Talk:Claydol (Pokémon)

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search


Where the heck are they? You know, I'm having doubts on this site now... <_<- unsigned comment from Nidolord500 (talkcontribs)

Limited amount of contributors + people who don't follow the manual of style + other things to do = no real chance to implemet the movesets everywhere. Wanna help, maybe? TTEchidnaGSDS! 04:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hence why I never used BP as a Pokédex, but for more behavior-ish related things.. imo, that's what Bulbapedia is more of. Tina δ 18:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey I'll be glad to help. I'm working on Baltoy as we speak.--Pokencyclopedia 20:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

C.C(Claydol colour)

I added the fact of colour difference between the artwork and the sprite to the trivia section.Uxie Legend 09:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC) 17:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Claydol:The symbols on it's body

Another thing that has come into my mind: For me,these symbols on Claydol always looked like breasts.After all,Claydol is described as a figurine,right?- unsigned comment from Uxie legend (talkcontribs)

The word figurine doesn't denote femininity. — Laoris (Blah) 18:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Type Effectiveness

Does anyone else see the Steel-type on the Type Effectiveness chart splitting in half horizontally? I looked at the wikicode to see if I could find the source of the error, but nothing I tried would fix it. I would appreciate it if someone more competent than me would fix it. Superbreeder 15:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't notice anything wrong with it. Jo the Marten ಠ_ಠ 15:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Can you provide a picture of what you see? Are you using Chrome? If you are using Chrome, then it's a known issue with the way that the chart coding works. The template is on my mental list of things that need a redesign (because compatibility issues which have the potential to cause difficulty reading the information are bad). If anyone wants to give it a go in their userspace, be my guest. Werdnae (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Category name

It seems to me that if the category name and the species is the same, it is trivia, because most people who visit Bulbapedia don't look at the category, so they don't know. If this isn't trivia, most of the trivia on Bulbapedia isn't trivia. For example: on Heracross it's trivia is noted that it's is the only Pokémon with this type combination: Bug/Fighting. But this can be found out by any interested Pokémon fan, which is the same for my trivia point with Claydol. Danny199 (talk) 00:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

You cannot determine that Heracross is the only Bug/Fighting type by only looking at Heracross's page. Looking at Claydol's page makes it immediately apparent that its category is very close to its name. Furthermore, Claydol isn't the only Pokémon like that: Zubat and its evolutions, Gastly, Hypno, Ninjask, and several others have names and categories very close to being the same. glikglak 00:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I can't disagree with what you said about Heracross, but like I said earlier, any interested Pokémon fan could find it out in not too much time, so trivia or not? [1] On the other hand, seeing that the category name and species name are the same, needs a good look. I honestly never saw it until today, more because it never really attracts attention. In my opinion, both are sort of the same kind of trivia. Danny199 (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't know why you have a link to the Dutch Pokémon site. They're not the same kind of trivia. If it's already apparent on the page, it isn't trivia at all, regardless of if you didn't see it. If someone skips over the anime section, it doesn't make its first appearance in the anime a piece of trivia. And the category is right beneath the name, right at the top of the page, in the big fancy infobox that's made to grab attention. glikglak 01:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)