have the lowest Defense and Special Defense of all Pokémon and of fully evolved Pokémon."
I have no problems with this sentence.
"The type performs similarly offensively."
So it's a similar mixed bag? Again, how can this be an objective fact if the definition of "mixed bag" is so loose?
"It is resisted by Rock and Steel and nullified by Ghost,"
This is another sentence restating the battle properties section.
"but it is not super-effective against any type."
While technically also redundant, it's probably notable enough to restate.
"Because of this, Normal-type moves are best used for same type attack bonus or when boosted by abilities such as Refrigerate and Pixilate."
Not only is this about strategy, it's wrong. There are several Pokemon across several competitive battling formats that make good use of moves like body slam and double-edge without STAB. There's also rapid spin.
"For many Pokémon, especially those encountered earlier in the game, the first damage-dealing move they learn by level up is Normal-type, and the lack of offensive advantage against any other type facilitates the introduction of Pokémon battling to newcomers."
First, what are the definitions of "many" and "earlier"? Second, this is about Pokemon "encountered earlier in the game", not about the normal type itself.
"Normal-types have typically wide movepools, which include powerful attacking types such as Fighting, Ground and Dark, which cover all three types that resist their moves."
This is about "typical" normal-type Pokemon, not the normal type itself. What does "typically wide" mean?
"In particular, the combination of Normal and Dark-type moves provides good neutral coverage since Dark is no longer resisted by Steel as of Generation VI. A combination of Normal and Ghost moves provides even better coverage, with only Tyranitar, Pawniard and Bisharp being resistant to both."
Why does it list these two combinations in particular when the best type to cover for normal is ground? Normal dark is only the fourth best combination, behind normal ground, normal ghost, and normal water.
"Their inability to hit Ghost-type Pokémon can be nullified by using Foresight, Odor Sleuth, or Pokémon with the Ability Scrappy."
I have no problems with this sentence.
"In these cases, it will provide unresisted coverage when paired with Fighting moves (excluding those with Wonder Guard)."
This sentence is probably also okay.
"Because the Normal type is the only type that is not super effective against any type, it is completely unresisted during an Inverse Battle."
I don't have any problems with this sentence.
...are these thoughts valid? sumwun (talk) 23:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
It's difficult to address the comments above individually and build towards a particularly coherent theory. I will make one general comment, that I don't understand your obsession with defining things like "most" or "few"; those things shouldn't be hard to reasonably understand. (Regardless, I've tried to work around that a bit below—but I'm not going to avoid all such abstractions entirely.)
So, the easiest thing for me was to just try and write what I would think would be solid/unobjectionable content for the sections. The Normal type isn't altogether typical so I also wrote Water. These are below.
The Normal type has the fewest defensive weaknesses but also the fewest resistances of any type, at one each. Many Normal-type Pokémon with a secondary type mitigate their weakness with the secondary type (as with Flying, the type most commonly paired with Normal), leaving them with only the weaknesses of their secondary type, as well as its resistances.

On average, fully evolved Pokémon with the Normal type have the lowest Defense and Special Defense of all types, although their HP averages relatively high, ranking fourth among all types.<!--As of Gen VII-->

The Normal type is the only type that is not super effective against any other type.

The combination of Normal and {{t|Ground}}-type attacks provides good neutral coverage, with only five type combinations resisting both, because Ground covers both of the types that resist Normal. Their inability to hit Ghost-type Pokémon can be nullified by using {{m|Foresight}}, {{m|Odor Sleuth}}, or Pokémon with the [[Ability]] {{a|Scrappy}}. In these cases, it will provide unresisted coverage when paired with {{t|Fighting}} moves (excluding Pokémon with {{a|Wonder Guard}}).

The Abilities {{a|Aerilate}}, {{a|Pixilate}}, {{a|Refrigerate}}, and {{a|Galvanize}} make any of a Pokémon's Normal-type moves become another type (such as {{type|Flying}} for Aerilate). Conversely, {{a|Normalize}} makes all of a Pokémon's moves become Normal-type.

On average, fully evolved Pokémon with the Normal type have the lowest Special Attack of all types.<!--As of Gen VII-->
The Water type has an average number of defensive resistances and weaknesses, at four and two respectively. Oftentimes, Water-type Pokémon can learn {{type|Ice}} moves to threaten {{type|Grass}} Pokémon to mitigate one of their weaknesses. {{m|Freeze-Dry}} is a unique Ice-type move that can pose an extra threat with super effective instead of the normal resisted damage.

The move {{m|Soak}} changes its target's type(s) to Water. 

The Water type has an average number of offensive strengths and weaknesses, at three each. [[Weather]] can affect Water-type moves, with {{weather|rain}} boosting its power and {{weather|harsh sunlight}} reducing it, while extremely harsh sunlight causes Water-type moves to fail completely.

Pokémon with the [[Ability]] {{a|Storm Drain}} can divert and absorb Water-type attacks.
I've had a few thoughts during this which I'll lay out in no particular order.
  • I don't think I like removing the subsections for Offense and Defense.
  • I don't think stats should be mentioned unless a type has the highest or lowest average stats for fully-evolved Pokemon with that type. (See the mention of Normal's rank as lowest Def and Sp Def above. ...The HP is only mentioned there as a contrast, because Normal has both defenses at the lowest rank.) Those types with averages at the extremes must obviously have a fairly pronounced trend in that stat; but for most other stats more towards the "middle", you'll end up with a more varied set of Pokémon sometimes above and sometimes below their average. (Mentioning seconds or thirds or something just gets into a question of "how close is still worth mentioning" and is simpler avoided by just sticking to the extremes. Also, I say only fully evolved because IMO tracking both is just more tedious than really worthwhile, and generally people will probably evolve Pokémon.)
  • I like the idea of mentioning neutral coverage (combinations of attack types such that at least one is usually unresisted) or neutral typing (by which I mean Pokémon type combinations such that most attack types are not super effective). I don't think it's generally worth mentioning that some secondary type may "neutralize" a weakness, because they usually just bring their own weaknesses as well.
  • I like mentioning weather or moves or Abilities that affect or produce the type in question (specifically, that is, not things like Color Change or Judgment.
  • For Water, I also kind of feel like mentioning Rain Dance (which is a Water-type move and which Water-types commonly learn, at least) and its synergy with Thunder. But I'm not sure...
  • FYI, (as of Gen VII) the types with the highest/lowest average stats are:
    • Highest... HP: Dragon, Attack: Fighting, Defense: Steel, Sp Attack: Dragon, Sp Defense: Fairy, Speed: Flying
    • Lowest... HP: Bug, Attack: Fairy, Defense: Normal, Sp Attack: Normal, Sp Defense: Normal, Speed: Poison
  • FYI, (as of Gen VII) the average resisted attack/defense combinations are 3.39 (basically 3 or 4) and the average super effective attack/defense combinations are 2.83 (basically 2 or 3).
    • Defensively: Normal and Ice "resist" the fewest types at 1 each (including immunity), while Steel "resists" the most at 11 (Ghost may have an honorable mention for the most immunities). (Fire could also be fairly above average at 6.) Normal and Electric are weakest to the fewest types at 1 each, while Grass and Rock are weakest to the most.
    • Offensively: Ghost and Dragon are resisted by the fewest types at 2 each (including immunity), while Bug and Grass are resisted by the most at 7 each. Fighting and Ground are super effective against the most types at 5 each, while Normal has the fewest at 0 and Dragon may have an honorable mention for only 1.
  • FYI, (as of Gen VII) Fighting and Ice are super effective against the most Pokémon (as in, for each type that is weak to a type, count the Pokémon that have that type and add them; overlap with dual-typed Pokémon just means greater weakness, it should be a fair/simple stat—i.e., in part, I'm not going to make the effort to rank exact effectiveness over all Pokémon's type combinations).
I'll leave the wall of text there (i.e., it's not exhaustive) and just ask what thoughts or comments you might have for now. Tiddlywinks (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Most of what you said so far looks good, but I still don't like your use of "many" and "oftentimes" because they don't seem "objective". Some other Bulbapedia user might find that around 2/3 of ground Pokemon learn stone edge and write something like, "Some Ground Pokemon can learn Stone Edge to offset their disadvantage against Flying and Bug." If around the same number (or ratio) of water Pokemon can learn ice beam, then these uses of "oftentimes" and "some" would be inconsistent. I think inconsistencies like this would be a pain to catch and resolve and also a pain to update for each new game. A few other thoughts are that each type page already has a section for abilities, so mentioning stuff like storm drain and refrigerate in the Characteristics section might be redundant. You said that you didn't want to mention stats unless the type's average for that stat was the highest or lowest, but your proposed Characteristics section for normal says they have the 4th highest HP. You might also want to mention type-related items like incenses, the lustrous orb, absorb bulbs, and luminous moss. I think that's all the comments I can come up with for now. sumwun (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
As far as mentioning the 4th highest HP, I also explicitly explained my reason for that in very nearly the same breath...
There is just no way to be exacting about things like how many Pokemon can learn [X]-type moves and at the same time nicely readable. It can either be very awkward or simply readable and reasonably intuitive. I don't entirely think that anything less than half should be mentioned anyway (although it is entirely possible there is some context I haven't thought of and wouldn't agree with for that). At the very least in the context of something like move types that can mitigate a weakness (or perhaps supplement coverage), I think it's kind of pointless to mention them if they're available to less than half the Pokemon with the type in question. I'll be completely honest, though, I fudged that line for Water; I didn't make any exact count because there is absolutely no simple way to tally all the Water-type Pokemon that can learn any Ice-type attack. But I did see quite a few Water-type Pokemon on the page for Ice Beam just scanning the page. In short, I guess the point is, if you can't point to at least one move that is available to many (certainly not just a few) Pokemon of the type in question, it shouldn't be mentioned. (If you want to do the work to figure exactitudes, feel free.)
I forgot about the Abilities sections...but I'm not sure if I like leaving out all mention of Abilities with notable effects... Maybe there could be some halfway point, though I'm not sure how that'd be done well. I like the idea about items, give or take the fact that the type-boosting items feel like (maybe) they should be a given because there's one for each type... Tiddlywinks (talk) 05:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Half seems like a good boundary between notable and not notable. If you wanted to define "many" as more than half, then you could have said so earlier. (also I just checked Pokemon Showdown!; exactly 10 water Pokemon can't learn ice beam) As for the items that aren't the standard type-enhancing items (or damage-reducing berries or plates or gems or Z-crystals or memories), how can we incorporate them into the Characteristics section? I also wanted to ask why you didn't want to mention how normal is unresisted in inverse battles. sumwun (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
IMO there's not much value to pointing out any item that has a counterpart for each type. And beyond those, I can't really think of much that affects any types. If we have a section for Abilities maybe we could also have a section to spell out all the relevant items too.
Info about inverse battles is little more than trivia. Tiddlywinks (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
There are still some miscellaneous items that I think are worth mentioning (and don't have a counterpart for each type), like incenses, lustrous orbs, absorb bulbs, and luminous moss. Can those items be mentioned on their respective types' pages (in this case, water)? sumwun (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The Lustrous Orb can only be used by one Pokemon so it isn't really relevant to the type generally. But the rest I'd say yeah. Tiddlywinks (talk) 05:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
It's specific to 1 Pokemon, but it's generally relevant to every water-type attack. Isn't that what belongs in the Offense section, stuff that's generally relevant to a type of attack? sumwun (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Only one Pokémon can actually use the lustrous orb, thus it is only relevant for that one Pokémon, not every other water type.--ForceFire 02:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


I believe the ability Fluffy should be listed under abilities that are exclusive to Normal-types, as only Stufful, Bewear, Wooloo, and Dubwool (all Normal-types) can have it.

Done. It wasn't before because it was a signature ability to one family and noone updated it to generation VIII.--Rocket Grunt (Report To Me) 15:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Return to "Normal (type)" page.