Talk:Physical move

This article attempts to differentiate between contact and physical moves, using Earthquake as an example. I know for a fact that Earthquake is counted as "making contact" because that's what I used to test whether or not the Static ability would paralyze my Garchomp. Since Static paralyzes on contact, and my Garchomp did indeed get paralyzed, the example used here is incorrect. --ZellMurasame 20:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's kind of strange. Bulbapedia lists Earthquake as a Non-contact move. This shouldn't be changed unless it can be confirmed that Earthquake is a move that makes contact. And if it is confirmed, then the Earthquake move page should be changed as well. Kalinalurik 20:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Merging the Moves

I think the different types of moves (Physical, Special, and Status moves) should be merged into one page since the pages are so short to begin with. They should be merged into one page with appropriate categories. Chum 12:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"Stub"

This article is very basic, what more does it need? HavocReaper48 04:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that a list of all physical moves (after Generation IV) would be good, like on the type pages. --SnorlaxMonster 02:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

List of moves

I tried adding a list of moves, similar to the Status move page, but it was removed. May I add it back, or is it unneeded as this edit summary suggests. Tacopill (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The list of physical moves was found in a category called Physical moves so there's no need to add them back. Cinday123 (Talk) 03:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I would say that the fact it provides an actual overview/comparison, rather than just a huge (and broken, since you have to click through pages) list of move names, adds value/worth to the list Tacopill added. The fact that it was split by type also added value, IMO. If nothing else, so long as there's such a list on the Status move page, that's a pretty glaring inconsistency. Tiddlywinks (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, having physical moves in a category would help like Pumpkinking did by taking off the list of special moves by type in a page. Cinday123 (Talk) 04:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The list that was removed from Special move was not quite as detailed as the one taken from here, but I would still support such a list (or better, one like the one that was here/is on Status move page) for a convenient/detailed overview.

And the list on the Status move page remains a huge inconsistency at present. I don't want to point fingers, but it's odd to be against this list when a week ago you were adding moves to the list on the Status move page. Tiddlywinks (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

These edits were a debate over a simple table, copied from the main list of moves. What I have is from the more descriptive pages, like the various type pages. Personally, I prefer to have the same information in multiple pages (such as Surf appearing on its own page and on Water-type, as it allows for easier comparison with other water-type moves. In a similar way, placing Surf here allows one to compare it much more easier with other physical moves. Tacopill (talk) 04:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

So can we revert them back including the special moves page? If we do, we will easily see a list of moves by damage category. Cinday123 (Talk) 04:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

If the lists that were on this page were just duplicating the list on each type's page, then I don't think that's valuable, actually. I actually don't see much use for that kind of pure duplication. If you like comparisons, it should be one big list, and preferably sortable. Tiddlywinks (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

By chance, can you edit this template? if so, could you add a type column? if we could get that, then I will combine all the tables into one sortable table. Tacopill (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

(resetting indent) I wouldn't even if I could. That template is on single-type pages almost exclusively. The one place it isn't, it shouldn't be that template, it should have a type. But that's actually just fine. You can just copy that template and make one that has a type column, then use that. Tiddlywinks (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright... seems kind of odd to me that it basically serves the same purpose...but ok then. Tacopill (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

target...

I'm sorry,but I noticed the target for the move petal blizzard and hold back is wrong,should it be adressed? Fiky f (talk) 05:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Certainly. Fixed. Tiddlywinks (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)