Talk:List of Pokémon with unique type combinations

Repetition

Should we list Pokémon here twice? Like Surksit would be both under "Bug" and "Water"? Or would that be a bad idea? --Someone Else 11:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be listed only under its first type (Such as Bug with Surskit..) but that's just me. Tina ^δ♫ 15:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC}

Question

Is Aron not there because there is already a Rock/Steel type?? And is rhyhorn not listed beciz there already is Rock/Ground?? I accidentally added rhyperior and others... like Aron and family is the only steel/rock... but beciz there is already rock/steel should it be added...?--Wowy 09:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Families

Do solrock/lunatone and latias/latios really count as families? They aren't evolution families just counterparts. We wouldn't say that zangoose/seviper are the same family. Or the electabuzz and magmar lines seeing as how they are usually represented together (normally only available in oppositely paired games, recieved same evolutionary families in same generation) So shouldn't the solrock/lunatone and latias/latios be removed? TheAlmightyChris 20:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You missed the Nidos♥ Otherwise, no comment--Kkllnn blastoise 20:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Solrock/Lunatone and Latios/Latias and the Nidos shouldn't be considered families, since they don't evolve from or to each other. Maybe there should be a section for unique counterpart groups? Although, then you have the issue whether there are other counterparts (like seviper/zangoose) that could/should be included. It might be best if they're just removed. :-/ Jazzmoth 18:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

But wait-In the case of the Nidos, they are technically related, considering that , when Nidoran(F)(Can't make female sign) breeds, it could be either Nidoran, like how any multi-gendered pokemon breeds, it could be either gender. They're only separated by Gen I's lack of genders. Me and my fellow torchics agree on this - Sk8torchic 16:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Latios and Latias ARE related. It's in the 5th movie for crying out loud. Take a look at the Gender page. It says that Latios and Latias are counterparts. --ケンジのガール 00:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Are we still talking about this? I don't know, but maybe in the case of Lunatone and Solrock, we should come up to discuss the meaning of the term "family". Does it mean the actual relationship or the true evolutionary line? Kevin Y (talk) 04:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I say cut Solrock and Lunatone until they get they get a shared form (like how Hitmonlee and Hitmonchan weren't related until Gen 2 introduced Tyrogue). Lati@s, however, are all but confirmed ingame as being the Legendary equivalent of the Nidos so they should probably stay put.- unsigned comment from Blackstone Dresden (talk • contribs)

What is Anorith and Armaldo doing there? Shuckle is also their type. :/ --Makupe 23:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Shuckle is Bug/Rock, not Rock/Bug.-- Dragonic ICE (User:Cold)^{(page, talk)} 23:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Spiritomb

Spiritomb needs to be added but I'm not sure how to do it. Someone feel free to do it. This is my first time posting here (User:RPinney)^{(page, talk)} 04:34, 15 April 2009 (CST)

Sprirtomb is not unique. It has the same type combination as Sableye --ASCII 09:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think... ASCII 09:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It is. Just the types are reversed. And type order doesn't mean it's unique.--ケンジのガール 05:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey....

Since they've announced the typings for Reshiram and Zekrom, can we add them, or do we have to wait for Black and White to come out? - Gold Dialga

Don't forget Meguroko :) Kikugi 16:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Latias and Latios.

Well, Latias and Latios are a unique type pairing if they are to be counted in the same family, but not if there are two Pokémon that aren't related. We took off Solrock and Lunatone because they aren't. The frist paragraph states that they are either alone with their combination, or they share it with an evolutionary family. Maybe we should move them to families, or take them off? Or failing that, maybe mention this in the article. Samjohn95 05:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I put Lati@s under families, but SpecialK reverted me. If he has a reason for this he can state it here within a few days or I'll revert over him because there is justification for what I did and apparently none for what he did. —darklordtrom 09:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Am I too late to put this :p? Latios and Latias are NOT related. SpecialK Leiks Lucario and the Celebi Glitch 16:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

But, if I do remember, they are considered to be a family in the movie Pokémon Heroes. However, the relation depends on whether you mean evolutionary family or bloodline family. Turtwig's A-B-Cs (talk | contribs) 16:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Format

I dislike the format of this page... it seems unnecessarily segmented. We can make a sortable table which will allow people to sort by type. If single vs. family is that important, an additional column may be made indicating that. What do you guys think? - MK (^t/_c) 08:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you create a mockup in the userspace? I think this would be a good idea. --SnorlaxMonster 12:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I will do so when the message to avoid userpage editing is gone. I couldn't even add this reply without getting multiple session errors. - MK (^t/_c) 02:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That message is specifically referring to personal content. If it is something for the mainspace then the userspace limits are much less strictly enforced. Werdnae (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Well, before I go further, here is my concept:

# Pokémon Name   1st   2nd Types 400 Bibarel  Normal   Water  648 Meloetta (Step Forme)  Normal   Fighting  585 Shikijika  Normal   Grass  586 Mebukijika  Normal   Grass  031 Nidoqueen  Poison   Ground  034 Nidoking  Poison   Ground  041 Zubat  Poison   Flying  042 Golbat  Poison   Flying  169 Crobat  Poison   Flying  453 Croagunk  Poison   Fighting  454 Toxicroak  Poison   Fighting

Not sure family even needs to be given a column; all we'd need to do is put a note at the top along with everything else stating that that any Pokémon that have the same type combo on the list are from the same family. Opinions? - MK (^t/_c) 08:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking something more like this:

# Pokémon Types  Normal  400 Bibarel  Normal   Water  648 Meloetta (Step Forme)  Normal   Fighting  585 Shikijika  Normal   Grass  586 Mebukijika  Poison  031 Nidoqueen  Poison   Ground  034 Nidoking 041 Zubat  Poison   Flying  042 Golbat 169 Crobat 453 Croagunk  Poison   Fighting  454 Toxicroak

This way the families get their types merged to show that they are families, and we don't use those bulky sprites. --SnorlaxMonster 12:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Merged cells largely screw up with sortable tables, because the merged cells aren't always next to each other. Werdnae (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Forgot about that. How about we use the first suggestion, but just use MS instead of the bulky sprites. --SnorlaxMonster 02:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah the normal sprites are far too large. I just forgot to change them when I made my concept (it was late!). Nevertheless...simply removing the rowspan and making the colspans unsortable fixes that issue:

#		Name	Types
400		Bibarel	Normal	Water
648		Meloetta (Step Forme)	Normal	Fighting
585		Shikijika	Normal	Grass
586		Mebukijika	Normal	Grass
031		Nidoqueen	Poison	Ground
034		Nidoking	Poison	Ground
041		Zubat	Poison	Flying
042		Golbat	Poison	Flying
169		Crobat	Poison	Flying
453		Croagunk	Poison	Fighting
454		Toxicroak	Poison	Fighting

Only issue then is what to put in the MissingNo. link area, and whether to keep the row-spanning type name columns, which only sort for the first type. - MK (^t/_c) 05:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Which do not sort meaningfully. - MK (^t/_c) 05:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I fixed the MS link—just us {{MS}} instead of {{MSP}}. Anyway, I removed the type headers as they just interfere with the sorting, and I guess they aren't that important. I edited your one because I didn't want to flood this page with more of an almost identical template. --SnorlaxMonster 11:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

So does anybody object to using this template? If nobody does, then I will implement it soon. --SnorlaxMonster 10:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Been a year and nobody seems to object. In fact, I came to the talk page because I was going to complain about the current format so, please implement this someone! --Twilightdusk 11:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. It was actually discussed again later (as you can see lower down on the talk page), and I had a draft one ready to go in my userspace, and people liked it, so now I've put it in use. --SnorlaxMonster 12:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

More PKMN

Carvanha > Sharpedo are Water/Dark. What other PKMN/Line shares this type? *Edit: oops, Crawdaunt, nvm :P*

Also, Arceus with the Flying type plate was the 1st pure Flying type.- unsigned comment from Tesseract (talk • contribs)

I don't think Arceus forms count, but you do have a point. --SnorlaxMonster 12:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't count. We used to have this piece on a few different articles, but now it's only on the Flying page. R.A. Hunter Blade 13:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Total # combinations

The total number of combinations is 289 as stated (17 pure types + 272 permutations), but since types are commutative, the total number of effective type combinations is 153 (17 pure types + 136 combinations). Is this worth mentioning? --Stratelier 03:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Since the article already states that types are commutative, just change the number. --SnorlaxMonster 00:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Aerodactyl

Aerodactyl no longer has a unique type combination because of the additions of Aaken and Archeos in Generation V. ----Zewis (29) 02:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Aerodactyl is not listed anyway. --SnorlaxMonster 02:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Girafarig

Why is Girafarig missing from this page? Last time I checked he is the only Normal and Psychic Type.

Zaqix 07:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Meloetta would beg to differ. --ケンジのガール 07:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Haha. Yea, I just saw that. My bad. Zaqix 07:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Formerly unique type combinations

How about adding a note of these to a new section? XVuvuzela2010X 03:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes,i would support that idea strongly.It is very interesting to know which combinations were unique,like water/fighting prior to genV.- unsigned comment from Rajjoaby (talk • contribs)

Yeah, that would be interesting to see former unique type combinations(Plokool 15:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC))

I'll get round to this later today. Vuvuzela2010 Δ 17:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's a list of Pokémon with former unique type combinations, should it have its own page, or be merged with this one Vuvuzela2010 Δ 19:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be best to first put the article in this kind of table, so we can then do one for each generation. --SnorlaxMonster 00:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Done, though I think splitting them by Generation would be unhelpful, since they can now be sorted (includiong by secondary type), unless you meant add an extra column? Vuvuzela2010 Δ 01:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I meant making 5 tables, Pokémon with unique type combinations in Generation V, etc. For example, Magnemite and Magneton would show up in Generation II onwards, but not be in Generation I. --SnorlaxMonster 01:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

What about something with highlighted cells for generations like the move articles? —darklordtrom 02:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer that to multiple tables, and it would be easier for sorting types, etc. Vuvuzela2010 Δ 02:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've made an example here, though I don't know how to fix the types of single-typed Pokemon so that the one type covers both columns. Vuvuzela2010 Δ 03:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Colspan. But if you do, you cannot have any column in the table sortable (I had a lot of issues trying to workaround this yesterday, no success). --SnorlaxMonster 03:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I fixed it a bit. But there's this extra cell for singular pokemon. Don't know why though.--ForceFire 03:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the extra spot for single Pokémon types. I put in "none" in the extra || that was left blank. --Pokemaster97 03:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

If it can't be sortable, then I guess there's nothing we can do about that. If the template is ready, can the current one on the page be replaced with this one? Also, how will they be ordered, still by type, or Nat Dex no.? Vuvuzela2010 Δ 04:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think by type, because it keeps Zubat and Golbat with Crobat, when they have a unique family type combo. Yeah, if the template's done, may as well implement it. --SnorlaxMonster 04:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the templates, so all that is left to do is to change this page, I've previewed how it will look here, just incase there's any changes that could be made. Vuvuzela2010 Δ 06:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest making two separate tables, one with current unique type combination and the other with former unique type combinations.--ForceFire 06:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I have an additional two suggestions, one could either make subpages for each generation like is the case with Learnsets, or we could do what happens with Signature moves, and asterisk "prior to generation #". One could take the latter step further and bold the names of those Pokémon still unique. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 07:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd rather set it up like priority. --SnorlaxMonster 07:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow how the two pages can be compared. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 07:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I meant to make a section for each generation, with 5 separate lists in total. Anyway, this is my preferred way to do alternate forms if we do go this way. However, I agree that a current generation list and a former list would be good. Subpages should not be used for this at all. --SnorlaxMonster 09:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I vote for the above layout. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 11:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Celebi, Exeggcute and Exeggutor

Celebi is a Psychic/Grass. Exeggcute and Exeggutor are Grass/Psychic. If there are 24 different species of Pokémon who do not have the same type combination as another, and Generaton V introduced 32 Pokémon with unique type combinations, I don't see why not to put Celebi, Exeggcute and Exeggutor. I will put because there are no other Psychic/Grass or Grass/Psychic. Correct me later. - unsigned comment from Henry301199 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, you're incorrect. As far as this page is concerned Psychic/Grass & Grass/Psychic are the same. This is the exact same reason Wash Rotom & the family of Chinchou and Lanturn are not listed. Unique combination requires that the entire combination, regardless of type order, be unique. - Kogoro - Talk to me - 13:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of the use of the term "combinations"

The word "combinations" in the first paragraph seems to include single types (confirmed by the numbers "289" and "153", which only make sense when including single types.) However, in the second paragraph "combinations" seems to be contrasted with single types. I changed the phrasing here to hopefully be a bit less ambiguous. - unsigned comment from Zedadex (talk • contribs)

Order of the Table

I like the new table but it's a pity it isn't sortable. That's the reason why I'd suggest to sort it manually:

1) All Pokémon who have a unique type combination as of Generation V, sorted by evolution family and National Dex number

2) All Pokémon who had a unique type combination until Generation V

3) All Pokémon who had a unique type combination until Generation IV

4) All Pokémon who had a unique type combination until Generation III

5) All Pokémon who only had a unique type combination in Generation I

This could all happen in the same table without need for additional ones. That way you could clearly see which Pokémon currently have a unique type combination, beginning with those who have one since Generation I. Scrolling down you'd see Pokémon who lost the uniqueness of their type combination, ending with Pokémon like Tangela, whose type combination hasn't been unique for over ten years now. Perlgia 12:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I like this. --SnorlaxMonster 11:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Type order?

I wonder why type order is always ignored. It might not mean much during gameplay, but it says a lot about the Pokémon's identity: Exeggutor is basically a plant (with psychic abilities) while Celebi is a mirage Pokémon like Mew (with plant-like features). There are seven more unique pairs like Exeggutor and Celebi (Sableye and Spiritomb, Steelix and Excadrill, Lucario and Cobalion...) and in fact there are only two Pokémon with a reversed common type combination: Skorupi (Poison/Bug) and Sealeo and its evolutions (Ice/Water). Even though I find this interesting, I'm not quite sure if that's actually noteworthy or just useless trivia. What do you think? Perlgia 22:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Type order is really unimportant. I don't see it as needing to be included. --SnorlaxMonster 11:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Some of the type aren't unique

Hello, I'd just like to note this because it was driving me crazy, Paras/Parasect type combo of Bug/Grass is now shared with the Sewaddle/Swadloon/Leavanny line. Dratini/Dragonair also share their typing with Druddigon. Combusken/Blaziken share their type combo with Monfernape/Infernape and Pignite/Emboar. Misdreavus now shares her typing with Cofagrigus and the Shuppet and Duskull line. Exeggutor/Exeggcute have the Grass/Psychic shared also... A lot of the info just isn't accurate. I think it would be appropriate to make the changes. --Kemon77 8:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• But they once were, that's what the columns with the generation numbers are for. If they are ticked, it means that it was a unique type combination in that generation. You will notice ones you noted such as Misdreavus has one tick, Generation II (none in Gen I seeming it wasn't around then), but hasn't after that due to Duskull and Shuppet lines and now the Cofagrigus line. ----samm :) 08:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Umbreon

why is Umbreon on this list? Yamitora1 16:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

See the checkboxes? Umbreon only has one for generation II showing that it was the only pure-dark type in generation II. After Generation III it was no longer the only pure dark type. Hope that clears things up. Frozen Fennec 16:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

then how come Sableye isn't listed? Yamitora1 16:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It is, actually. --HeroicJay 16:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Trivia and intro note they don't have a unique type combination. Frozen Fennec 16:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The reason he asked is because Sableye did, once upon a time, have a unique type combo, exactly the way Umbreon did. But his question was pointless: Sableye is on the list had was when he asked. --HeroicJay 17:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see his icon or a check list stating he had a unique combination in gen III Yamitora1 17:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Dark Pokemon section, Dark/Ghost, there is a checkbox there. :) Frozen Fennec 17:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I'm using firefox and i had Sableye typed into the find box, but i had a space after it. pressing find kept switching me from the trivia and intro and not highlighting list which has no space. Yamitora1 17:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Order

Shouldn't we use the order on this template, {{Types}} left side then the right side, like before and all the other pages that list pokemon by type? Diamond Lanturn CodeName: 05308 15:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess that would be a good idea. --SnorlaxMonster 10:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Unused

Do you think maybe we should add a list of unused type combinations? Diamond Lanturn CodeName: 05308 18:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Kingdra and palkia

I was going through this article, and that is when I saw Kingdra.

Given that Kingdra has the same typing as Palkia (although Palkia isn't in this article), I have two suggestions.

1. Create a new segment that shows the more rarer, but not entirely unique combinations, such as lunatone/solrock (not relatives), Kingdra/Palkia, etc.

2. Remove Kingdra as it is not unique as there is Palkia, and not related to palkia.- unsigned comment from Theslayer (talk • contribs)

Kingdra has check marks only in Generations II and III, because Palkia didn't exist back then and Kingdra did have a unique type combination. If you didn't notice, there are also many other Pokémon like that (such as Shuckle) in the list.--電禅Den Zen 16:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Generational Differences

This seems to be bothering not only myself but plenty of other people. The tick mark system is confusing people and they are wondering why certain Pokemon weren't removed because of a newer version of that type combination. It is frustrating and confusing to say the least.

I believe it needs to be set up in the same way Pokemon learn moves at certain leves, or what tm's they can learn. Meaning that, at the bottom of the chart, you can select which generation you want to view and it shows the unique type combinations as of that generation. i.e. When you first come upon the webpage, Pokemon such as Seadra and Steelix don't show up, because in generation V, Palkia and Excadrill exist. If you were to then scroll down and select generation II, Seadra and Steelix would show up because there are no other Pokemon with Water + Dragon and Ground + Steel typings in that generation.

The edit is simple and would really help a lot of confused people who come across this page. Milesgagar (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)