Talk:Type

The Bird & ??? types

I added Bird and ??? type to the template. Although they are not really conventional types. I do think they should be included, maybe you should seperate them a little? I really can't get my head round metawiki's silly table formatting code. - Ferret 21:26, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Disagree with including Bird, but the ??? I can concur with. Evkl 21:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bird should probably be linked to in the Glitch article then. Can you take it out of the template? I'ld only screw it up. o_o - Ferret 21:31, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying, and...well, screwing it up. XD

I think that the Bird type needs to come out of the table and for the ??? to go under the other special types so that the table is symmetrical. It's not really neccessary to make explicit reference to the Bird type in the table if its a type that isn't meant to appear in normal gameplay. Also, the ??? page doesn't exist and should it include the Missingno.s in RSE where they are repesented by the ? enclosed by a circle?

That's weird I had made the ??? page, look in my contributions. Looks like metaiwki doesn't like the question marks... - Ferret 08:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

k then what does "The (type) type is one of the seventeen elemental types." need to be changed to? Nineteen, eighteen, or leave it? --Jshadias 10:11, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Methinks they need to be separated from the main 17 and listed separately... -- 刘 (劉) 振霖 10:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, the BIRD type has been removed - it only needs to be mentioned in maybe one of the game mechanics pages or in a missingno. article.

I think that the ??? isn't a type to itself - its more a lack of a type. So really ??? shouldn't be classed as a type because it has no defining features like pokemon to represent it, no type weaknesses and resistances and the Curse changes effect with types and does no damage at all.

Curse does indirect damage when used by Ghost-types. Evkl 01:46, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, indirect damage. ??? has no effect other than display. Curse could be grass type and still do the exact same thing. --Jshadias 01:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is minor, but shouldn't the "normal" elements be listed as "physical" elements? Is not that the generally accepted term for the opposite of the special elements?--ANinyMouse 06:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The ??? type DOES have a Pokémon to represent it.*cough*Arceus*cough*--Frostagin 18:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Several people here have expressed (to greater or lesser degrees) that they think there should only be said to be a total of 17 types as they believe the ???-type isn't really a type. However, this wiki should really be based more on the fact (as opposed to people's beliefs) and the fact is ??? appears in the type category for pokémon eggs in gen III. It also has a move and Arceus can technically turn into it. Does that not make it a type? What else does it really need?

Therefore, based on all the evidence before us I reckon the page should state there are 18 types to include ???. Does anyone have any problems with that??? Wikid 00:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Meh, that was from practically a year ago, and it is one of my stupidest edits. And also, to future readers, please don't edit this conversation again, because bumps are bad.if a conversation is more than a month old, then adding would be a bump.Or so I've found through the site.Frostagin 01:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

From the Pokemon Black and White page, "The ??? type has been removed, with Curse becoming a Ghost-type move," so shouldn't this be removed from the elemental types or put somewhere else like "Discontinued Type"? --ShawnFrost 04:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

In Pokémon XD, there is one damage dealing ???-type move (Weather Ball during a shadow sky), so it should still be a type. EnosShayrem 04:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig?

Should this be moved to "Elemental types (game)", so that the main page can be converted into a disambig for the TCG one? --TTEchidna 21:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if you do that, it'd still be confusing because they're both games, persey . . . aren't types more often refered to as "Energy Types" in the TCG anyways? --Zeta 21:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, they are. --Paperfairy ☆ ・ 23:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Then should Elemental types (TCG) move to Energy types (TCG)? --TTEchidna 00:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say... just "Type (TCG)" seems good enough. That's all it's actually called, anyway. Well, that and "Color." I'd just go with "Type (TCG)." -Happy Mask Man 01:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, most just call the GB types types... --TTEchidna 23:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Added a little known fact

Ah yes, it appears this fact I added is not very widely known, so I figured I'd post a little comment to let everyone know I'm not making this up. ^__^

I was randomly paging through my Pokemon Gold/Silver Player's Guide: the official one released by Nintendo, it has this really cool drawing of Lugia and Ho-oh on the cover and- I digress. Anyway, on the last page it features the type chart, with next to it some explanation about attack damage multipliers. Among the obvious ones about effectiveness of the types, it also mentioned "Damage x 1.5 when the attack type is the same type as the Pokemon that's using it".

Since this is the official guide, I do assume this is indeed a confirmed fact for the Gold and Silver series; it'll likely also work in Crystal. I proceeded to test said finding in Ruby and Fire Red and found that it applied there too. For reference, in Ruby I used the example stated in the paragraph I added with the Aron. In Fire Red I used an Ekans with the Poison Sting and Wrap attacks.

Still requiring confirmation: Japanese versions of the games Original Red/Blue series New Diamond and Pearl editions Spinoffs such as Mystery Dungeon

I'll leave that spot of research to the real Pokémaniacs. (read: I'll leave checking this to the ones who DO own and/or can afford said games. ^__^;; )

--Democalypse 18:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Items such as Metal Coat and Charcoal now boost moves of their designated type by 20%, an increase from the previous 10%. --ANinyMouse 13:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That Damage x 1.5 thing is known among the fandom as STAB, Same-Type Attack Bonus. If it wasn't in there already... I dunno why not.

And the Hold Item boost thing's now 20%? Is that as of DP? --TTEchidna 17:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I remembered that term for it just now, thanks for editing it into the text. ^__^ Haven't come across it a lot though; because of that I was mistaken into thinking it was a less known feature. =S My apologies for the sillyness. ^^;

--Democalypse 23:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it's cool. --TTEchidna 23:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, as of D/P the type-specific items boost 20% instead of 10%. Makes them somewhat worthwhile on heavey hitters. --ANinyMouse 14:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Singular over plural?

We do it with Plate and others, why's this still plural? TTEchidna 09:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Year-and-a-half-old bump. Any reason not to move it? --((Marton imos)) 23:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A possible idea for dual types

Instead of making seperate lists for "Primary (type)-type Pokémon" and "Secondary (type)-type Pokémon", how about we have just one list? For example, with Normal, it'd be like this:

#	Sprite	Name	Types
016		Pidgey	Normal	Flying
017		Pidgeotto	Normal	Flying
018		Pidgeot	Normal	Flying
021		Spearow	Normal	Flying
022		Fearow	Normal	Flying
083		Farfetch'd	Normal	Flying
084		Doduo	Normal	Flying
085		Dodrio	Normal	Flying
163		Hoothoot	Normal	Flying
164		Noctowl	Normal	Flying
176		Togetic	Normal	Flying
203		Girafarig	Normal	Psychic
276		Taillow	Normal	Flying
277		Swellow	Normal	Flying
333		Swablu	Normal	Flying
396		Starly	Normal	Flying
397		Staravia	Normal	Flying
398		Staraptor	Normal	Flying
400		Bibarel	Normal	Water
441		Chatot	Normal	Flying
468		Togekiss	Normal	Flying

Currently, it's like this:

Primary Normal-type Pokémon

#	Sprite	Name	Types
016		Pidgey	Normal	Flying
017		Pidgeotto	Normal	Flying
018		Pidgeot	Normal	Flying
021		Spearow	Normal	Flying
022		Fearow	Normal	Flying
083		Farfetch'd	Normal	Flying
084		Doduo	Normal	Flying
085		Dodrio	Normal	Flying
163		Hoothoot	Normal	Flying
164		Noctowl	Normal	Flying
176		Togetic	Normal	Flying
203		Girafarig	Normal	Psychic
276		Taillow	Normal	Flying
277		Swellow	Normal	Flying
333		Swablu	Normal	Flying
396		Starly	Normal	Flying
397		Staravia	Normal	Flying
398		Staraptor	Normal	Flying
400		Bibarel	Normal	Water
441		Chatot	Normal	Flying
468		Togekiss	Normal	Flying

Secondary Normal-type Pokémon

None.

We could also adjust it for the types that do have secondary Pokémon of that type. For example, it'd be like this for Fighting:

#	Sprite	Name	Types
062		Poliwrath	Water	Fighting
214		Heracross	Bug	Fighting
256		Combusken	Fire	Fighting
257		Blaziken	Fire	Fighting
286		Breloom	Grass	Fighting
307		Meditite	Fighting	Psychic
308		Medicham	Fighting	Psychic
391		Monferno	Fire	Fighting
392		Infernape	Fire	Fighting
448		Lucario	Fighting	Steel
453		Croagunk	Poison	Fighting
454		Toxicroak	Poison	Fighting
475		Gallade	Psychic	Fighting

Currently, it's like this:

Primary Fighting-type Pokémon

#		Name	Type 1	Type 2
307		Meditite	Fighting	Psychic
308		Medicham	Fighting	Psychic
448		Lucario	Fighting	Steel

Secondary Fighting-type Pokémon

#		Name	Type 1	Type 2
062		Poliwrath	Water	Fighting
214		Heracross	Bug	Fighting
256		Combusken	Fire	Fighting
257		Blaziken	Fire	Fighting
286		Breloom	Grass	Fighting
391		Monferno	Fire	Fighting
392		Infernape	Fire	Fighting
453		Croagunk	Poison	Fighting
454		Toxicroak	Poison	Fighting
475		Gallade	Psychic	Fighting

I think my version is much better, because it saves us the time of making 2 lists for dual types, while still allowing people to see the primaries and secondaries. Discuss. ^Chocolate 22:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If there are no oppositions by tomorrow, I'll apply this new format to the type pages. ^Chocolate 01:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

See, you say this'll "save us the time of making two tables," but the tables are made. Doing this will only take more time.

At any rate, I can't see any real advantage to doing it... why do you think it's a good idea? --((Marton imos)) 01:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Because it saves the reader the time of looking at two tables for dual types. We can easily fit all the information into one. ^Chocolate 01:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. And also saves time for adding new Pokémon for the next Gen. And unless there's any actual difference between being Primary- and Secondary-typed, I vote for merging. Heck, I would gladly do that! =D -- Professional Mole (Talk here) 22:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Stat averages

I was thinking we should list the stat averages of not only all Pokémon of the type, but also all fully evolved Pokémon of the type. Does anyone else think we should do this?- unsigned comment from Giga Hand (talk • contribs)

Actually, that's a good idea. Care to calculate this? TTEchidna 08:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Secondary/Primary

I think it deserves its own section: is there any actual difference, game-wise, if the Pokémon is primary-typed or secondary-typed? I fail to see any... -- Professional Mole (Talk here) 22:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

We at Poképédia are actually discussing on that matter on the IRC-chan : what's the big difference between Lapras being Water-Ice and Spheal being Ice-Water ? Did Game Freak put the types "randomly" (wich I doubt, as we could almost rename these guys "Stats-Freaks" considering their evergrowing work on the series...) ? If anyone could bring some answer to that deep mystery, it would greatly be appreciated --InvocK 23:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The order matters for the data, as in, it's wrong to call Lapras an Ice/Water Pokémon, but there's no difference in STAB or weaknesses as far as I've seen. TTEchidna 02:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

2 things

1.) This page is starting to look like a project's talk page. Would it be a bad idea to make a Bulbapedia project on the elemental types?

2.) Do we have pages for each type that list all the moves of that type. If we don't, it would be a good idea to start that.

-- Landfish⁷ 16:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Nvm about #2. He he -- Landfish⁷ 21:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would be. There are 17 articles to cover, not including the glitch articles which are covered by GlitchDex anyway. There is no need for a project with such small a scope. —darklordtrom 21:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-damaging moves

Is it REALLY necessary to have a cat that states it's Status? I mean, they're all the same... ^ht14 03:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean this? We have this and this, so it makes sense to have one for status moves. —darklordtrom 08:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I didn't mean category. I mean column. Under the Status section of a move type such as this under the non-damaging moves section, there is a list of moves that have the status category. Isn't that implied that these moves are of the Status category? ^ht14 02:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hrm. Yeah, it would be. I like having them separated; it makes searching easier. I wouldn't be opposed to mashing them together, though, or perhaps doing three subsections for each category. —darklordtrom 08:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Index numbers

What are the index numbers for the types?--Stuart P. Bentley 19:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

In the order they are on the template, as far as I know. Go down the first column, the down the second. Don't count ???, I think that's last. TTEchidna 04:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

All the Combinations

This is mostly for reference in this talk page, and doesn't directly assist the actual page, but it is important information nevertheless.

Eventually we are going to get close to having every type combination covered. So, here's some information.

With the current amount types, there is a total of 272 + 17 different type combinations (counting Ground/Dragon Flygon and Dragon/Ground Garchomp as separate). If we are to ignore these duplications, there is only 136 + 17.

I won't list them all here (for sake of space!) but I think this is important. Do we have a page with all the possible type combinations yet?

BTW - The math used for this kind of thing is called a permutation. -- ^Pokémaniac_John (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I like this, so I added it to the page. —darklordtrom 22:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Origin of type match-ups

"Why are Bug-type moves super-effective towards Psychic-types?" "Why is it that Steel-type moves don't do as much against Water-types?"

I'm sure many, many people wonder this. As a Wikia, it's our job to educate the public, so I think that each type-page should have its section of why its match-ups are what it is. I'd imagine it'd work nicely being set up like this in the Grass-type page:

Type Match-up Origins

Offensive

Super-effective

• Plants often spread their root system throughout the ground.
• In some cases, weeds will be able to grow through the thin layers of concrete or stones, despite their density. Moss is also commonly found on rocks, completely covering them up.
• Grass is known to absorb large amounts of rainwater and manage to stay healthy. To add, water is actually needed in the process of photosynthesis, and some plants can even live underwater.

Not very effective

• Very few plants manage to prey on insects or hinder the mobility of bugs, due to their habits of eating plants.
• Certain reptilian animals aren't at disadvantages when in their respective plant-filled environments.
  • Dragon-types are often considered to be reptilian in nature.
• Since plants create oxygen, flames are only stronger when around grassy and forest areas.
• Aside from several poisonous plants, no known type of plant can actually hurt birds. To add, birds often make nests inside of trees or on their branches.
  • Birds are usually associated with Flying-types.
• Trees cannot be planted too close to eachother, or else their roots will absorb too much of the liquid in the ground, and therefore wilt.
  • Explanation of why Grass-type moves are not very effective towards Grass-types.
• Plant-life not not often found in noxious environments.
• Regardless of the strength of the plant, roots cannot penetrate plates of steel.

Defensive

Resistances

• Wood is known to be nonconducting to electricity.
• Plants cannot move on their own, and therefore cannot attack other plants.
  • Explanation as to why Grass-types resist Grass-type attacks.
• Regardless if the ground is wet or dry, or hard or soft, plant-life can always grow if in the right climate conditions.
• Rain, if not acidic and in average amounts, cannot kill fields of grass.

Weaknesses

• Insects often eat leaves and other plants in their diets.
• Fire is stronger when provided with oxygen, which is exactly what flowers provide.
• Birds, such as crows, will often attack farm crops for food, often destroying said crops.
• Cold environments are often unsuitable for plants to grow. Flowers will wilt and trees will lose their leaves in Winter.
• Pesticides, weed-killers, and other toxins, will poison and kill plants if not used in a proper manner.- unsigned comment from Frushil! (talk • contribs)

We aren't a Wikia. 梅子^❀_✿ 03:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, even then, the Bublapedia name suggests the same thing, though. Frushil! 03:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't really get what you're trying to say. Anyway, it's all speculation, so no, that is not getting added to any articles. 梅子^❀_✿ 03:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

One can just as easily say that the origin and name origin sections of Pokemon articles are speculation as well. There is reason behind many of the type match ups, so it should be added, even if it's just to cover a few of the match-up reasonings.

Of course, you having more authority than me, I accept your decision knowing that my opinion doesn't make much of a difference anyway. Frushil! 03:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Difference between Primary and Secondary types

I'm not 100% sure about what I'm about to say because I haven't confirmed it with the whole Pokémon list, but I'm bringing it here so others may comment.

I believe the only difference between Primary and Secondary types is mostly due to the basics of the Pokémon in question: Primary type is what it will always be, while Secondary type may change.

Example: Surskit is a Bug/Water type. It will always be a Bug, even after evolution, but as it evolves it's Secondary type no longer applies.

This would also explain why Flying types are always secondary, as they are only "flying" when in flight. Otherwise, when on land, they are simply what their Primary-type defines (Pidgeys are Normal, Zapdos is Electric, and so on).

I believe the games assume Flying-type Pokémon are always airborne when in battle, but it would be interesting to see if, in future generations, they add the option to tell a flying Pokémon to land, hence "losing" its Flying-type temporarily (for strategic reasons).

Anyway, this is just a theory. If I missed any evidence of it being otherwise, let me know :)

EDIT: Actually, I just noticed that there ARE some exceptions, where it's the Primary-type that changes in evolution, but so far that only seems to happen when you use an unusual form of evolution (like Onix losing its Rock-type into Steel-type when trading it with a particular item). This seems to hint that both types can change, but the Primary-type refers to the nature of the Pokémon (harder to change), while the Secondary-type is mostly a complementary part of its existence.

Raven-14 12:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, all of that is speculation, which means it doesn't belong on the wiki. You could bring it up on the forums, however. --Andy^P_K^M_N (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Type Ordering

Can someone please explain why the types are listed in this order:

Normal Fighting Flying Poison Ground Rock Bug Ghost Steel Fire Water Electric Psychic Ice Dragon Dark

The ordering is messed up & completely wrong, the ordering used in the manual of Red/Blue, & the Diamond/Pearl Poketch type matchup application, & probably other official sources is this:

Normal Fire Water Electric Grass Ice Fighting Poison Ground Flying Psychic Bug Rock Ghost Dragon Dark Steel

Since this is the official ordering, should this not be the order Bulbapedia uses? If it is due to the former Physical/Special split then it really needs to be changed as it is 4 years out of date. Vuvuzela2010 21:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Go into the Pokédex in any Gen IV game and search by type. The list of selections comes up in the following order:

1. Normal
2. Fighting
3. Flying
4. Poison
5. Ground
6. Rock
7. Bug
8. Ghost
9. Steel
10. Fire
11. Water
12. Grass
13. Electric
14. Psychic
15. Ice
16. Dragon
17. Dark

As you can see, GameFreak themselves have maintained the prior ordering in the generation four games, so Bulbapedia did the same. Werdnae (talk) 00:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

My fail, I have just checked the Pokedex in Gen II, III & IV, & while the Gen II order is the Normal Fire etc, the Gen III/IV order is Normal Fighting etc. Odd that they would use the new order for the Dex & the old one for the Poketch. I have not checked the Gen V Dex however. Vuvuzela2010 11:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Any others?

I was just curious, are there any other types, that if mixed together into a duel-typed Pokémon together, would be like Dark/Ghost types in terms of resistance. If so, is it worth noting? --Bee § Bwakka 22:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Not with types alone. However a pure electric type with Levitate would also have no weaknesses. Werdnae (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Castform's Forms

Shouldn't they be listed too? We list every other differently-typed form. XVuvuzela2010X 18:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Move

I don't see why this page is at elemental type. I have never heard it called this by any official source. I have always heard it called simply "type", or in the Official Pokémon Handbook (which is Generation I, and all subsequent Official Pokémon Handbooks use "type"), "element". I do hope that this is not the reason for the page title, since Generation I can't really be trusted for official terms anymore (Clefaries anyone?). --SnorlaxMonster 09:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Hardly any sources use element or elemental type. Blastoiseboy19^(Talk) was here at 19:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I've wondered about this as well..... Ikarishipper900 03:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice catch, Snorlax - I have never heard it referred even as element. I have to say that "elemental type" seems like a general term for this kind of thing (for games in general), and was probably titled with that in mind, maybe. I vote that it should be moved/redirected to "Type". Jdthebud 06:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I vote that it not be moved. Type used to refer to species, and still is in some cases. Type can also refer to contest stats and other things.Jdrawer 05:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

In Tracey Gets Bugged, Tracey says "Murcott Island is famous for having tons of Bug element Pokémon". So it has been mentioned officially somewhat in the anime at least. And I believe it has been mentioned somewhere before in the games but I have no evidence of it. Just that. But then again, the word was being use as a replacement for the word type. --ケンジのガール 05:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh wait... Just read that you don't want to count Generation I as valid anymore. Never mind then. --ケンジのガール 05:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't normally contribute to this kind of discussion, but I would like to show my support for this move. While 'element' is used in some forms of media (e.g. the animé example given above), 'Type' is the official wording used across all Pokémon canon. --Tehb0ll0x 16:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I support this move-it makes more sense to call it just simply "type"Luxraychu 22:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Contest "types" are never referred to as types (except on the glitch Pokémon that has them as types) - they are referred to as contest categories or contest conditions. Species was only ever called "type" in the fist Pokémon Handbook, and subsequent handbooks have fixed this. I have never heard the term "elemental type" used in any Pokémon canon at all. "Type", however, is almost always used, with the extremely short list of exceptions mentioned right here. --SnorlaxMonster 15:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I support the move. I have never heard it called "elemental type" it has always just been "Type". Plus most links to this page in other articles say "type". PkmnChmp5 05:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Type, in my eyes, has always been short for "elemental type". So. Disagreeing. TTEchidna 09:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If it had been called elemental type, I would agree, but it never has. We should go by what is official, and that is "type". --SnorlaxMonster 10:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I've never seen it called "elemental type" anywhere. I support the move. Shaymin_492 20:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

They are called elements in this sticker set (close-up image). There are Gen II and IV versions of the same set, but I wouldnt know if they also refer to the types as elements. XVuvuzela2010X 21:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"Element" is just Generation I terminology. I have seen it used in quite a few Gen I situations (although not as often as type). "Element" was used in A Sneak Peek at Pokémon too. However, the more common term is and always has been "type", and is the only term to be used since Gen I. I think we should mention how the term "element" was interchangeable with type in Generation I, but "elemental type is just incorrect as it has never been used officially anywhere. --SnorlaxMonster 23:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

So, it's basically some old, separate mentions from Gen I VS every episode, chapter, game, card and Pokémon.com & other official sites -situation. And in my eyes, Mt. Moon has always been short for "Mount Moon". But I don't want to move it, because it's "Mt. Moon" in games, game guides, manga and TCG.--電禅Den Zen 08:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't. Nuff said. --☆ヨッシ ー の世界☆ 21:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Nuff said? The games haven't once referred to them as elemental types. If they wanted it to be called that, you'd think they'd use that terminology in the tutorial for types in each game, where they have the chance to elaborate on things like this. Personally, I think it should be moved. - Blazios _talk 21:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree. Dragon, Bug, Ghost and Fighting are NOT elemental. - unsigned comment from Acellutor (talk • contribs)

It should be moved because none of the types are actual elements. Mothim will rule all! 02:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC) 12/24/11 9:08 p. m. ET

While I think it should be moved, they are called "elemental" because they are elements in the fictional sense, not the scientific sense. --SnorlaxMonster 16:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason why this hasn't been moved yet? Seems like it has support from numerous people (myself included). Either way, I think a clear decision should be made to move it or not. --Jdthebud 05:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Once again, is there a reason this can't be moved? I've never heard element or elemental type outside of here, only type, and we have the names of the pages for each type, too (e.g. Normal-type). --Darth Zekrom 18:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Question.

I have a question. Which non-Steel type Pokémon has most resistanceS? I forgot which one it was ._. Marked +-+-+ 20:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Items and Abilities

Wouldn't it be a good idea to include a section on each individual type's page that lists all the items and abilities that boost or reduce the power of that type, and how much by. Also, it would be good to include abilities that prevent certain types of moves from working e.g. levitate. So fire's might look like:

Offensive

Item	Power Modification
Flame Plate	x1.2

Ability	Power Modification
Blaze	x1.5

Defensive

Ability	Damage Modification
Dry Skin	x1.25

or something like that. I just think it would be a good idea. Dannyboy601 22:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Most of the time, there really aren't many. I think listing them just in text would be fine (although I think they should be listed). --SnorlaxMonster 04:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

expansion

I would like to add some explanations about the types, like the fire type also means: heat (as in Heat Wave) and lava (as in Lava Plume). And flying type also means: air (as in Air cutter) and bird (as in Brave Bird). And steel type also means: iron (as in Iron Tail) and machine (as in Shift Gear and Autotomize). If this is one for the forums please tell me. Nickvang 16:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Shadow

Should we include Shadow as a type in the template, i mean, it has all the qualifications to be a type (like having moves with its type in Colo. and XD). I know no pokemon has Shadow as a type, but no pokemon as ??? as a type either. So, I think we need Shadow as a type in the template. Iml908 01:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that Shadow is more of a condition, rather than a type. Apparently any Pokémon can become a Shadow Pokémon, though they can be changed back. A hacked Arceus is the only Pokémon that can have the ??? type, though other things like moves can be ??? type. I guess it would be implied that Shadow is a condition, rather than a type. --Pringles 02:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see this discussion ^★Jo the Marten^★ ಠ_ಠ♥ 02:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Source code?

Just of curiosity, how you know the damage is multiplied by two? By checking the source code of game? Since on YouTube I met a guy who says he is a competitive player and that it is actually added, not multiplied. I have no idea now what to think. Marked +-+-+ 13:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we know the whole formula. And what do you mean by adding? That doubly super effective would result in 3× rather than 4×? --SnorlaxMonster 16:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Nah, by that triple resistance would be 1/6x, while triple weakness would be 6x... At least by that player logic, whoever he is. Marked +-+-+ 20:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The 18th type

Regarding the ???-type within the page, should the fact that Game Freak are using this to hide the 18th type for the likes of Sylveon need to be said within the article? Kangaflora (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it belong on the ??? (type) article, but not here. --SnorlaxMonster 06:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Idea to avoid confusion on individual type pages

I think it is confusing to have Pokemon's old type status (such as Magnemite and Magneton being listed as pure Electric) in the lists on the individual pages. Now with the somewhat major retconning of Fairy type, where quite a few Pokemon are going to get retyped (or at least have Fairy type added), I think it is a good time to think about taking off these old type statuses, that do not represent the current type status of the Pokemon in question. We could make a page called "Former Pokemon Types" and list those Pokemon, the old type, the new type, and what generation it was changed. Right now we only have to fix Magnemite, Magneton, Rotom, and any Pokemon that get confirmed to get or become Fairy type. Anyone else have any opinions they'd like to share? CoolDudeAl (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

See also section

• List of Pokémon by type - Can anyone delete this? Thanks. — Reshi643 21:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for help! Cinday123 (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Unused Type Combinations

Would it be of interest to anyone to add which types are currently in use by no Pokémon? For example, Normal/Poison, Normal/Ground, etc. (there are 194 unused of the total 324 possible permutations). griffindaly (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I would say that there are way too many to be listed, to be honest. --It's Funktastic~!_{話してください} 05:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Listing out all of them is trivial and would take up an enormous amount of space, so I'm cautiously against. As a side note, your calculations are entirely fallacious. You've included the Fairy type in your calculation of how many permutations exist/are unused, which inflates your numbers because we don't know most of the Fairy-types that will exist yet. Plus, you're counting primary/secondary type separately, which we don't do on Bulbapedia; Ghost/Dark and Dark/Ghost are exactly the same thing as far as we're concerned, because they're exactly the same thing as far as the game's elemental rock-paper-scissors system is concerned. The correct number of combinations is 45 unused (+ 14 if we're including Fairy and going by its type combinations that have been revealed so far) and 153 total (+ 18 with Fairy). And yes, that is still a large enough number that I think it would take up undue space to list them all out. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Protection

Why are all the type pages protected? I understand why Fairy and, to a lesser extent, Dragon are protected, but I think it's just unnecessary to protect the others. I don't think people will waste time adding "WATER CONFIRMED SUPPEREFFECTIVE AGAINST FAIRY" to the Water page since adding speculation to pages leads to an instablock. --Reli★ジーランス? 09:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I would think you'd realize how many anons and newbie members don't know the intricacies of our policies. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Changing Type

Forgive me if we've already got this information documented somewhere, but a Google search restricted to bulbagarden.net didn't turn up any promising results, so I'm gonna suggest it. Basically, there are moves and abilities that change a Pokémon's type(s), but there doesn't seem to be a list anywhere. Thus, I propose that there should be a List of moves that change type and a List of abilities that change type. I've identified the moves and abilities that can change a Pokémon's type(s):

Moves:

• Camouflage
• Conversion
• Conversion 2
• Reflect Type
• Soak

Abilities:

• Color Change
• Multitype

--GuyPerfect (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

A category would be far more appropriate for that purpose, and it would need a far less ambiguous title that "Category:Moves that change type" (which sounds more like Hidden Power/Judgement-like moves). --SnorlaxMonster 17:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If there's only seven things, that doesn't sound like enough material for two entire articles. But I wouldn't be opposed to a section for it on some relevant page. Perhaps a subsection under the "Type-affected gameplay mechanics" section in this article? Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds great! Unfortunately, I don't have the rights to edit the article. )-: --GuyPerfect (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Soooo, who whould I talk to to set this in motion? --GuyPerfect (talk) 00:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Only admins can edit the page currently. Plus it's probably best to get more opinions than just two people before implementing something. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Whatever happened with this? I think it would be a good addition. :) Karasuhebi (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I've unlocked the page now, so you can add such a section if you wish. I also created Moves that change a Pokémon's type for those moves, but since Multitype technically just affects Arceus's form rather than type, the only Abilities would be Color Change and Protean (which I don't think deserve a category to themselves). --SnorlaxMonster 05:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Not really sure how to add this to the "Type-affected game mechanics" section. So far all I've got is "Certain moves can change the Type of a Pokémon, a full list can be seen at Moves that change a Pokémon's type". Anyone care to elaborate? - unsigned comment from Karasuhebi (talk • contribs)

Anyone want to give me a hand here? Karasuhebi (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

New Type Chart

Okay, so we have a new type chart. Looking at the Fairy-type page, it appears that we are taking it into consideration when making the "Battle Properties" section of each type. But this is the only one to do so. Why not do the same to each of the other seventeen types?

Types that have changed from Gen V to Gen VI:

• Fighting = Is now weak to Fairy and Fairy is resistant to it
• Poison = Now resists Fairy and Fairy is weak to it
• Bug = Fairy is resistant to it
• Ghost = Steel is no longer resistant to it
• Steel = Now resists Fairy, no longer resists Ghost or Dark, and Fairy is weak to it
• Fire = Now resists Fairy
• Dragon = Is now weak to Fairy and Fairy is immune to it
• Dark = Is now weak to Fairy, Fairy is resistant to it, and Steel is no longer resistant to it

So yeah, if anyone could update these pages, it would be helpful.--GoldenSandslash15 (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

How many of what type?

Would it be beneficial to list how many pokemon of what type. For example, Normal: 66; Fighting: 19; etc.
I've already accumulated the data for Gen I to V. I'm leaving out Gen VI until it officially comes out with a full listing.--Astromath (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

It's already listed on the individual type pages. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 03:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I see. However, I wasn't looking for a listing of pokemon under each type, just a total number under each type, including dual types that have a count number of 0.--Astromath (talk) 10:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this is sort of what you're looking for? Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Any legendary (and Phione) not from Kalos get Fairy-type

Did the lake guardians, Phione, Manaphy and Shaymin get the Fairy type with Meloetta losing its Normal type to add Fairy type and Jirachi and Victini losing its Psychic type to add Fairy type? Or the type has not changed? - unsigned comment from Cinday123 (talk • contribs)

I don't think so. There hasn't been any announcements about that. ^★Jo the Marten^★ ಠ_ಠ♥ 04:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Cressilia I know was checked in the Maison a while ago. Any that appear in the Maison probably already have been. --SnorlaxMonster 05:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Permutations versus Combinations

Why are there 324 permutations but only 171 combinations? I understand that Primary/Secondary & Secondary/Primary are counted as one permutation, but when I divide 324 in half I get 162. Where do the extra 9 combinations come from? What am I missing? Karasuhebi (talk) 05:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Consider the single-typed Pokemon separately (after all, only the dual-types really permute). Dual-typed Pokemon then have 17*18=306 possible permutations and half as many possible combinations (153). Add the single-typed Pokemon to those numbers and you get 324 permutations and 171 combinations. Tiddlywinks (talk) 05:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh I see. That makes sense. Thanks for explaining! Karasuhebi (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

"As of Generation V, there are 108 different type combinations. A move may have only one type."

That statement needs to be updated to "As of Generation VI, there are 129 different type combinations." That number came from List of type combinations by abundance, by the way.

And what about the Flying Press issue? I know it's technically a Fighting-type move but I think it's at least worth mentioning. Karasuhebi (talk) 05:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Abundance of types

I thought it would be convenient to have a sortable list of types by their abundance in each generation; I realize there's already a list of all type combinations in Generation VI, but this is a more concise summary; I copied it over here once I was done, because I saw that someone deleted the table while I was working on it in mainspace. I'm actually surprised that this hasn't been done already, considering the detailed page on type combinations. Eattre (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

This chart counts forms and Mega Evolutions that change typing as different Pokémon, just as the articles on each individual type do; it counts the total number of each type as of each generation, not the number introduced in each generation.

Type	Gen I	Gen II	Gen III	Gen IV	Gen V	Gen VI
	24	44	62	80	97	97
	8	11	18	25	41	47
	19	38	50	65	84	93
	33	37	42	50	57	59
	14	24	37	48	59	62
	11	18	30	37	47	55
	12	22	36	47	65	69
	3	4	10	18	27	34
	0	6	16	26	38	43
	12	22	28	33	51	60
	32	50	78	92	111	124
	14	24	41	55	77	87
	9	17	21	28	39	48
	14	20	44	53	69	75
	5	10	16	22	31	35
	3	4	13	19	29	40
	0	6	17	23	39	45
	0	0	0	0	0	37

Generation VI introduced 8 new Normal-type Pokémon but also changed 6 pure Normal-type Pokémon to Fairy type and 2 Normal/Flying Pokémon to Fairy/Flying, leaving the total number of Normal-type Pokémon unchanged; see also List of type combinations by abundance.

Type icons

Gen VI games brought new type icons. Bulbapedia uses icons from R/S/E or some fan-made icons, I think. However, I think it is time to upgrade icons to latest version. I can't add new icons nor update old ones so I add them on imgur: http://imgur.com/a/2zjM6 and somebody with rights may add latest icons. Asmod96 (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Outdated type charts

As someone who likes to go back and play Generations I (before Dark and Steel were added) and II-V (before Fairy was added), I believe those "previous type charts" should be added to this page, instead of on their own page referenced below the current chart. The "Type/Type_chart" page is considered Incomplete, anyway. When and why was this separated? - poikins 21:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Trivia Section

Christian (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC) Can you add a trivia section? If so, I thought of a good fact. Water and Flying are the only two types so far to be paired with all the other types. - unsigned comment from Chrisbulb (talk • contribs)

Since there are more than one, it's not considered notable by Bulbapedia's trivia standards. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

redirect confusion

with the virtual console releases of gen I, the gen I type chart is going to be a little more important. As it stands right now going to the search option "Type chart (Generation I)" sends the user here to "Type#Type_chart" which is the gen VI chart the address for the gen I chart is "Type/Type_chart#Generation_I" I would fix it but the redirects are not editable by users. Facade11663 (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The redirect is editable by regular users. After being redirected, go to the top of the page, where right under the title it says (Redirected from Type chart (Generation I)). Click on the redirect link, and there you can edit the redirect. Anyways, I have fixed it. --Carmen★ (Talk | contribs) 03:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Type effectiveness

Before I reformulated huge parts of the page, it basically said the a type can be super effective, not very effective or ineffective against a Pokémon (albeit weirdly worded). I've reworded it to say that the type of a damaging move (typically) defines that; so, something like "Ground is super effective against Pikachu" is not really supported (but "Ground-type moves are super effective against Pikachu" is). If indeed you feel this really needs to be supported as well, we may discuss to reformulate that part, and potentially move it back further to the top of the article (where it's not yet speaking of moves). Nescientist (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Calculating number of Pokémon in total as of Generation VII

For each individual type page, when I calculate/count how many Pokémon are there, in case of Pokémon who got Alolan forms in which type is the same as their normal forms (e.g. Raichu which is a pure Electric-type Pokémon, while Alolan Raichu is a dual Electric/Psychic-type Pokémon), do they count twice or only once? --Cinday123 (Talk) 09:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

"Typeless"

Just to clarify, "typeless" is basically what we (and others) seem to say whenever we're referring to something that is 1× effective against any type of Pokémon. I doubt that there's like a type that's "typeless". Instead, at least in older generations, whenever something is intended to be typeless/unaffected by types, they seem to have manually assigned some kind of artificial/default type (the ??? type, or the Normal type with removed type effectiveness). So, I'd be very happy if, in general, we weren't trying to treat typeless as an actual type, but more like an intended lack of type (or something like that). Saying something is typeless seems to be a rather short way to say that we just don't know (or care) what the actual type is but that it is 1× effective against all types of Pokémon.

I'm not really sure, but I'm really uncomfortable with including a general explanation of what typeless is, if only because it's not really consistent. For now, I've just reworded it, but I'd like to have consent/consensus before eventually removing it entirely. Nescientist (talk) 11:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm also not sure whether Weather Ball in shadowy aura should be included or not. Functionally it's identical, but apparently it's technically ???-type (I don't know if that means anyone actually looked at the code and discovered it is ???-type, or if it's just labelled that because that's what it is functionally). There is also the case of all damage that Magic Guard can block being technically typeless. --SnorlaxMonster 11:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm against including this at all. I believe "type" is not a property of damage (all it can do is be "super effective" etc. because of type interactions). And I believe "typeless" is not some special type (so it cannot be identical to some other type), but rather the attempt (of fans and researchers) to concisely describe that there are no type-related effects. And for Magic Guard, that's just indirect damage, I think the wording there is just fine. Nescientist (talk) 12:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Might as well add my two cents. I thought it would be worth adding since "typeless" is mentioned a few times around the wiki. Despite you saying that type isn't a property of damage the opening line of this article states "Types (Japanese: タイプ Type) are properties for Pokémon and their moves.". As we have found there are situations where a Pokémon or move is without type (ie typeless), so I think if that's the opening line of this page then it needs to at least be mentioned that it's not always the case. Pre genV it's debatable whether these situations were truely typeless, or had been assigned ???, but "typeless" continues post gen V.

How do we know that a pure flying in gen 4 becomes typeless as the rosost article states rather than ??? ? Why would they manually program it become normal in gen 5 if the games could handle "typeless"? (i checked, it still happens in gen 7 so it must be a manual programming decision rather than normal being the default type, as we now know burn up can leave you with a truely typeless pokemon). My guess is that before gen 7, all pokemon/moves needed a type in the code and so ??? was created as the default typeless type. In gen 5 they got rid of ??? because it was too situational, so they programmed roost to become normal rather than ??? on pure flying types. In gen 7, they invented burn up and made it so a pokemon/move can be without a type and not crash the game. I think the only functional difference between ??? and typeless is that ??? RD probably would have received stab, if ??? was still around and that's what type burned up fire types got. JMVB - I don't what to put here. (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all your considerations. I just want to say explicitly that I totally understand why you added this section. I just don't think "typeless" is a (common) type; instead, I believe it should be fairly evident what it means whenever it is used elsewhere and/or should be explained there. For the properties argument, I think there isn't an actual lack of type, but just something that's supposed to look and feel like it. I'm not aware of any move or Pokémon that can be typeless; I think they are Normal/???/whatever-type, just (are supposed to) behave as if they had no type. (I still assume this is the case for Revelation Dance, even if it turns out that you cannot ever observe that difference via Color Change or any other means. In case there technically really is an actual - placeholder - typeless-type now, I guess that's something that has changed; placeholder data usually has an index of 0, and that's what Normal-type has.)

As for Roost, our article says it becomes ???-type in Gen IV (and Normal-type starting Gen V, in which ??? has been removed entirely), not typeless. And as far as I know, there has never been STAB for ???. My personal suggestion for why they didn't make Roost users truely "typeless" (but Normal-type) is that that's actually more work, and they didn't care. Nescientist (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, it's actually the ??? article that states "In Generation IV, if a pure Flying-type Pokémon uses Roost, it becomes typeless[citation needed] until the end of the turn, effectively behaving as if it were ???-type. ". So there's a bit of inconsistency on the site then that can only be resolved by looking at the code. I'd be interested to see what happens to colour change Kecleon when hit with typeless RD, I'd be happy to try that with someone over wifi when Bank is released JMVB - I don't what to put here. (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

In regards to whether damage can have a type, I think it is probably useful to think of it as if it can, since moves like Judgment or Hidden Power are normal-type, but the damage they deal is affected by type matchups as if it was a different type. I think it's just a matter of how you choose to think about it, more than anything else. I think the wording of the page was clearer when it used the idea of damage being typeless, but that's just my thoughts on the matter. Xolroc (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

(resetting indent)Alright, I guess we're now at a point where it is really helpful to explain in more (lengthy) detail why I'm pushing real hard (by my standards) to avoid saying damage has a type:

1. It does not seem to be supported by official wording. I didn't exhaustively search for it yesterday, but from what I found, no in-game description seems to say that. In fact, they might even avoid that wording delibarately: e.g., Hidden Power "varies in type" (the move, not the damage it deals), and type-resist Berries weaken "damage taken from supereffective X-type attacks" (not just "supereffective X-type damage").
2. If we assign a type to damage, we're running into many issues. What type of damage does hail deal, or recoil? Even if we restrict it to attacks only, what type of damage does Flying Press deal? Or Seismic Toss?
3. There's no need to do that. I admit, it is a very convenient shortcut to have in mind in many cases. But in my opinion, everything is just as clear when we say things like "The type of Judgment depends on..."; it's even more correct and precise, because the type really actually changes, and things like Color Change and item boosts depend on the actual type of a move.

Unrelated to all that, I seem to sense that there's no agreement on removing the Typeless section here. If that's the case, that's totally fine, and I'll happily drop that. My opinion isn't more important than anyone else's, and Jmbv at least seems to thinks it's helpful (and they're not missing some important argument from what I can tell); the only reasonable consensus then seems to be to not remove it.

For Roost in Generation IV, I think there might actually be no way to tell the difference in-game (or in other words, it doesn't matter how it is typeless). I might be personally trying to pursue it further at some point, and I have some opinions on what it might be; so if you want to know what I think and why, please feel free to open a discussion at Roost's talk page (which I'm watching). I think it's a largely independent discussion. Nescientist (talk) 08:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem with the way you're looking at it is you see "typeless" as another type. Yes, this isn't stated anywhere in the games. It's not to be treated as a type. What typeless is is lack of a type. And this is how it should be seen. And there are things in the game that can lack a type. Struggle and recoil damage are both lacking in type as no Pokemon gains STAB from them. Certain Pokemon can become typeless under certain circumstances (i.e. Arcanine and Typhlosion after using Burn Up). This means they don't gain STAB from anything and have no weaknesses. The fact these are in the game proves that "Typeless" is a thing. It's not a type like Water or Dragon, but it's the lack of a type. And it should be seen that way. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 09:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The game does indeed state if a pokemon has no types. If you have a pure fire type use burn up and check the battle summary, no types are listed. JMVB - I don't what to put here. (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but what Nescientist seems to think is that if a Pokemon has no types, it gains a new type called "Typeless". And if that's not what they think, it comes across like that. A Pokemon can be typeless so there needs to be a section of this article talking about that. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 13:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Interesting that you got that from what they said; what I get from reading Nescientist's stuff is the exact opposite. The way I see it, Typelessness is not a type in the same way water or fire is a type. In some of the older games, this may have been implemented using the ??? type, but since gen 5 that's not how it's done. Not sure how it actually is done--I haven't seen the games' code, of course--but it acts like the pokemon has no type. Or the move, in some cases. Honestly, at this point, I've kind of forgotten just what this whole debate was about at this point, so I'll let you all figure it out. I don't think I have anything else useful to add.- unsigned comment from Xolroc (talk • contribs)

What Xolroc said.

Jmvb, would you like to add a line (or parentheses) for no type being displayed in that case, then? I guess that is something that should be somewhere on Bulbapedia. Nescientist (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Do we want the documentation of typeless here to give the idea, or to be exhaustive? Nescientist (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

type percentage

i created this page for my own tracking, but feel free to edit to fit into mainspace if it is useful. -Pokeant (talk) 06:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

"Typeless" Type

I was just wondering if anyone has plans to add the "Typeless" type that exists, for example, when a pure Fire type like Typhlosion uses the move Burn Up. The key features of this "type", if I'm not mistaken, is that you hit all Pokemon with normal (1x) effectiveness, and all Pokemon also hit you with normal effectiveness, and that you don't get STAB on any moves, right?--Rithvikkiran (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no typeless type exactly, just that Pokémon can now have no type. See two talk page sections up for the discussion of the "Typeless" section that is already on the page. --SnorlaxMonster 03:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

There's a lengthy discussion on this two sections up. Perhaps read that and put in your two cents! Xolroc (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Revelation Dance and favoring primary type

Hello, just wondering if Revelation Dance is the first mechanic in the games to actually favor one type over the other and "unequalize" the primary and secondary types? I thought that all game mechanics before this considered first and second types equal; thus Water/Rock was the same as Rock/Water. However, with Revelation Dance that isn't the case. SeireeniKeni (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I believe this is the only mechanical difference. There are instances in which there are visual differences (such as the Pokémon League victory backgrounds in some games), but never mechanical differences. --SnorlaxMonster 02:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Should this be mentioned in the article, since while limited to one move, it is in principle quite a big change? (As a sidenote: I think the background colors in at least Gen V and Gen VI pick one type at random. At least in X and O-Ruby the background is chosen at random for two-typed Pokémon. Always thought it was a nice touch.) SeireeniKeni (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I can think of Dual-type damage misinformation in Generation I, and Present in Gold and Silver. Not exactly the same, but still. Nescientist (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

...and that misinformation is apparently irrelevant in this context. (But I can also think of ice cream, pink unicorns, ...) Nescientist (talk) 11:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Confusion damage in Generation II

(It should be easy to test, if someone has a save file.) In Generation II, confusion damage apparently never assigns a type before calculating confusion damage (and it skips type effectiveness routines etc.), but it also runs through the type item modifier routines, and tries to check against the move's type (which has not been set for confusion damage). What I want to know is whether there may still be a type left in that variable (from the previously used move, I guess), so that confusion damage can actually be increased by type items. So, is someone able to do two battles with Normal-type moves only, one with an equipped Pink/Polkadot Bow, one without (or similar with another type)? If it can be increased, confusion damage should be different by ~10%. It'd be pretty cool if someone could. Nescientist (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I've just tested this, and Pink Bow does do this. Specifically it boosts confusion damage when the pokemon fails to use a normal move. I had my pokemon hold mystic water and confusion damage was boosted when it failed at a water move. I think this is more a glitch than a property of type though.

I tested this in a link battle and noticed another oddity. The random factor of the damage calculation seems to be fixed when you go into a link battle. The first time I did it was fixed at the top damage roll, which was very useful because confusion damage is so low and type enhancing items are so bad that you need a high/low damage rolls to confirm if they've been boosted. I went back in to the link battle with mystic water, and this time the damage roll was not at the top but it was fixed on another value. This damage roll thing could well be an emulator error (I was using bgb), or it could be intentionally fixed at the start of each battle by GF to prevent desyncs. Can anyone confirm whether or not this is a thing? JMVB - literally it doesn't stand for anything (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

So it's what's selected this turn (not last turn, nor by the opponent)? Good to know, thanks. :)

Confusion damage isn't varied at all, as far as I know (it's always the "top" roll, so to say). For all other damage, I'd believe it is varied normally/randomly, but of course they'll make sure to synchronize the PRNGs (or at least, they try). Nescientist (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hm. I just realized that I cannot really rule out that confusion damage is influenced by held items in every generation*. Or rather, by some of them. (I read some more Gen II code, and found out that Cubone's confusion damage is apparently independent of whether it holds a Thick Club.) I guess I'm just gonna leave it there. (But if anyone wants to test every item in every game, I will gladly hear their results.) Although I believe this is really one of the most interesting and astonishing facts/findings on Pokémon mechanics, I see no way to reasonably include that findings anywhere, not even on a confusion page. :( ... Nescientist (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Allow me to recommend our spading page. It's a page for pretty much precisely this sort of thing. Xolroc (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I just realized that it's actually not that hard to test it—just equip a type-boosting item, compare damage taken when trying to use a move with the corresponding type and one without. I tested in RS, and received the exact amount; so type-enhancing items apparently don't boost confusion damage. (I can't rule out they do in some later game, or some other items do, but I wouldn't really expect it.) Nescientist (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Naturally learning attacks of every type

I can't seem to find it now, but I remember reading Mewtwo's trivia section a while back and seeing something like "Mewtwo can learn damaging moves of every type except Dragon." Since then, I've counted the type diversity of every learnset I've seen on Bulbapedia and Smogon, and it seems like the only Pokémon who can learn attacks of every type is Mew. The ones who have type-changing gimmicks can't – Arceus can't learn Fairy moves, Silvally is missing Fighting, Ground, Psychic, Grass, and Fairy, and Kecleon doesn't have Fairy, Poison, and Dragon. I've also checked Smogon favorites like Gengar, Tyranitar, and Absol that sell themselves on diverse coverage, but they're always missing some. If Mew's the only exception to this, should it be mentioned as a pattern in learnsets? High5 (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe you've forgotten (and I did, initially, as well) that Arceus' Judgment and Silvally's Multi-Attack effectively give them universal type diversity. I think that counts enough to make Mew not the only exception. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Pumpkinking, I'm not speaking about moves that can call other types; Natural Gift and Hidden Power belong to the same category as Multi-Attack and Judgment and have almost universal distribution, so if that category's counted then it means every Pokémon has perfect coverage. Instead of those moves, plus Sketch and Mimic and whatnot, I'm talking about how Mew has dedicated attacks from every type in its learnset while Arceus doesn't. The weird thing is that before the Fairy type was introduced, Arceus counted in this sense too, but it's not compatible with the Dazzling Gleam TM even though it seems like it should be. High5 (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Type listing by commonality

This information seems to be available on each of the type pages themselves, which is where I pulled these numbers and compiled the following list (I'm just interested in statistics in general). While this is a simple list (doesn't break it down by pure types or hybrid types or the like), it would be concise to have it on the Types page itself, as users otherwise have to do what I did and click through each page in turn, and then order them by the number/commonality (which, again, is stated on each individual type page). Of course, it will need updating once Generation VIII hits, but so will everything else and each of the Type pages themselves...

I'm also not sure the best format (table or list) and the best way to say some of these ( # Pokemon of this type[..?], #th rarest[..?] ) where it sounds...right. Reading it, it makes sense what the numbers are, but I feel there's a better way to word what each thing is than I've managed to do...

Type commonality as of Generation VII: Total number[#] Pokemon of this type [pure and dual-types], Percentage[%] of all Pokemon of this type, #th most common (#th rarest) that this type is overall

Water: 133, 16.4%, 1st most common (18th rarest)

Normal: 109, 13.5%, 2nd most common (17th rarest)

Flying: 101, 12.5%, 3rd most common (16th rarest)

Grass: 98, 12.1%, 4th most common (15th rarest)

Psychic: 85, 10.5%, 5th most common (14th rarest)

Bug: 77, 9.5%, 6th most common (13th rarest)

Fire: 68, 8.4%, 7th most common (12th rarest)

Poison: 66, 8.2%, 8th most common (11th rarest)

Ground: 65, 8.0%, 9th most common (10th rarest)

Rock: 60, 7.4%, 10th most common (9th rarest)

Fighting: 57, 7.0%, 11th most common (8th rarest)

Steel: 55, 6.8%, 12th most common (7th rarest)

Dark: 54, 6.7%, 13th most common (6th rarest)

Electric: 51, 6.3%, 14th most common (5th rarest)

Dragon: 50, 6.2%, 15th most common (3rd rarest) [TIED]

Fairy: 50, 6.2%, 15th most common (3rd rarest) [TIED]

Ghost: 46, 5.7%, 17th most common (2nd rarest)

Ice: 40, 4.9%, 18th most common (1st rarest)

Note the TIED for 15th most common (3rd rarest), meaning there isn't a listed "16th most common" or "(4th rarest)" - unsigned comment from Renathras (talk • contribs)

I've got 52 electric. Maybe someone forgot Zeraora.--Rocket Grunt (Report To Me) 15:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Given that this sort of information appears on the individual type pages, I wouldn't be opposed to including it on this one. ~ Dannyboy601 (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, it would look nice if the proportions were showed visually. Like we present stats.--Rocket Grunt (Report To Me) 12:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Tretta Icons

I think Tretta icons for typings should be added to the page like other icons, given that even Z-Crystal icons are represented in a chart.

Normal	Fighting	Flying	Poison	Ground	Rock
Bug	Ghost	Steel	Fire	Water	Grass
Electric	Psychic	Ice	Dragon	Dark	Fairy

→ Rockapheller 18:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

There are more symbols used in many Pokemon games, these that are on the page come from the main series.--Rocket Grunt (Report To Me) 19:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know Pokémon GO was main series games. → Rockapheller 09:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there any particular order that the types are listed in?

I would think there would be, I just don't know what it is. I do have an idea of where it could be, though;

One part of the Pokédex's Search Menu is Search by Type. I was wondering if the order that the types are in has remained the same throughout generations, or if it changes in each game (I don't know how long this has been a thing, the earliest game I played was White 2, or Ranger if you count that).

The Pokédex also shows the different forms of Silvally and Arceus, so whatever order those are it could be the "correct" one.

I've always used a certain order (the origins of which I do not wish to struggle looking for in an internet search): Grass, Poison, Bug, Fire, Water, Ice, Electric, Fighting, Ground, Rock, Psychic, Ghost, Normal, Flying, Dragon, Dark, Steel, Fairy.

If nobody is able to find an "official" list, feel free to tell me about an unofficial one that makes sense.

AnonymousFog (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure about official order, but I personally just use alphabetical order (Bug, Dark... Steel, Water) although you could also use their average position for how early they appear in regional dexes. Using each region's 1st Pokédex (and adding later-added Steel- or Fairy-typing), you get the following order: Grass, Fire, Water, Flying, Normal, Bug, Psychic, Fighting, Ground, Electric, Poison, Dark, Steel, Fairy, Rock, Ghost, Ice, Dragon. Pseudonym (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

On this page, the types are listed in their internal order (that has been used since Generation I). This is the same order that types are listed in even in user-facing parts of the games, such as the Type filter when searching your PC in Pokémon Sword and Shield. All of the types that were physical (prior to Generation IV) are listed first, followed by all of the types which were special. --SnorlaxMonster 11:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I got edit conflicted, but what I was saying was basically the same (except I didn't know it is consistently used when encountered in-game).

I also wrote that the order is used in various guidebooks etc., that there's evidence that the "later" types in each section were added later during development (of Generation I), and that I believe Pokedex sorting has been a thing since Crystal. I also pointed out that there are definitely several other orders, some of which can be considered "official" (the order used here comes to mind), but that I don't think that it matters much. Nescientist (talk) 11:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I think I misunderstood or something, anyway, I just wanted to clarify that it's not the same order used consistently in-game. For example, he Pokédex Search feature in Generation II (delibarately) goes Normal, Fire, Water, Grass, Electric, ... Nescientist (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

BD & SP Icons

unless the process to update the wiki with the info form the last remake games (Brillant Diamond & Shining Pearl) there is something inside the game that catch my eye on it(in my case with my copy of BD) and that was the icons of the Pokémon types............ and after check this page and the game i notice that are new icons for all types in the game.....i don't know how to manipulate images here based to the standard of the wiki otherwise i would upload it myself

so y left the message as a utility advise that that info is missing

--kyokencl (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Bird type

Given it is an actual type (and not just a glitch type), I believe the Bird type should be an independent article (much like the ??? type). Our discord discussion lead to this proposal. Nescientist (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Support. Landfish7 21:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Glitch types have actual functional information and aren't given individual pages, don't see why a totally non-functional development leftover warrants one. glik^glak 22:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It being the only known "scrapped" type with leftover data I think makes it notable and interesting. Landfish7 23:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

And that's why it's here, on this page. glik^glak 23:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what "actual functional information" you're referring to exactly, but anyway, I don't see how the fact that glitch types may or may not have it is relevant to this discussion.

Anyway, what distinguishes the Bird type from glitch types is the fact that it has more information/data (such as a proper name or index number), and the fact that there's intent behind it in the first place. Nescientist (talk) 13:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it deserves a page just on the basis of it being the only internally defined distinct type without its own page, regardless of how limited the information on it is. The draft that Nescientist linked really isn't that much shorter than the currently mainspaced ??? page. Minibug (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

If we have an individual page for the Bird type, wouldn't it be added to {{types}}? I worry that could confuse people into thinking it's a fully functional type. Storm Aurora (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

It definitely could, but I don't think the two should be conflated. I think it's two separate discussions; the inclusion of the type in the template is a question of usability, and should be (largely) independent of whether or not it has a distinct mainspace article.

(And while the Spanish wiki does include it in its template, I wouldn't want to propose it for ours, not even if we had a Bird page.) Nescientist (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Being a scrapped / prototype type that goes unused outside of bizarre glitching oddities in Gen 1 games, I feel it deserves it's own page. Much like the ???-type which eventually retired, should be fine as long as it is noted to be a leftover generation 1 type from some point in development. Frozen Fennec 15:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Support creating the "Bird (type)" page. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm neither for or against. But if the page is made, I think there needs to be more than just a thin line on the type chart info box to differentiate it. There should be a subheading "Unused" underneath the line to make it obvious. There should probably be a subheading for Stellar and ??? types as well, although I'm not sure what that title would be. --Wowy_(talk) 12:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I kinda argue there isn't a huge need to have Bird (type) in the navbox, but then, maybe that does touch on glik's point about whether it needs to be an article in the first place, if it's something that could just as easily be neatly covered as a section on the Type page. I wonder if there's any other articles that we have that cover a particular unused mechanic or property, or the like. Landfish7 13:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

As I said, I don't think it needs to be in the navbox. On the other hand, I think it'd be beneficial to have it set up as an independent page; I just got aware of second type glitch for example, and there are definitely pages with similar lists.

As for other articles on unused things, how about Teru-sama, the Fairy Gem, or Cacophony (Ability)? Nescientist (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Huh, the existence of those articles is a pretty compelling argument for creating the page. I think I support the creation of the separate page now (though not its inclusion on the nav template). Storm Aurora (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The second type glitch in particular is very notable because its 13th item method was the first bug that led to the discovery of Mew in the game's data all the way back in March 1996 and prompted the Legendary Pokémon Offer. サトミュウ (SatoMew) 19:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Given the discussion, I think the Bird type page should be fine to have, and could be fun to explore with its own focus. Landfish7 13:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

(resetting indent)Ah I see the page has been made! Check it out here: Bird (type). Landfish7 14:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)