Talk:Poison (type)

Reverting

I'm reverting for now, as most of the changes weren't written very well and most weren't needed. The only thing I'd keep is maybe the mention of Levitate, since it has such a large effect. "Offensively, the Poison type has a few setbacks due to poison being a really annoying status effect to have." doesn't even make sense. That isn't really for the place for listing what types can and can't be poisoned, and it could be done a lot better. --Jshadias 00:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I edited general information about Posion-types

I don't really like Posion-types either, but it doesn't seem much objective to write "one of the worst types" about them. - unsigned comment from Gorebyss (talk • contribs)

"On the other hand"

Reworded the offensive/defensive sections slightly. "On the other hand" is used when you're comparing the pros/cons of something (e.g, "Shuckle can take a serious beating; on the other hand, its damage output is too low to even be considered 'crappy'"), not when you're adding support to something that's already been said. Diachronos 18:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

quick question

Question: what would a poison attack look like in the anime? Like a sludge bomb, or an acid, for instance? because I have a theory about shaymin that I need to complete.- unsigned comment from 16ipodfanatic (talk • contribs)

That's easy. Look at the articles. here.--Dark ICE (User:Cold)^{(page, talk)} 16:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks!16ipodfanatic 12:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"It is also the only move capable of badly poisoning the foe that does not have the word "Toxic" in its name."

What about Toxic Spikes? - unsigned comment from Pjbarnoy (talk • contribs)

Read it again. It says It is also the only move capable of badly poisoning the foe that does not have the word "Toxic" in its name. Werdnae (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

notable trainers

why is aya mentioned? Kanjo 19:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ironic Trivia

In the second bullet point of the third piece of trivia it starts with the word "Ironically," and yet I fail to see what is ironic about it. Am I missing something or is this just poorly worded? jas61292 03:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I don't really think it's needed. Phantom♫Junkie 03:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed. Werdnae (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Legendary Pokémon

Should it be noted that Poison is the only type with no legendary Pokémon? ~~User:Ariano 17:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Homika

Should Homika be noted on this page despite the fact that we know very little about her, and despite the fact that BW2 are yet to be released? I think it's better to wait until June 23rd to be making changes like that. Don't Hug Lucario! 19:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You answered your own question :P. --Spriteit 06:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Trivia

Is it worth mentioning that there were more Poison Pokémon introduced in Gen 1 than all of Gens 2-5? Xolotl (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

"Generation I introduced the most Poison-type Pokémon of any generation, with 33", "As of Generation V, there are 57 Poison-type Pokémon". The information is already there, just in two separate pieces. I wouldn't push to connect the dots explicitly in a trivia point quite yet, since we don't know how many Poison-types will be introduced in Gen 6, so Gen I may no longer be the supermajority. If Gen 6 ends up introducing six or fewer Poison-types, it might be notable since Gen I would still be equal to or more than all the others combined. If Gen 6 introduces more than six, writing the trivia point so that Gens 2-5 are lumped together and 6 is arbitrarily excluded would be silly. (Even if Gen 6 does introduce six or fewer, I still don't like the idea of putting it up 'cause it'll just have to be removed when Gen 7 comes around anyway.) Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Since the legendary trivia was added yet again...

...should we add a <!--hidden notice--> saying not to add it? Unowninator (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Is that not trivia? MutantGerbil00 (talk) 03:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

It was formerly until they decided to differentiate legendaries & mythicals. It was removedBesides, it's already mentioned to be the only type without a genderless Pokemon.

Also, in the future, use a colon : to indent your posts properly. When a space is the 1st character in a line, it makes a weird box

like this, see what I mean? 

Unowninator (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it again. Now that we've split Legendaries and Mythicals into two separate groups, Poison is no longer the only type absent from either group (there also are no Bug-type Legendaries and no Ground-, Electric-, Ice- or Dragon-type Mythicals), and since the two groups are now totally separate I don't feel it's appropriate to group them for the sake of trying to force a trivium about Poison being the only missing type they have in common. My rule of thumb is that if it feels like you're trying to force it, the trivium probably isn't notable. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

You've worded it better than I could PumpkinKing, thanks for that, as well as removing it. Unowninator (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

One thing I have to note: Even though the Mythical and Legendary Pokemon are now split, Poison is still the only type to have neither. Isn't that notable enough? I mean, there are 18 types, and only one lacks both. No matter how many types are only missing one of the two, I highly doubt that any new type will ever be without one or the other. (And frankly, I feel that Poison will never get a legitimate Legendary/Mythical Pokemon, but at least it would end this debate permanently.) --DarkShinyLugia (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)