Talk:Normal (type)

Glitch Pokémon?

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

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

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

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

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

The Attack chart...

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

Stats

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

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

Changer of type!

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

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

"Gimmick" Strategies

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

Edit request

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

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

Spelling

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

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

Screenshot of a notable case in Generation III.

Examples of wrong use in this article:

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

Examples of good use in this article:

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

Informal but still acceptable:

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

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

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

A bit of trivia

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

• Not counting moves, which power varies, Normal type moves holds titles of both the most powerfull (Explosion) and the weakest one (Constrict). Notably, both introdused in Generation I.

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

Tabunne?

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

Has it been confirmed? Nope.

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

Anything other proof? Nope.

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

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

Head Charge recoil

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

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

Trivia

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

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

Considering the leak...

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

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

Jigglypuff

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

# Name 039 Jigglypuff*

# Name Type 1 Type 2 039 Jigglypuff* Normal Fairy

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

New Move Boomburst

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

Litleo

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

Untitled

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

About dual type Normal pokemon

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

Move request

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

People, if we don't add the move Play Nice for too long, the moves section will never be completed, can anyone edit this with the addition? Cinday123 (Talk) 01:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

If you're not going to do it yourself, be patient and someone will get it eventually, but I urge you to try doing it yourself. It's really not that hard, and it'll give you practice understanding templates. Just follow the format the other moves are in, and put in the information given on the Play Nice page. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Introduction of Normal-Type moves Trivia

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

Guillotine?

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

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

We Should Mention Ion Deluge

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

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

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

You forgot Fighting, since every other type is neutral to normal except ghost (immune), fighting (super-effective against normal), rock and steel (both resists normal).Animaltamer702:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, so it means both ways, huh? Thanks. Unowninator (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)