Talk:Status condition

Add topic
Active discussions


"Check damage values 4 poison and burn, I think toxic keeps doubling and poison (and/or burn) does 1/16." No, except for poison's 1/16 in RBY. --Jshadias 04:48, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Non-volatile battle status

Status ailment#Non-volatile battle status makes no sense. --Raijinili 07:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


What's the damage for confused hits? --Raijinili 23:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing specific, to my knowledge. It depends on the attack and defense of the confused Pokémon, and it seems that's it. --Juunannio 4:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Which is why Swagger can make things get ugly pretty quick. TTEchidna 22:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I meant the base power. --Raijinili 19:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
He just said there was nothing specific about the base power. --Phred 05:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Having a fixed base power can still let the damage depend on attack and defense. --Raijinili 06:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
According to Smogon, confusion causes a 40 power typeless physical hit. --Laoris 05:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Miracle Eye and Mist.

First off, if Foresight and Odor Sleuth are listed, why isn't Miracle Eye? (Miracle Eye is an attack which is similar to Foresight/Odor Sleuth, but instead of allowing Normal/Fighting moves to hit Ghost-types, it allows Psychic attacks to hit Dark-types).

Also, Mist can be erased by Defog which I have added. - unsigned comment from Nebula (talkcontribs)


Can steel types become poisoned when eg. a steelix uses toxic on alakazam with synchronize?????--Wowy 06:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Steel-types can be poisoned, for certain. I once had a Pineco that was poisoned, then evolved. I'd try to test that myself, but I half wonder if Synchronize works with a partner's attack, too. TTEchidna 04:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Synchronize is programmed not to poison a Steel-type. Given that ability is programmed not to reflect all status conditions, however, it might just be the ability's effect.
However, it is still possible to poison a Steel-type directly; the added effects of the moves Twineedle or, if used in standard grass in Generation III, Secret Power can indeed poison a Steel-type. Psycho Shift should also be able to do the job. --Shiningpikablu252 20:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ice Ball

Does Ice Ball get doubled by Defense Curl? --Raijinili 08:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, my testing suggests that it does. I used a level 100 Spheal against a level 100 Nidoking. Using Ice Ball on Nidoking in the first round, it did 42 damage. When I used Defense Curl first, it did 90 damage. One time, it crit the first round and did 98 damage. It appears that Defense Curl does double Ice Ball's initial damage. — Laoris (Blah) 19:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
How do you know the damage? ht14 20:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I used two DSes. — Laoris (Blah) 20:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


why are status ailments such as sleep and paralyzation called non-volatile? they seem pretty volatile to me Happizelpom 01:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Because they don't damage the affected Pokemon, unlike Poisoning and Burn Gastlys mama 18:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it's because they don't go away automatically after battle. See the fifth dictionary entry. We're using the word volatile to describe status ailments that are inherently temporary. There are better words, in my opinion. — Laoris (Blah) 18:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
But sleep doesn't go away automatically after battle (though it does go away during battle) and paralysis doesn't go away automatically, after or during battle. Gastlys mama 19:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I know. I'm saying that sleep and paralyzation don't go away automatically after battle, which is why they are described as non-volatile. — Laoris (Blah) 19:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see, I thought it meant volatile as in potentially dangerous or harmful, but it rather means the other (surely less used) meaning of likely to change. Faaaaaaaaair enough. PokéPokéPokéPokéPokéGastlys mama 20:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I've never heard "volatile" used as "harmful". "Explosive", yes. --Raijinili 11:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer the terms persistent and nonpersistent. I just think it's a more clear and accurate desriptor for that. But either way works. Whatever the consensus is works just fine. --Abra 04:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


Would it be worthwhile noting that your last Pokemon dying of poison is the only way to black out outside of battle? Also, it could be added that the reason a poisoned Pokemon with one HP loses this status in Gen IV is probably to prevent that from happening.Gastlys mama 18:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Acutally, there was a glitch with the Pomeg Berry about that, that's the reason, more than the black out, because you'll still easily faint against a wild Pokémon. Aura-Knight 23:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


I know it has its own article, but it can technically be considered a status ailment. If a Pokémon has it and no other status ailment it will display PKRS on the status bar in the summary...My point is, should we add a small section to this article and have it link to the Pokérus article? βetA ZerØ 02:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Pokerus is not a status ailment that causes a problem in battle. -Sketch 02:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Ailment is a negative word, therefore the Pokerus virus would not be counted as an ailment, although since every is willing to kill to get it, it might be an IRL ailment? Haha! --Lustre 07:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


In the freeze section it mentions that sunny weather can reduce the chance of freezing, but no mention is made of the difference on the weather effects page. Does sunny weather actually reduce the chance of freezing, or should it be removed from this page? Werdnae 05:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember, on Pokémon Stadium 2's Pokémon Academy, it mentions that sunny weather reduces freezing chance - so this was true at least in Generation II. I would assume that they haven't removed or changed this feature... though why this isn't included in the weather page I don't know - I'm not sure whether to add it or not, since I don't know how much the percentage actually changes (halves, reduces to 2%, etc). It's certainly worth mentioning on the weather effects page, I'll do that now. NLawson 13:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Also in the freeze section, it is noted that no move has higher than 10% chance of freezing the enemy. On the List of moves that freeze, however, secret power (in snow) is said to have a 30% chance of freezing. Which is correct? NLawson 01:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are "battle statuses" listed as non-volatile?

Why are "battle statuses" listed as non-volatile? I'm pretty sure they go away after battle or I'd be using them more often ;)--MoonKing 02:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


I believe I have conclusive testing that Ground-types cannot be paralyzed. I recently played multiple matches in Platinum's Battle Arcade in which the roulette landed on paralysis for my Pokémon. In all of these matches, my Porygon-Z was paralyzed, but my Garchomp and Torterra were not. This, combined with other articles off Bulbapedia that have listed this, leads me to find my evidence conclusive. If I am wrong, please correct me. Ninjask 26 May 02:30:12 UTC

Then odds are it's a glitch. Moves like Body Slam are supposed to be able to paralyze Ground-types. --Shiningpikablu252 03:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Ground types can be paralyzed. The Battle Arcade paralyzes via electricity, noted by the lightning bolt, which Ground types aren't effected by. -Sketch 03:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, so perhaps I didn't quite know that exact tidbit. But trust me, if they did paralysis by Stun Spore instead of electricity, then odds are it would affect the Ground-types. Honestly, why would someone believe Ground-types can't be affected by paralysis as a whole based on that one Battle Arcade effect? That would be like saying that Steel-types can't be poisoned simply because the vast majority of poisoning moves are Poison-type; do keep in mind that Twineedle and, in certain areas in Generation III, Secret Power, are non-Poison-type moves capable of poisoning and thus capable of poisoning Steel-types. --Shiningpikablu252 03:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Badly Poisoned

Can Poison-Types be Badly Poisoned? It says they can't be normally poisoned, but I want to check. - unsigned comment from SilverMetelthatisGold (talkcontribs)

They can't be poisoned. Period. R.A. Hunter Blade 02:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Paralysis bug

In Gen 3, I'm pretty certain that the speed-reducing effect of paralysis does not come into effect until the turn after the target is paralysed. This is most commonly seen in Double Battles (at first I believed it was an XD bug until I recently noticed it in Emerald). That is, if a faster Pokémon paralyses a target who isn't the slowest on the field, they'll still attack second or third, even though their reduced speed from paralysis should make them the slowest on the field. In subsequent turns, the paralysed 'mon will be the last to attack as it should do. I should point out that it only seems to be the speed cut that doesn't apply to the infliction turn - move fail due to paralysis does sometimes kick in on this turn as per usual. In Gen 4, this 'bug' does not seem to occur. Is this something worth listing on the page? Is there a known explanation for this? My personal theory is that the move order of the Pokémon on the field is calculated before the attacks are performed, but I'm just guessing. Raylax 00:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know (and this is partly what I've read and partly a guess - I could well be wrong) your personal theory is correct: move order is determined at the start of the round (before any attacks) and the "roll" (for lack of a better term) to see if a move fails due to paralysis is performed immediately before the move is launched. I would assume that rolls for defrosting, failure due to attraction and confusion, and waking up are all checked directly before the suffering Pokémon acts as well. NLawson 01:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
So, this would probably mean that if the speed is lowered with a move rather than Paralysis, like String Shot, then the same thing would happen. So it is probably not a bug, but the way it's meant to happen. --SnorlaxMonster 02:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Damage of Burn and Poison Rounded?

The stated damage for these two is 1/8 of the Pokémon's max HP. When that damage is calculated, it would have to be a whole number. So is it rounded up or down? - unsigned comment from Cheshy458 (talkcontribs)

Like all calculations in Pokémon, it's rounded down. Starscream 13:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hang on...

We've established that confusion self-damage is a 40-base power physical typeless move. But, is it typeless, or is it ???-type? And if so, if a Pokemon becomes the ???-type, and hurts itself in its confusion, does it gain STAB on the confusion damage? Because if it does, that might be something to note in the article! Missingno. Master wants YOU! Join the Order of the Glitch! (my talk page) 18:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no type. It's just like recoil damage, except it's not based on how much damage you do to the opponent. R.A. Hunter Blade 21:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


Instead, shouldn't we be calling it infatuation like the games do? I would change it, but I know how many links that would break.--SnorlaxMonster 11:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Done anyway. If links break, we can fix them. —darklordtrom 12:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I tried {{anchor}}ing it. I hope that stops those links from breaking. --SnorlaxMonster 12:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
You, sir, get six points and a fancy hat. (That is, of course, assuming the links lead to your anchor...) ;) —darklordtrom 08:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
From what I'd seen, most linked to Attraction (which if spotted, should be changed). I'm surprised it took so long before someone noticed that it was infatuation. --SnorlaxMonster 09:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Infatuation in Double Battles

If a Pokémon becomes infatuated in a double battle, is it only affected by infatuation if it tries to attack the Pokémon that used Attract on it/affected it with Cute Charm, or could it be immobilized attacking either foe? - unsigned comment from HerbieHero (talkcontribs)

Pretty sure it's immobilized entirely, ie attacking either foe. Smythe 12:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure ice types can be frozen in gen I games?

It says on here that ice types can be frozen only in gen I. Most people are saying that's not true and I tested it on the yellow version and couldn't do it. Are you guys sure? Subsmoke 17:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record: after further evidence in this thread, the except for Generation I has been removed from the page. Werdnae (talk) 08:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

That's false. The only type that isn't immune to the type it correspond is Paralysis, which Electric types could be paralyzed before TogekissFan4956 (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


The picture next to "Poison" is of Gliscor being affected by poison, but the caption underneath it says that Staraptor is being affected by poison instead. I'd fix it but I don't know how to edit picture captions. Could someone tell me how or fix it for me?--Celebi96 11:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The file was updated without being checked. Here's how I fixed it. File embedding is quite straightforward on a wiki: simply type something like [[File:Imagename.ext|displaytype|size|alignment|Caption]]. Easy when you get the hang of it. —darklordtrom 11:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Status problems in Rumble

Someone mentioned that Poison-types cannot be poisoned, but in Pokémon Rumble they can. Also in Rumble, status problems are removed when moving to the next floor in an area (I believe this is also true in Mystery Dungeon, but I'm not 100% sure). Additionally, moves that restore health in Rumble do so over time, an effect which is removed by going to the next floor as well. I don't know if any of this is worth mentioning here, but I figured I would bring it up. Pokémaniac 21:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


Under infatuation can someone remove that Mew can infatuate other genderless pokemon, I tested it and it doesn't work. And I can't remove it because it won't let me edit the page. Pikiwyn 19:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed. Werdnae (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Pikiwyn 23:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Badly Poisoned Counter + Baton Pass

If a Pokémon is badly poisoned and it is Baton Passed to another Pokémon that is badly poisoned, does the badly poison counter reset, or is it kept from the Baton Passer? e.g. A Pokémon is badly poisoned for three turns and then uses Baton Pass to a Pokémon that is also badly poisoned. Does the new Pokémon lose a quarter of its health (1/16, 1/8, 3rd turn = 1/4) or does it start over and only lose 1/16th? —Naokohiro 21:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The counter gets reset, I tested it. Pikiwyn 16:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I thought a badly poisoned Pokémon that rejoins a battle after being switched out would have its counter reset anyway? That means bad poison isn't Baton Passable and the counter is reset simply because the counter gets reset when the Pokémon is switched out, right? But then, what if a badly poisoned Pokémon Baton Passes to a Pokémon that is afflicted with regular poisoning? Does that Pokémon then become badly poisoned as well or is the "bad" transferred to the new one, leaving the Baton Passer who was badly poisoned with just regular poisoning if it reenters the battle? I♥Togetic (talk) 07:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Each major status ailment in its own article?

As it stands now, all status ailments, including the five major ones, share this article. I think there is much more that can be said about each of the major ones (plus the most common minor ones like flinch and confuse), enough so that they would merit their own article. This includes detailed effect descriptions, a list of moves (which already exist, they would just be integrated into the article), and related abilities and items (such as Flame Body or Flame Orb for burn).

I've made an example page for a stand-alone Burn article, made from the info in this article, the list of moves that burn, the status effect resource over at The Cave of Dragonflies, and common knowledge; it was pretty simple to create. (If this ever comes to the mainspace, the List of moves that burn article would then redirect to the moves section in the new page). So, do you agree that the most important status ailments deserve their own articles? Memo326 04:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say that burn, freeze, paralysis, poison, sleep, confusion, flinch and possibly infatuation deserve their own pages. --SnorlaxMonster 07:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I like your Burn page. If we can enough information about each status that SnorlaxMonster listed, then I'm fine with separate pages for each status condition. I.e. enough info so that none of them are stubs. —darklordtrom 08:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I like your article, my only comment would be to recommend removing the "Advantages" section. Bulbapedia is not here to provide strategy (beyond the empirical details of a given move) and this would be very subjective.--Beligaronia (talk) 08:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Would we have to locate them all at NAME (status ailment) due to poison? Also, if these pages were to be created, a lot of switch statements would need to be made in {{Status}}. --SnorlaxMonster 09:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it would just take one. [[{{#switch: {{{1|poison}}}|poison|burn|sleep|etc.={{{1}}} (status ailment)|Status ailment#{{{1}}}}}]] should do it. Since consistency is good, they would need to be at Name (status ailment) or Name (status) Werdnae (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I was expecting we would have to compensate for all those different ways of saying it, like burn, burnt, burned, burning. I was expecting more of this:

[[{{#switch: {{{1|}}} |poisoning|poisoned|poison=Poison (status ailment)|badly poisoned|badly poison|bad poison=Poison (status ailment)#Bad Poison|burning|burned|burnt|burn=Burn (status ailment)|asleep|sleeping|sleep=Sleep (status ailment)|freezing|frozen|freeze=Freeze (status ailment)|Paralyze|Paralyzed|Paralysis=Paralysis (status ailment)|confuse|confused|confusion=Confusion (status ailment)|cringe|cringed|cringing|flinched|flinching|flinch=Flinch (status ailment)|attraction|attracted|attracting|attract|infatuated|infatuate|infatuation=Infatuation (status ailment)|Status ailment#{{ucfirst:{{{1}}}}}}|{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}]]

However, it shouldn't matter too much --SnorlaxMonster 12:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
To Beligaronia, I made the Advantages section so that I could logically include abilities or moves from which a Pokémon would benefit with a status ailment, such as Guts or Facade from burn, paralysis and poison, Steadfast from flinch and Tangled Feet from confuse, which don't fit under "causes" or "prevention and cure". I didn't want to separate by moves/abilities/items since in the same way that a move that may paralyze should be distinct from SmellingSalt (which would fit under "prevention and curing"), an ability which makes a Pokémon immune to paralysis (Limber) should be separated from an ability that causes it on contact (Static). Perhaps there is a better name/better way to organize it to remove the subjectiveness, but moves/abilities like Guts, Facade, Steadfast need to stay as they're related to the status ailment. Memo326 20:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
@SnorlaxMonster: We could also have a second parameter for display text.
@Memo: I see where you're going but your advantages section would need to be rewritten because it makes hints and suggestions (being poisoned works more effectively). Would "benefits" be a better retitle or is that going in circles? —darklordtrom 21:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, in what I suggested, there is a second "display" parameter. As for "benefits", that still sounds a bit subjective. After "causes" and "prevention and cure" we should have "other effects" or "dependencies". --SnorlaxMonster 12:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I like the idea of major status ailments having their own articles. This page is too cluttered, and doesn't even have all the information one might be looking for when they want to find out about a specific status ailment. I might also suggest that these pages have "In the anime" sections where they can detail occurrences from the show, such as when Ash's Charizard was frozen solid in the Orange Islands. --AndyPKMN 12:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


Should we include this. Examples: whirlpool, wrap, and bind - unsigned comment from Sudowooper (talkcontribs)

Added. --SnorlaxMonster 08:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


I believe the image of Turtwig being harmed by Leech Seed should be removed from this page and instead put in a trivia section of the Leech Seed page. It is an inaccurate depiction of Leech Seed... its a grass-type... if I'm unmistaken... Feng277394 07:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Leech Seed doesn't affect Grass-types... but until we have a better image, we'll keep using this one. —darklordtrom 11:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
There are many better examples of leech seed that are already located on the Leech Seed page. Although no changes may be made to this page yet. We could atleast add this image to the errors/trivia section of the Leech Seed page or of the episode this originated from.Feng277394 23:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Why the heck is this page populated by screens from the anime anyway? Even aside from this hysterical display of the show's blatant disregard for how the games work, they don't do an especially great job of showing what the status problems really do. Beyond aesthetics, at least. BP 04:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
If you have an issue with it, the page isn't protected. Rather than just complaining about it, why don't you try and get some good images from other media and add them? Werdnae (talk) 07:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I could. I may. Who knows. BP 07:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, we could use a:File:Bulbasaur Leech Seed 4.png; however, a recent image is preferred to an older one. --SnorlaxMonster 13:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Confusing Ducks?

This is something that's been bugging me for a long time. I realize it's not too relevant to this article itself, but I don't know where else to ask.

Does anyone here know why confusion makes ducks spin around the Pokemon's head, from Gen III onward? (Maybe II if I recall wrong) --Aescula 05:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Typing cartoon thing. --SnorlaxMonster 07:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


Does animation starts in Generation II or III (not in I. In I, it just shakes and there is text)? I can provide screenshots for both (as they are not present in articles) Marked +-+-+ 14:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Confusion turns

I have a question about

  • the turns of being confused, says that 'Confusion wears off after 1-4 attacking turns', does it means when the random confused turn is 4, so that in fourth turn, the pokemon will out of confusion? Same question to the other status like sleep / taunt / disabled etc..
  • when does the confusion turn counter decreases? also the other turn counters? Kolu (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

King's Rock with multiple hits in one move.

Does the chance for Flinch apply once per move or once per hit? PLA (talk) 10:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes Kolu (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
That wasn't a yes or no question. Did you mean "yes, it applies once per move," or "yes, it applies once per hit"? --AndyPKMN (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


Does Charge's Electric-type attack boosting effect count as a volatile battle status? Defense Curl boosting the power of Rollout and Ice Ball applies, so I would assume Charge counts as well. Hyper Turtwig (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Specify major status ailments

Nowhere on this page does it explain which status ailments are considered "major." Since there are several articles that refer to "major status ailments," and since that descriptor has no page of its own, I feel it would make sense to mention here which ones those are. Krychek (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

"Major" should refer to "non-volatile". That's probably something that should be changed on other pages, not on this one. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Confusion Statistics Inquiry

It says "Confusion wears off after 1-4 attacking turns." However, this gives no information about the chances of it occurring. There are 3 things that can happen when confused:

1. Pokemon comes out of confusion. 2. Pokemon hurts itself. 3. Pokemon stays confused, but still delivers its move.

Does anyone have the information about the chances of each of these occurring? - unsigned comment from Hank (talkcontribs)

Heal Block

In a part of the description of this status condition is written "The moves Absorb, Mega Drain, Giga Drain, Leech Life, Dream Eater, Drain Punch, Horn Leech, Parabolic Charge, Draining Kiss, Oblivion Wing and Leech Seed will still inflict damage, but will not restore HP when the user is affected by Heal Block. This is not true as of Generation VI, however.", but by reading this we can see two different meanings: the mentioned moves don't hit in Gen. VI, or they hit and restore HP in this Generation. Can anyone that knows which is the right explain in the article? Suic12- (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I have clarified this in this article and the Heal Block article. HP-draining moves cannot be used under Heal Block in Generation VI. --SnorlaxMonster 11:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Confusion crit

Can the 40-power typeless attack that confusion causes have a critical hit? I'm pretty sure it can't, but I don't want to add that information to the page without confirmation. --Xolroc (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Self-inflicted attacks from confusion are never critical hits. --Froggy25 (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Partial trapping moves do not stack


  • pokemon-online dot eu /threads/multi-turn-attacks-partially-trapping-moves-do-not-stack.29795/
  • I asked Smogon Research and they said they don't stack
  • gamefaqs dot com /boards/696959-pokemon-x/69396350

--Zarel (talkc) 01:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Volatile status condition vs. volatile battle status

What is the difference between the two? The article does not specify this properly, and as far as I can think, I never differentiated when playing. On a related note, where would Yawn's drowsiness and Uproar's uproar fit? Nescientist (talk) 10:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

It might be intended to be effects on yourself vs effects from other Pokemon.
That said, either it's terribly named or a terrible division. (I dunno, maybe there should just be subdivisions of "volatile status": external vs self-inflicted.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 10:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
If this division is not justified in-game (or by any other media), I think it should not be made here. The suggestion would also have difficulties placing Confusion, Perish Song, Infatuation and Taking in sunlight. Nescientist (talk) 11:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
This page could use a good deal of improvement IMO. If it were simple I'd have done it already. I haven't managed to devote my energy to an alternative, though. Tiddlywinks (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Our German and French partner wikis seem not to differentiate either. Both have two distinct groups of status, the Germans calling them "primary" and "secondary", the French "main" and "other". Their first groups contain our non-volatile status conditions, their second both our volatile status condition and volatile battle status (although their lists are not as exhaustive there).
I would kinda like to get rid of so much detailed info on this page (in the same section), but lacking an argument that justifies a cut, I'd suggest to merge our current section "volatile battle status" into "volatile status condition" (keeping that name), and to improve the article overall. Do you agree? Is there any other opinion/suggestion? Nescientist (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
You are entirely free to do something with a user page if you like. But I think we already have too many "statuses", and putting almost all of them in one giant section is not my idea of smart. Tiddlywinks (talk) 12:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
As I said, it's not ideal, and I do not particularly like it either. However, I still believe it is better than the current split, which appears to be arbitrary really.
Even if I could make a user page (which I guess I cannot just yet), it wouldn't be any better than, well, putting almost all statuses in one giant section. That's why I'm still hoping for other, better suggestions. Nescientist (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I just want to add that if we take the games for word, it appears that status conditions only include the non-volatile conditions and confusion. This can be seen when status condition healing items such as Full Heal state in their description that they cure all the status conditions of a Pokémon. (Confusion in particular is confirmed being a status condition directly by a quiz answer in Cyllage City.) Non of our other status conditions currently listed label themselves affecting a "status condition". Additionally, the in-game description of Magic Coat states that the move reflects "moves like Leech Seed and moves that damage status", indicating those are two distinct groups.
If we follow that path, we could just list all other of our current status conditions briefly, and only link to the corresponding moves etc. I have to admit that I personally always considered Infactuation in particular some kind of variation of Confusion or something, though. So, while still looking for other ideas, I tend to favor making the cut there now. Nescientist (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Combine charging turn statuses?

I think glowing, taking sunlight, and whipping whirlwind are very similar, so am I allowed to combine them into one heading? sumwun (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Doing something of that magnitude is definitely not allowed without explicit approval by a staff member. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I second Sumwun's idea, merging several categories that are actually the exact same mechanic totally makes sense. --Froggy25 (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Missing conditions

The page doesn't have information on these conditions: storing electricity (from charge), taking down foe (from destiny bond), electrified (from electrify), pumped (from focus energy), holding grudge (from grudge), stat split (from power split and guard split), ready to help (from helping hand), sealing (from imprison), laser focused (from laser focus), learned move (from mimic), powdered (from powder), power tricked (from power trick), postponed (from quash), roosting (from roost), stockpiled (from stockpile), transformed (from transform and imposter), and drowsy (from yawn). Am I allowed to add them in? Note that I don't know the official names of all of them. sumwun (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Most of those don't seem to merit being added in-
  • Charge doesn't affect anything but the power of the user's next move. It's not really an in-battle status.
  • Helping Hand is in the same boat-nothing changes about the user, the ally's move is just boosted.
  • Taking down a foe isn't a status condition at all-the user is fainting, they can't have a status condition.
  • Focus Energy doesn't change the user's status, it just increases their critical hit ratio. Changing stats is just stats, it's not any kind of status condition. (the same goes for the stat splits and power tricks)
  • Roost just changes the user's type, and while that does affect a lot in battle, it's not a status condition.

Not to say that all of these shouldn't go in-Imprison, Laser Focus, and Stockpile seem like they fit with stuff already there-but it's a little too specific to include some of them. TechSkylander1518 (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

None of those are status conditions...--ForceFire 03:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I think anything that Sun and Moon have a UI note for belongs on this page, unless it's a field effect or team effect (which would belong elsewhere). Well, I think the full list of all of the volatile conditions (including confusion and infatuation) belongs on a separate page to the actual (non-volatile) status conditions, but while they're here I think that would be a good baseline for inclusion (but not exclusion). --SnorlaxMonster 09:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, so I agree that stat split, power trick, and roost should be removed. The page defines "volatile battle status" as "A volatile battle status will wear off when a Pokémon is taken out of battle or a battle is over. Many of these will also wear off after a number of turns pass." All of the conditions I listed except for stat split, power trick, and roost fit the definition. sumwun (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Page reorganization / split proposal discussion

In response to the previous three sections, I've gone ahead and looked at what information the battle screen gives (according to the text dump), and I realized that this is finally something useful.

I would like to propose this page be split in three:

  1. Status condition: includes the non-volatile status conditions Burn, Freeze, Paralysis, Poison (incl. Bad Poison). *
  2. Field effect: includes affects not bound to specific Pokémon, like weather, terrains, Tailwind etc. Can probably be subdivided by whether the entire field or only one side is affected, and use some main links to weathers etc.
  3. In-battle effect: effects bound to specific Pokémon, like Confusion, Infatuation, Drowsy etc. Neatly, I think this also ends up as "Can be Baton Passed"!

I don't know about ideal names for the latter two, maybe there's something official somewhere. Maybe they're better as "Lists of", though. Or else I imagine them to at least have a template (similar to {{movedescentry}}) for each effect that says exactly what the status screen tells you. Also, note that some things currently here would be dropped entirely, like Defense Curl.

So, is this an idea that you guys support? (If so, I guess it's entirely useful that some of us, me included, speak non-English languages, which is where singular and plural of "Pokémon" show differently in descriptions, so groups 2 and 3 shouldn't be hard to tell apart based on text only.) Nescientist (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I support the idea, with some hesitation. I don't like the idea of losing Defense Curl as such an effect, since it is a unique flag that gets set on a Pokémon that has effects on its future actions, other than just a buff/debuff to a stat. This would be getting into defining what a status condition is and what counts as one, though, so the specifics should perhaps be saved for after there's a consensus on whether to reorganize or split the page in the first place. Xolroc (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Count me strongly in favor, with the caveat that I think instead of a broad title like "status condition", the first group should specifically be titled "non-volatile status condition." I haven't looked deeply into things, but from skimming various discussions, it seems to me that Game Freak sometimes uses "status condition" to mean different things at different times (sometimes just non-volatiles, sometimes also confusion, sometimes also infatuation, sometimes almost everything on the current page). Assuming that's the case and I haven't overlooked some recent paradigm shift, I'd prefer if the "status condition" page were a disambiguation page that directed viewers to the pages you've proposed. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, they often have open definitions, in that they leave things out. But (to my knowledge) whenever they say "status conditions", they mean at least non-volatile; what I have in mind is to just say exactly that to our readers. And I think we surely need a page titled "status condition".
Having "Can be Batton Passed" somewhere separate is a side goal (which, I guess apart from Substitute, it would be). I'm open for including non-Baton Pass things in a second section of the third article, however. (The more I dig into this, the more I seem to support that, actually. From a quick look, we would lose at least Flinch and Recharging, which is more than enough for me.) Nescientist (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm in favor of this splitting into "non-volatile" and "volatile". However, this page doesn't have information about field effects, so a field effects page would be more like a completely new page more than a split from this one. Also, stat changes fit all the definitions of volatile status condition, so would it count as one? sumwun (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I like the idea of the split, but I'm not the biggest fan of the name "In-battle effect", nor merging "Team effect" with "Field effect". "In-battle effect" sounds too broad for me, so something like "in-battle status" might be better; it makes it clearer that it applies to the specific Pokémon, not just any effect that applies in-battle.
I do have these two draft pages in my userspace (although they're probably out of date, since I made them years ago): User:SnorlaxMonster/StatusInfobox/Team effect and User:SnorlaxMonster/StatusInfobox/Battle status. The infobox was rejected by the Editorial Board, but the "battle status" page was approved for a split. Since there's not really a clear distinction between what this page calls "volatile battle status" and what it calls "volatile status" (esp. due to Spotlight inflicting center of attention), I think it would be better not to try and draw a distinction between the two.
Regarding Baton Pass, "Can't Escape" isn't passed by Baton Pass from Generation V onward, and "Autotomize" isn't either (the weight loss part at least). Also, I'm not sure if "Nightmare" and "Stockpile" can be Baton Passed (I believe they cannot, but haven't checked). I find it unlikely that "Fairy Lock", "Laser Focus", "Smack Down", "Trick-or-Treat" and "Forest's Curse" could be Baton Passed. "Water Sport"/"Mud Sport" are conditions that seem to affect the user in Gen III-V (so it might be possible to transfer with Baton Pass), whereas in Gen VI onward they are field effects. "Future Attack" is a special condition that transfers even if the Pokémon switches without using Baton Pass. Due to their nature, "Thrash", "Bide", "Taunt", "Uproar", and "Destiny Bond" cannot be Baton Passed.
Also, please be careful with relying too heavily on the text dump. I noticed that Petal Dance uses the "Thrash" status on the UI, so the "Petal Dance" status is actually unused (and I assume the same for "Outrage", but that would need to be checked). I would recommend confirming that each of these names are actually used in-game. --SnorlaxMonster 01:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
In which case, I think I'm gonna try to dig into in-battle effects/statuses and build something in my userspace, using SnorlaxMonster's page as a basis. Maybe I even find an official term in some move description (other than "moves like Leech Seed", which doesn't make for a good page title I guess). And yeah, the battle screen descriptions are apparently not as useful as I initially thought, but rahter an incomplete list of unrelated things (but they can still be helpful). I need to think of everything else, and will post when I have ideas. Nescientist (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome to change my pages, if you want. I intended to update them myself, but I haven't gotten around to it yet and probably won't for some time. If you do though, remember to remove the infoboxes. --SnorlaxMonster 05:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

(resetting indent) I've now tried to bring structure in there:

I've started a userpage with the in-battle effects here (tentative title). I would appreciate some input on the table above (or else I will go by what I wrote in parentheses). Also note that I might have missed things, so I will likely be adding that table here when I find more. EDIT 15:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC): added missed things in italics. Still, a second (third/fourth) qualified opinion would be appreciated.

What is the reason the template was rejected? Was it because of size, template design, or in general? I think structure and visual similarities are a good thing, and some template (or something visually similar) will only help (though I don't really like that particular template). Nescientist (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know who, but somebody should be able to answer, please. If there's not even a response, how can there be any progress? Nescientist (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
That's one of the reasons I don't contribute very often to Bulba. I'm fine with this template. --Froggy25 (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The talk page policy page says not to necropost "Unless an old conversation is still relevant and there is a good reason to revitalize discussion". Personally I think this is still incredibly relevant, and I thought I would offer a cleaned and completed version of the structure proposed before (note that the headings used for the Volatile Conditions article are largely arbitrary, I just included them for readability's sake):

I'm working on a table that lists which volatile status effects can be baton passed.

I'd also add a note about how certain conditions can be tied to another pokemon (Non-G-Max binds, Can't Escape, Infatuation, Sky Drop) such that when the other pokemon faints or switches out the condition is lost. Seeded is special as it is tied to a position, healing whatever pokemon occupies it.

Also also, something about how Court Change can swap the effects of all Side Field Effects other than Team Protections.

--Jump Drive (talk) 02:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, this page still looks kinda awful. (I've been of a mind that "statuses" only tied to one move maybe wouldn't need to be on here, but then they've frequently been recycled recently, so I can understand why this page became bigger and bigger. But first and foremost, I guess the page should be "simple".)
I'd be interested to see how potentially split pages would actually look like. I think we have several user pages regarding this (some are older than others, some are more complete than others), but maybe we can agree on what to use.
Also, I'd really advise to use official wording whenever possible. I think the UI or move/Ability descriptions now typically name these conditions (better than they did previously). Nescientist (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I'd suggest taking inspiration from this page User:TehPerson/Battle state it looks really good and covers the same amount of statuses in simpler, shorter form.--Rocket Grunt 21:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
We've had several user pages, so why not another! here's a very basic draft of a page for field effects and volatile status effects based on TehPerson's version. --Jump Drive (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Was originally jumping in here to give my thoughts, but this draft renders most of my points moot, so I'll comment on it instead. I'm not a fan of using "volatile state" and "transient state" as if they're official terms. Also, shouldn't status conditions be included on that page too? Stat modifiers make sense to be mentioned in the volatile section (the stat page already covers those iirc so we can just throw in a link to that), but I don't think form changes would be considered states/conditions/effects.
Overall it's a solid page, but it seems like it should really just be called "list of battle conditions" or something with the more complex details saved for the pages that are split from this one. (Which personally I think should be called "status condition" and "status change" based on how Masters labels them, unless someone has a different official name for what we currently call "volatile status conditions".) Storm Aurora (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Honestly I more think that field effects and volatile statuses should be seperate pages hence why I didn't include regular status conditions, i just grouped them on that draft to minimise userspace edits. A simple "list of battle conditions" is a good idea though, I have been thinking its pretty redundant to have information about weather and entry hazards both on a field effects page and on the main weather page... --Jump Drive (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Alright I've changed the draft to align more with the list idea, and I have to say i think you're right, it looks much cleaner and keeps the more detailed information on the main pages. I might change it to remove the subheadings under field effect and just combine them into 1 big table with columns for positions (all, side, single) and category (weather, terrain, entry hazard, protection). I'll have to try that out and see how it looks. --Jump Drive (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

GSC King's Rock

Bulbapedia's claim on how King's Rock works is incorrect -- see for a detailed description (original research, but source provided). However, this is perhaps a bit on the verbose side for Bulbapedia. Clearly, listing wrong information is a bad idea, but how should it be clarified? --FIQ (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess it's like Gen IV then: An arbitrary list of moves which are affected by it (which makes me concerned that Gen III might also be the same). For Gen IV, we link to the list on the archive of Smogon, but not only is that not really a good solution in the first place, it's not really practical in this case due to the lack of a list. For now, I would suggest modifying the wording to say "one of several moves" just like Gen IV on Evolution-inducing held item and in-battle effect item. This page could be tweaked to group Gen II with Gen IV (and specify the correct percentage).
In addition to my Gen III concerns, I also have concerns that Stadium 2 might differ. Since these are flags I would hope not, but there is a possibility (esp. with the seemingly arbitrary choices that are made).
However, I think the best solution here is going to be giving the King's Rock its own page and including the list of moves there. --SnorlaxMonster 13:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
According to UPC, the list is also arbitrary in Gen III. You can see that Hyper Voice cannot flinch with it (despite having no added effect) and DragonBreath can (despite having an added effect). --SnorlaxMonster 14:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
While I've generally not been a fan of the rather lacking information on details for how battle items work, wouldn't simply a "List of moves affected by King's Rock" article be enough in this case if retaining the current format is desired? Such a list could be made to include checkboxes for each generation, similar for learnsets across generations for a move. --FIQ (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I think that could be a reasonable solution. We should probably have similar lists for other move flags (like Magic Coat, Snatch, etc.). The problem with King's Rock is that it stopped being a move flag in Gen V. --SnorlaxMonster 15:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Names in other languages

None of the volatile conditions have their names even in Japanese listed anywhere on this site. Where could they be added? Dijek (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not believe that all of them are directly named so leave those for the moment being. The other ones should be listed here. --Raltseye prata med mej 22:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry not for replying earlier. I got these names from Ultra Moon, I don't know where to add them in the page. Where I used kanji, they are used somewhere in the game, but none of the statuses actually have kanji in their names in the battle summary. I only included translations where they are different from the English.
English Japanese
Bracing バインド bind
Can't Escape 逃げられない
Confusion 混乱
Curse のろい
Embargo さしおさえ sieze
Encore アンコール
Heal Block 回復ふうじ restore seal
Identified 見破られている thought read
Infatuation メロメロ madly in love
Leech Seed やどりのたね mistletoe seed
Nightmare 悪夢
Perish Song 道連れ take along by force
Taunt ちょうはつ
Telekinesis テレキネシス
Torment いちゃもん falsely accuse
Aqua Ring アクアリング
Rooting 根をはる spread roots
Taking Aim ロックオン lock on
Flinch specifically is a weird case; it is not attached to a specific move, but cannot be seen in the battle summary either. Many descriptions use forms of the verb ひるむ (flinch), especially ひるませる (to make to flinch). In battle, the message shown is POKEMONはひるんで技が出せない! (POKEMON flinches and can't use a move!) where POKEMON is the name of the pokemon. The conditions below have battle messages, but no name that can be seen:
English Japanese
Bracing POKEMONはこらえる体勢に入った! POKEMON entered a bracing pose!'
Center of Attention POKEMONは注目の的になった! POKEMON became the center of attention!
Glowing POKEMONを激しい光が包む! POKEMON is wrapped in harsh light!
Protection POKEMONは守り体勢に入った! POKEMON entered a protective pose!
Team Protection 味方の周りMOVEが守っている! MOVE is protecting around the allies!
Recharging POKEMONは攻撃の反動で動けない! POKEMON can't move due to the backlash"!
Taking in Sunlight POKEMONは光を吸収した! POKEMON sucked up light!
Withdrawing POKEMONは首を引っこめた! POKEMON withdrew its neck!
Whipping up a Whirlwind POKEMONは周りに空気を過ぎ巻く! POKEMON swirled up the surrounding air!"
All the rest of them only have the move they are associated with to be called by, except for spooked, which I don't know why is here, and semi-invulnerable, which I don't think has an official name in any language. - unsigned comment from Dijek (talkcontribs)

Still missing status conditions

Okay, so I went through Nescientist's list of status conditions and made a list of things that aren't mentioned in the article but I still think should count as volatile status conditions.

powder, quash, yawn, gastro acid/core enforcer, disable, lock-on/mind reader, perish song, smack down, throat chop, charge, destiny bond, electrify, focus energy, grudge, helping hand, imprison, laser focus, stockpile, transform/imposter, future sight/doom desire, bide, thrash/petal dance/outrage, autotomize, focus punch/beak blast/shell trap, rollout/ice ball, sky drop, snatch, rage, fury cutter, choice band/specs/scarf, unburden

Can someone either explain why they don't count as volatile status conditions or put up one of those Notice templates, like incomplete, on the article? sumwun (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


So, somebody wrote in the trivia section the following sentence: "None of the types with immunity to a status condition (with the exception of Ghost) have immunity to a type.". First of all, other than I personally finding this trivia pointless, it also makes no sense, since it points a pattern (no type immune to both another type and a status condition) and immediately says the pattern isn't followed. If anywhere at all, this trivia should be in the Ghost type page, saying it would be the only type immune to both a type and a condition. If not enough, this trivia is also wrong, given that the Steel type is immune to both the Poison type and the poison status condition. That said, a trivia like this with two exceptions would be even more pointless, so I will remove it right away. Just said all that as an explanation of why it was removed, in case someone wanted to put it back. Suic12- (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Status conditions and status changes

Pokémon Masters, which reuses most of the mechanics from the core series, explicitly splits between the six nonvolatile Status Conditions (paralyzed, poisoned, badly poisoned, burned, asleep, frozen), also noting how only one of these can be active at a time, and the volatile Status Changes (e.g. Confused). Did the latters have a name previously?—Mister Wu (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. However, as I noted above, Confused is also called a status condition by a quiz in Cyllage City. (Please also see my discussion with SnorlaxMonster, where he basically argued that it's not.) Nescientist (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Effectively, the official Pokémon Video Game Glossary doesn’t distinguish between the two and name them Status Conditions. Looks like this distinction is very recent, after all in Pokémon Masters there is one trainer move, We’re Standing Strong!, that specifically heals and protects against status conditions, but not status changes, plus that game has a guide describing the various aspects of the game, so probably because of these reasons they finally decided to better distinguish the two and name the latters. Still, it would be interesting to know if the Gen VIII official guides kept this distinction - that ultimately stems from the main games.—Mister Wu (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't see anything in the glossary that indicates that "status condition" refers to anything more than the Big Five. I would guess that you're referring to the line "Some status conditions will go away on their own, while others must be healed with items or at a Pokémon Center", but my interpretation of that is that the status conditions that go away on their own that it's referring to are sleep and freeze. It doesn't give a name to other in-battle effects either, but I'd be happy to borrow terminology from Masters if we have nothing else. --SnorlaxMonster 10:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Admittedly I likely have interpreted that line wrong; I had thought that because Confused, Cursed and Infatuation are considered condition in the glossary, but in the descriptions of Status Conditions it’s way more likely that they were referring to the Asleep and Frozen conditions as conditions that go away on their own. In any case, that same glossary clearly states that Asleep, Burned, Frozen, Paralyzed and Poisoned are status conditions, so in case the oddly specific distinction of Masters (that also puts Badly Poisoned as a distinct status condition from Poisoned, complete with different icon) isn’t brought over to the main series, as a first distinction we might still distinguish between the volatile conditions and the non-volatile status conditions, with Flinching being an oddity since the glossary calls it effect (while the guide of Masters puts it among the status changes, likely due to the different Flinching mechanics there).—Mister Wu (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

As an aid to the above discussion, to better make parallels between Masters and the main games and see whether or not the Status Changes term can be applied more broadly, here is what is listed in Masters as Status Conditions and Status Changes:

Status Conditions

  • Poisoned
  • Badly Poisoned
  • Paralyzed
  • Burned
  • Asleep
  • Frozen

Status Changes

  • Confused
  • Flinching
  • Trapped
  • No Evasion
  • Type Resistance
  • Enduring
  • Gradual Healing
  • Condition Nullification
  • Sure Hit Next
  • Critical Hit Next

Some of the status changes are of course specific to Masters, which is also currently missing a few from the main games.—Mister Wu (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Badly poisoned is just a type of being poisoned. Similarly, Rest causes a Pokémon to fall asleep for precisely 2 turns, whereas most sleep-inducing moves put a Pokémon to sleep for a randomly determined duration. Masters handles it differently, but I don't want to worry about that too much with respect to the core series.
Anyway, I think you might be reading too much into my statement that we should borrow terminology from Masters. My suggestion is basically just to use status condition to exclusively refer to the Big Five (sleep, poison, burn, freeze, paralysis) and make a separate "status effect" page where we document things like confusion and curse. Either something like Nescientist's draft page (where I expanded the Aqua Ring section), or even giving each status effect its own page (like the Chinese and Japanese wikis do). --SnorlaxMonster 08:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I’m sorry that I wasn’t clear. Since this distinction exists in the coding of the core series since sone time, the point of this discussion was to know whether the terminology distinction came from core series material as well, but it currently doesn’t seem to be the case. I personally like the list by Nescientist, some effects that exists since a long time might get their own page, too.—Mister Wu (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Confusion Pictures

With the GIFs showing Confusion throughout each generation, Generation VIII's image(s) is just a .png of a Bronzong and a Galarian Meowth with no movement and no text. I'm pretty sure this was either uploaded incorrectly or in error. Pseudonym (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Nope, it's not meant to be animated. The 3D games screenshots (so, Gen VI onwards) are not animated because the filesizes would be too large and will put stress on the servers.--ForceFire 05:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Still, shouldn't it at least show something directly relating to the effect? Like a screenshot of a Pokémon hitting themself due to confusion? Pseudonym (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
The birds floating above the head is a far more better visual representation of confusion. A Pokemon getting hit is way too vague.--ForceFire 16:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Badly poisoned

Is being Badly Poisoned volatile or non-volatile? Badly Poisoned reverts to Poisoned after a battle, but Poisoned doesn't go away outside of battle. Would you mind clearing this up for me? GalarChamp Cinderace (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

"Badly poisoned" shares more in common with non-volatile than volatile status. It doesn't heal when the Pokemon switches out, it prevents the Pokemon from getting a different non-volatile status, and it can be healed by everything that heals all other non-volatile status. So I think it's simpler to treat it as a non-volatile status. sumwun (talk, contribs) 15:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
"Badly poisoned" is volatile in some games, in the sense that it turns into regular poison. But that varies between generations. It's more useful to just distinguish between "status conditions" and other status effects. "Badly poisoned" is a variant of the status condition "poisoned". --SnorlaxMonster 03:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! It was kinda confusing me. GalarChamp Cinderace (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


This page really should be split into two or three different artices.--Rocket Grunt 17:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, if there are things like charging turn, shouldn't there also be the status of being forced a move like Outrage, or chip damage of G-Max Vine Lash like in Nightmare, or being drowsy?--Rocket Grunt 17:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't think this page should be split, care to explain your reasoning? Every time I personally checked this page I was interested in both kinds of status conditions, and the first time I was unaware of the two nomenclatures. To me it seems that splitting it would cause far more confusion than solve anything. But I do agree that those other situations may merit their own entries here.Monteparnas (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
This has got to be the most confusing article I've seen on this website. This reads more like a mass shooter manifesto than a neatly organized encyclopedia article. It took me 10 minutes just to figure out the basic terminology because the relevant information is so dispersed throughout this page. We should definitely be looking for opportunities to split this into shorter, more digestible articles. Regarding Monteparnas's objection, I don't think that's a very good reason to keep all this information together. For comparison, most people who come to this wiki for Metal Coat are probably also coming here for Scizor or Steelix, but I don't think that's a good reason to fuse the Steelix and Metal Coat articles. That would be a needlessly confusing way to organize an encyclopedia. I think there are two ways we could handle this: 1.) Create a section in this article with "Battle status" as the heading and a couple sentences explaining what it means, but include "Main article: Battle status" as a hat-note. 2.) Just explain in the summary at the top of this article that battle statuses are closely related to status conditions, and include a hyperlink in "battle status" so that users can jump to that page if interested. --Smikes (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

One-Move Status, or Status-Like Moves

For the sake of organization and cleaning of the page, I suggest the addition of a simple list of the Moves with "status-like" effects whose effects are found exclusively in that move, like Nightmare, Telekinesis and Aqua Ring, and the removal of the related "Status Conditions". If a condition is caused by a single move in the entire game, it makes more sense to just refer to that move's page instead of trying to codify all of them here.Monteparnas (talk) 02:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that when a condition is caused by only one move, it's redundant to describe it here and on that move's page. sumwun (talk, contribs) 13:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Redundancy isn't always a bad thing, and I feel like statuses/status-like effects should reasonably be detailed on a page called "status condition".
I also feel that how many moves/effects cause them is largely irrelevant; if burn or drowziness were only caused by a single move, for example, they would still be as "status". Nescientist (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I don't know how to add the list, can someone do it for me? Champion Averie, signing off! (Need anything?) 13:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Poison damage at the end of the turn.

In Gen 3 onwards, poison, burn and other damage caused by moves (Leech Seed, Curse when used by Ghost, etc) are taken at the end of the turn. However, in Gen 3, if the Pokémon that is burned or poisoned knocks the opponents out, it will take damage after the trainer sends out a new Pokémon, otherwise, no BRN or PSN damage is taken if the Pokémon with this status is switched out. Was it fixed in Gen IV, V or idk in which a Pokémon will take PSN or BRN damage before the trainer sends a new Pokémon out? TogekissFan4956 (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Transient Status Conditions

The article for Flinch describes it as "a transient status condition in which a Pokémon becomes unable to execute a move for one turn."

I think "Transient Status Condition" would be a good new category for the single turn status conditions that people have been debating over the inclusion of.

I would suggest adding it as a new heading and including After You, Center of attention, Destiny Bond, Electrify, Flinch, Grudge, Helping Hand, Ion Deluge, Magic Coat, Powder, Quash, Roost and Snatch under it, with a Protection subheading for Baneful Bunker, Detect, King's Shield, Max Guard, Obstruct, Protect, Spiky Shield, and i guess Endure.

EDIT: Just realised that Focus Punch, Beak Blast, Shell Trap would also fall under this category. --Jump Drive (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Knock Off

The move Knock Off removes/disables the target's held item, kind of like embargo, which means it should probably be a status condition.

The problem is... Knock Off isn't lost on switching out. Which is kinda the definition of a volatile status condition.

It weirdly seems to be its own third unique category, a semi-volatile status condition that isn't lost on switching out but also isn't preserved between battles.

I'm pretty sure this is the only effect that acts this way, but I'll have to check through the rest of the damaging moves to see if that's the case.

Not sure where to put it so I've left it out for now. Thoughts? --Jump Drive (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

It's no more a status condition than using your held item is, so personally I don't think it belongs on this page. Storm Aurora (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
On the one hand, yes it's similar to using items, or to losing HP actually.
On the other hand, before Generation V (as far as I can tell), it's actually using a separate data structure which stores if any party slot's item has been knocked off.
I guess you can argue in many ways: that it's similar to using an item (and is not a status); that it's as status-y as a non-volatile status for the duration of the battle; or that it's a state of the battle itself.
I guess the first one is most consistent to the post Gen V behavior, so I'm inclined to agree with Storm Aurora. Nescientist (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Unofficial Divisions

Hold on, I thought this wiki has to use official names for everything. This page is dividing the status conditions by a bundle of unofficial categories, like Major, Next Turn, Transient and Priming. None of those are official words, right? The game just names these after the move with no overarching categorization. (With the exception of the Wraps and Fire Spins of the world because of the Binding Band and Grip Claw.) Doesn't this mean that we can't sort these concepts by those terms unless they are clearly marked as conjectural terms that are fully made up for wiki organization reasons? Salmancer (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that we can never use conjectural names in section headers. In fact, I think most section headers are going to be some level of conjectural. However, in the specific case of this page, I tend to agree that the categorization being applied here isn't great. I think it makes sense to have some level of grouping ("transient" in particular should be separated from long-term status conditions). But IMO it would be better to group them by broad functional properties, not categorizing them by effect. What I mean by that is that status effects that show up on the UI should be grouped together, and things that don't (e.g. Power Trick, Ability change) are generally fundamentally different. But I really dislike vague categories like "Next Turn" and "Effectiveness".
Also, more generally, I think this page really needs a bunch of content split out of it. I made a draft for theoretically splitting Drowsy (the condition caused by Yawn, not to be confused with the status condition in Legends: Arceus) a few years ago, and I think that kind of approach could really help this mess of a page. --SnorlaxMonster 11:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
It's "Major" that's the massive red flag, because when you say that it kind of has to be backed up by other places (which don't have to be official necessarily) saying that these are the important ones. Because otherwise, what makes Substitute major that Automatize doesn't have? The other ones could instead be worded to be less name like, which makes it more clear they're grouped by effect. For example: "Conditions that have effects on the next turn" is more clearly not a name than "Next Turn" and "Conditions that only affect the current turn" is more clearly not a name than "transient".
Would a split of certain conditions really help? These are all conditions, so a page that is a list of all conditions still has to show them even if they have main articles. The "voltileness" split would have an effect, but not popping a couple of conditions out because they still have to be listed here. Salmancer (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree that descriptive section headers would be more clear. Landfish7 18:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
I support making the section headers more descriptive. As for SnorlaxMonster's suggestion, if all the details about the conditions were put on individual pages, then this page could be simplified to having just a table for each section instead of having a ridiculous number of sub-headers that each has like one or two sentences in it. Storm Aurora (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Return to "Status condition" page.