The Pokémon: Symphonic Evolutions concert tour is coming to Philadelphia on September 19th. Seats are limited, so be sure to book your tickets quick!
Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire are coming this November! Check BNN and Bulbanews for up-to-date Pokémon news and discuss it on the forums or in our IRC channel.

Talk:Fairy (type)

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

Confirmed Fairy-types

Aside from Sylveon as the first pure Fairy-type, Pokecom.com has confirmed that Gardevoir is now Psychic/Fairy, Marill is Water/Fairy and Jigglypuff in Normal/Fairy.

http://www.pokemonxy.com/en-us/whats_new/fairy_type/

Worth adding to this page their respective pages, ja? NP Chilla (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

We're working our fastest to update the pages and bring them to standard, I can guarentee you this page is being worked on by a staff member and if you will check the Pokemon pages you will see the work has started, it has only just been announced, give us a chance to do the work, and do it right. --Spriteit (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Surely it's safe to assume that Azurill, Azumarill, Igglybuff, and Wigglytuff are fairy types as well? And with a name like Clefairy, it, Cleffa and Clefable are obvious candidates as well. Digifiend (talk)
Well for Azurill, it's not even a Water type so there's no reason to assume it's going to get the Fairy type as well. It'd be better not to assume anything. --It's Funktastic~!話してください 19:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Definitely agree until more official details are confirmed, and maybe if people try editing those pages then they should be protected to protect against speculation. -Tyler53841 (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I believe most of them are already protected, so that won't be a problem. --It's Funktastic~!話してください 19:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I believe it is safe to say that fairy type moves are special, since all the eevee evolutions have been made to represent all special type moves (except dragon) - unsigned comment from Connarwho (talkcontribs)
What? Types haven't been split like that since Gen III. If you mean the moves, it's not confirmed yet. Ataro (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Nitpicking

This is just nitpicking but the colour you used to represent gen 6 on the "list of pokemon with cross generational evolutions" is different from the type you used to represent gen 6 on the new moves. Stay consistent please :( 0danmaster0 (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Redirect

Add a redirect to this page from "fairy type." LordArceus 18:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Retyping notice

Following the style for other people that have been retyped, Magnemite/Magneton and Rotom's alternate forms, shouldn't all Pokémon retyped to Fairy have a little marker next to them indicating that this typing only applies to Gen VI onwards?

e.g. {{tt|*|Generation VI onwards}} which should comes out as: *

I would add it myself but I'm not an autoconfirmed user. - Tasty Salamanders (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Other type interactions

We can't say for sure yet, but Fairy appears to also be either neutral or super-effective against Flying, since it hits for super-effective on Salamence. Just thought I'd put this here for later reference. Skarthe (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The same goes for Dark, since it's super effective against Hydreigon. --Gοldenpelt 22:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • So far we just know dragons are weak to fairies, that's probably why it was super effective against Salamence and Hydreigon. Shouldn't assume anything else until more info is released (unless I totally missed something at this point), though I guess those two types are at least not resistant to fairy types but who knows, something else might pop up. ----NateVirus(Talk|Contributions) 18:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Number

I noticed the number of Fairy-types was not updated right away. Why don't we use a template to count them? {{#expr: {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Fairy-type Pokémon}}}} The same should probably be done for the other types too. TorchicBlaziken (talkedits) 00:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Retcon?

We don't know if they were actually retconned yet, do we? There could be some lame in-game excuse....--Phoenixon (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

They changed something from the past. With or without an excuse, it's still a retcon. Even if they say something like, "These were discovered to be Fairy-types all along" or "These Pokemon recently gained Fairy-type attributes" it's still a retcon. Crystal Talian 00:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
True, but still, the word retcon is a little bit slangy/casual/Newspeaky, no? Wouldn't the phrase "such-and-such Pokemon were changed to be Fairy-type" suffice? Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 00:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
It might work, but the definition of the word retcon is just something that alters the facts of a series. Considering that the games themselves state that there are only 17 types in the games from Generation II to Generation V, it should be appropriate to use. --Super goku (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't we use something besides retcon? It would be nicer if it were worded like " In generation 6 (insert pokemon here) were revealed to be Fairy type."

Timmiii (talk) 16:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

German

The german name from fariy typ is Fee and not Feen! --Altruis でんき 01:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Was introduced?

Generation VI hasn't come out yet, and the encyclopedia makes it look like it happened years ago and everyone has already accepted the tweaks it introduced. It's funny. Ahah. Male supremo (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It's more convenient to write the article in the past tense so that it's ready for when the content does come out. --Pipoleon (talk) 11:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Everything falls into place now... you're saving time. This is quite a crafty community. It does look unnatural though, so I must place my heart elsewhere. ( For the most part I'm joking. ) Male supremo (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Idea to avoid confusion on individual type pages

I think it is confusing to have Pokemon's old type status (such as Magnemite and Magneton being listed as pure Electric) in the lists on the individual pages. Now with the somewhat major retconning of Fairy type, where quite a few Pokemon are going to get retyped (or at least have Fairy type added), I think it is a good time to think about taking off these old type statuses, that do not represent the current type status of the Pokemon in question. We could make a page called "Former Pokemon Types" and list those Pokemon, the old type, the new type, and what generation it was changed. Right now we only have to fix Magnemite, Magneton, Rotom, and any Pokemon that get confirmed to get or become Fairy type. Anyone else have any opinions they'd like to share? CoolDudeAl (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of moving them to an entirely different page; it makes the information less obviously accessible. Maybe we could just have subheaders? So, for example, in the "Water (type)" page, we could have the "Pure Water-type Pokemon" section without Marill in it and with a "Formerly pure Water-type Pokemon" subsection, which would include Marill as well as an explanation that it was from Gen 2-5, and then go on to the "Half Water-type Pokemon" section with Marill in it as Water/Fairy. (I do like the idea of also having a place to aggregate all retyped Pokemon. I've suggested a category for it previously.) Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 02:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it had bothered me a little bit before that Magnemite, Magneton, and Rotom, showed both the old types and new types in the same chart, but now with Fairy type (and I'm guessing at least 30 Pokemon getting the type), I really think now is the time to start making decisition like having a category page and changing how we treat the "former typed Pokemon" in the tables. CoolDudeAl (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, having the old type and the current type just looks confusing Vienna Waltz (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Ice type

If Sylveon is resistant to the type of ice, and we know it is pure Fairy Pokémon, this type should have resistance to the ice?--Dominikololo (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Where has it been shown that Sylveon resists Ice??--Den Zen 19:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I think they mean the Pokemon Smash episode where Sylveon smashed ice. However, that could mean Fae is strong against Ice or hates ice due to being weak. It's too ambiguous to use, imo --Shadowater (talk) 06:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Retcon

It says that Marill, Gardevoir, and Jigglypuff were "retconned" into being Fairy-types. Believe it or not, "retcon" is not a real word, so should it be changed to something else? Like, they were "retroactively declared to be Fairy-types" or something like that? --GoldenSandslash15 (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It's enough of a real word to have a Wikipedia article, but I agree that it sounds really slangy/unprofessional and should be changed. (I had this conversation with somebody before, but nobody listened and the pages are locked...) Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 03:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
In addition to what Pumpkinking0192 has said, I would like to point out that the Dictionary lists retcon as a word. It lists the orgin as an "abbreviation of retroactive continuity," which would be similar to saying "[...] retroactively declared to be Fairy-types." For Pumpkinking0192, this is section that previously talked about Retcon, which is on this talk page, which did not seem to come to a conclusion that resolved the issue. --Super goku (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, slangy? Unprofessional? On a website that lists useless trivia at the end of every Pokemon article? I think we can get away with using "slangy" terminology on here. Starscream (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Rude much? We should always be trying to make Bulbapedia as high-quality as possible. Although the current consensus is that some trivia is okay, and trying to fight that consensus would be an uphill battle and incredibly unlikely to succeed, we can still try to improve Bulbapedia in other areas. Don't give up on the whole just because you can't fix a part. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
In any case, it doesn't sound like any admins are interested in this issue, so in retrospect I guess it's kind of pointless to debate about it until the games come out, the article's unprotected, and those of us who actually care can make the changes ourselves. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I think you'll find, Starscream, that trivia is still information, even it it's "trivial." It just means it doesn't fit into any particular part of the article. If Bulbapedia was an actual, printed encyclopaedia, you'd find said trivia either in footnotes or as a lovely little supplement page. Trivia does not make something unprofessional. Either way, I think "retcon" is suitable enough given its common usage. Me, Hurray! (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I feel the admins didn't need to discuss in this point, as stated it is actually a word and is in common usage, changing retconned to retroactively declared would be like changiyng any instance of can't to can not, at least in my opinion. It is a perfectly viable word. --Spriteit (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Except that it is not a perfectly viable word. It has only gained traction in fandom- and Internet-related circles and is not in standard English in normal life outside those circles. I have separate issues with "retroactively declared" (they aren't being changed in copies of older games, so it's not technically "retroactive"), so I believe the simple phrase they were changed to become Fairy-types is the best option to fulfill the requests that it be (a) completely accurate and (b) unarguably professional and encyclopedic in tone and diction. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 01:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Your can't example is actually a perfect argument in my favor, since in all professional writing (encyclopedias, academic journals, newspapers), contractions are always discouraged as unprofessional. We shouldn't be using them in the mainspace, just like we shouldn't be using retcon. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I just don't like the way the sentence is phrased right now. "…were retconned to be Fairy-type" makes it sound like their original types were completely ignored and replaced with pure fairy. I would prefer it to say "…were given Fairy as a secondary type" or something similar. Drapion (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Type Matchups

Considering that Sylveon got a "Super Effective" message when attacking Hydreigon and Salamence, we do know for sure that Dark and Flying don't resist Fairy-type attacks. Is this worth noting? --GoldenSandslash15 (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It's best we wait for all data to be confirmed before adding. I myself was considering that, but it doesn't show whether Fairy-type moves are super effective against Dark and/or Flying as well. ht14 03:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Not Physical or Special

Should we add that Fairy is the only type that is not classified as either a physical or special type (other than ???)? Iml908 (talk) 02:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. Those classifications are only for types from Gens I-III. They don't exist in a type exclusive format anymore, now it's all based on the move itself. - unsigned comment from Crystal Talian (talkcontribs)
It's already been in the trivia section for several days. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Judging by the trailer videos, it can be implied that Moonblast and Fairy Wind are special moves. FalafelC (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
We're looking for confirmed information. Ataro (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Why not just add "so far" at the end? It implies right now that it for sure isn't Phys/Spec at all. FerreTrip (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Supposed X and Y Information about fairy type matchups

Pokebeach has had a claimer that has leaked most of the things correctly and one of the things is about the fairy type. This is probably true because in Febuary, the claimer leaked 4 new Pokemon and their english names(Revealed, like Gogoat), Parabolic Charge, and Sky battles. Anyway, heres what he says

Fairy will be a new type. It is weak to Poison and Steel, immune to Dragon, super effective against Dragon, Dark, and Fighting, and Fire and Psychic-type Pokemon take half damage from it

Consider it... - unsigned comment from Kevasaurus (talkcontribs)

Speculation, not confirmed yet. — Reshi643 (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
All we know is that it is supereffective against Dragon, and not not very effective against Dark or Flying, otherwise Hydreigon and Salamence will only be normally effected by Fairy moves, which they aren't. Xolotl (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


Can't we just ban people who go 'omg leaked info u guise' on talk pages? --Reliジーランス? 16:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

He probably don't know that Bulbapedia goes on only confirmed facts. — Reshi643 (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I see it more like Navi/Fi there trying to help but they are not. Random Chaos (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
As the top notice says, we wont add anything that hasn't been confirmed officially. There's a possibility that the leaker has made typos/mistakes or has intentionally leaked both correct and false information.--Den Zen 18:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Basically, unless it was officially revealed information and not speculation, it isn't going up here. Also, Kevasaurus, don't forget to sign your posts next time, it is four tildes (four of these things--->~). By the way, were the caps really necessary? Personally finding them obnoxious. ----NateVirus(Talk|Contributions) 19:10, 20 June 2013

(UTC)


Oh sorry, I didn't mean to do the caps. I was just telling about some information that Pokebeach had and when I said consider it , I wasn't thinking. Also I miss read the four little tildles and only put one. I will put that in. But I've been trying to edit something with TRUE information but i can't find a page. Anyway, I'm addicted to Pokemon and I wann' really help Bulbapedia.I love Bulbapedia, that's why I signed up. Kevasaurus (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC) P.S Would you like me to delete this peice? Or keep it and see if it is revealed later on?

Alright guys, who wants to add Geomancy to the list? In '97, Dudley didn't do right. 19:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Update the count

The count at the top of the page says there are eight confirmed Fairy-types, but then lists ten. Apparently, the number wasn't updated after last CoroCoro, where Dedenne was confirmed and Mawile confirmed to change to Steel/Fairy. Just a reminder to update. --HeroicJay (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've corrected it. --Pokemaster97 20:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

In other languages

In Dutch it is Fee and in Portuguese it is Fada. However, the English names are still there. Is there any special reason for that? オリナル TheOriginalOne 22:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Pokemon Game Show demo and Fairy interactions

I'm opting to play the skeptic here, but where can we actually verify Fire's stated resistance to Fairy attacks? TPC hasn't officially said anything yet, there was a playable demo at the Pokemon Game Show which no doubt allowed players to utilize the type firsthand, but word-of-mouth is, unfortunately, not an 'official source'. (In other words, I'm on the pics-or-it-didn't-happen side of the fence.) --Stratelier 23:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Watch here at around 0:50. Litleo resists Sylveon's Fairy Wind. - unsigned comment from Swalot's Fury (talkcontribs)
Can we verify that Fire resists Fairy? Litleo is also part normal. Is there conclusive evidence that Normal doesn't resist Fairy? --Skaisdead (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
There isn't any, to my knowledge. I don't know why this possibility has apparently slipped past everyone. Majutsukai (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Fairy is neutral to Electric, Ground is neutral to Fairy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5-DIA8bTX4 Xolotl (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Fairy and Water are neutral to each other

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLo0Fz_9f8Q TorchicBlaziken (talkedits) 02:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Fairy and Psychic types

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s55A51TUq84&feature=youtu.be

Psychic types could be neutral to Fairy types! I translated the text. They tested Fennekin's Psybeam on Exeggutor. A message came up saying "It's not very effective." When Fennekin used a Fire type move against Exeggutor, a message popped up saying "It's super effective." No message popped up when Sylveon used Fairy Wind against Exeggutor. It just said "The wild Exeggutor fainted!" Either Fairy is neutral against both Psychic and Grass or it is super effective against against one or not very effective against the other. I haven't seen anyone test Sylveon's Fairy Wind on Chespin yet. I'll look for a video if I can. Dialgafan1 (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Everyone, remember that neutral type relations are not listed, so make posts only if a non-neutral relation is revealed.--Den Zen 12:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Though if it is a neutral relation, could it be brought up on the talk page for the Type chart article? --Super goku (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
That's not necessary either, because the Gen VI type chart is made after the games are out and/or when we know every single matchup.--Den Zen 19:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The type chart's supposed to be in the next CoroCoro (so we'll probably see it in the next couple of weeks). We'll be able to make all the charts with 100% certainty then, regardless of whether people report type matchups now. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Fairy/Fire/Normal

I was reading through the talk page to figure out when the fire effectiveness was confirmed. But if the proof is Litleo, Litleo is half normal. So how do you know it isn't effective with normal? It's not confirmed yet so you should change it back... Nutter Butter (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Fairy is confirmed to be neutral against Normal (and I'm not 100% sure but I think it has also been tested with Fennekin).--Den Zen 19:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

So, the type chart is out...

From the type chart revealed in the recent CoroCoro, here's what we have for Fairy types:

  • Super effective against Fighting, Dark, and Dragon
  • Not very effective against Poison, Steel, and Fire
  • Weak to Steel and Poison
  • Resists Bug, Fighting, and Dark
  • Immune to Dragon

This info should be added here, too, as well as to the types mentioned above. Berrenta (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I would add to it right now if the page wasn't protected. Pikakirby (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

New Move

I could have sworn I typed this up before but it seems to be missing from the page history. How odd. Anyways "Furfrou can learn Baby-Doll Eyes, a new Fairy-type move debuting in Pokémon X and Pokémon Y that allows its user to go first regardless of Speed and can lower the opponent’s Attack stat. " Lego3400 (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

There's also a new move called Play Around/Child's Play revealed in the new E-Shop trailer Vienna Waltz (talk) 07:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Number of Fairy Types

The page says that there's 33 Fairy Types if we count mega evolutions and forms as different pokemon. While I think we should really just decide whether or not they are first (I don't think they are) there's also the fact that there's actually 33 Fairy Types regularly, while adding Mega Mawile, Mega Gardevoir and Arceus Pixie Plate would make it 36.Smear-Gel (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


Trivia

I say leave the trivia about the number of Fairy Types per Generation. It's good information to know. But stop nitpicking. DarienLeonhart (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The type was only JUST introduced. Of course Generation VI has the most types because it's the ONLY Generation it's been in. Why are we even having this conversation? Jo the Marten ಠ_ಠ 14:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
That's besides the point. It's a matter of letting people know how many of the fairy types there are per region, be it pure, primary or secondary. Unless the staff at Bulbapedia are so inconsiderate that they'll make even the super lazy people count it for themselves.DarienLeonhart (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Or they could just read under the Pokémon section where it says, "As of Generation VI, there are 34 Fairy-type Pokémon, or 4.5% of all Pokémon (assuming forms and Mega Evolutions that change typing as different Pokémon), making it the rarest of the eighteen types." Jo the Marten ಠ_ಠ 14:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Not at all what I meant. Maybe they want to know how many per region. Like, how many Kanto-based Pokémon were converted to Fairy, for example. I say put back the trivia that was removed, but don't use the word "generation" Instead, use "region" or "regional pokédex". Then it won't be based on generation.DarienLeonhart (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
It's still really obvious information. That's the same reason we prohibit sprite trivia. It's information you can clearly obtain just by reading the page. Stating it twice is redundant. There aren't that many Pokémon that were converted anyway. I don't know anyone who's too lazy to count to eight. Jo the Marten ಠ_ಠ 15:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Whatever. It's called redundancy. By having the information in more than one place, It ensures that it can be found. But you staff members want to be inconsiderate. Go right ahead. That's one of the reasons I gave up on contributing to Bulbapedia. Besides. It's Trivia about Fairy Type Pokémon. Common sense would place that trivia on the Fairy Type page. And that would be the first place someone would go looking, obviously.DarienLeonhart (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
But it can be found. Read the actual content of the page. I think it's very considerate to not waste people's time flooding the page with redundant information they can simply obtain by looking at the rest of the page. We need to have a little less focus on the trivia sections. Actually a lot less focus on the trivia sections. Jo the Marten ಠ_ಠ 15:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh really? So it says elsewhere on the page how many Kanto Region Pokémon were converted to Fairy types? And Johto, Hoenn, Sinnoh, & Unova too? I don't think so. All I saw was TOTAL number, not a per region number. So don't put it in the trivia section. Put it elsewhere, like the same section where it says the Total number. DarienLeonhart (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Either leave it in or take it off the other 17 type pages. Otherwise, we're being inconsistent, and that's worse than being redundant. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Add a sentence to the current number part, saying how many had their types changed when the type was introduced. The trivia is redundant and therefore unnecessary. Each trivia point should be judged on its own merits. Inconsistency between pages isn't a strong enough reason to keep redundant trivia, and "we have X so why not Y?" reasoning is almost never a strong enough reason anywhere. Werdnae (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I still stand by the assertion that if we're calling this redundant because people should be expected to be able to identify which Pokemon in the list section are and are not from certain generations, the same should go for the other type pages and it should be removed from them, too. Even if each trivia point should be judged individually, similar logic should be able to be applied for similar things on different pages. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Counting Mega-Evolutions as different Pokémon

"As of Generation VI, there are 34 Fairy-type Pokémon, or 4.5% of all Pokémon (assuming forms and Mega Evolutions that change typing as different Pokémon)"

So, how come a Mega Evolution counts as a different Pokemon if its type changes, but not if it doesn't change? Like, if Gyarados (Water/Flying) and Mega Gyarados (Water/Dark) are different Pokemon, shouldn't Mawile and Mega Mawile be as well? Sure, its typing doesn't change, but that would make it more consistent. Either count all Megas as different Pokemon or count none of them. Does that make sense? Kianglo (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

  • I actually agree with this a lot. That's what confused me about the number of Fairy Types. They added Mega Aggron to the steel type page but didn't add Mega Mawile or Gardevior. This is a level of inconsistency I am really not comfortable with. Maybe we should add a separate section on the type pages for Mega's or something, but right now this is just wrong.Smear-Gel (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Does that include the averages of the Pokemon's stats? CobaltYoshi27 (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
It is really confusing and inconsistent how it is, currently. Personally, I think all Megas should count. Dunno about forms, though. I'd be okay with none counting, of course. Just have it be consistent. --Wynd Fox 01:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Good, because I have the base stat averages for all of the Fairy type Pokemon, and I was wondering if I needed to include Mega Evolutions or not. CobaltYoshi27 (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I really agree with what Smear-Gel said, like how Pokéstar Studios Pokemon are in a separate box on the type pages, I think Mega-Evolutions should be too (but before the Pokestar Pokemon, imo). I mean, especially since they're only ever temporary, and the type difference only applies to some of them. --KiANGLO (TALK) 10:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Base Stat Averages

I have the base stat averages for the Fairy type. Should I include Mega Evolutions or not include them? Base Stat Comparison: HP (72.38 with Mega Evolutions, 73.22 without Mega Evolutions) Attack (59.79 with Mega Evolutions, 57.59 without Mega Evolutions) Defense (68.24 with Mega Evolutions, 66.56 without Mega Evolutions) Special Attack (76.47 with Mega Evolutions, 74.38 without Mega Evolutions) Special Defense (83.35 with Mega Evolutions, 81.38 without Mega Evolutions) Speed (57.18 with Mega Evolutions, 56.06 without Mega Evolutions) Total (417.41 with Mega Evoutions, 409.19 without Mega Evolutions) CobaltYoshi27 (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Characteristics Contradiction

Under the characteristics section it is stated that defensively "[Fairy types'] only weaknesses are to the otherwise rare attacking types, Poison and Steel", however offensively it states "it also has three resistors and all three are common", ie: it is saying that poison and steel are both uncommon and then changing stance to say they are common. I just thought I'd bring that up that's all. Danjam (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

  • It's not really a contradiction. What it's trying to say is that Steel and Poison type moves are rarely seen (They are, at least, in the Gen V metagame...), while, Steel and Poison type Pokemon are common. I guess it could probably be reworded to be more clear on that. Lymia (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Physical/Special

The Trivia section makes it seem that the Fairy type is neither Special nor Physical merely just because it was introduced after the move category change. Saying that is neither just because this seems a little misleading.

For example, even after the move category change, its still widely accepted that the Fire Type largely specializes in Special Type moves, while the Fighting type specializes in Physical type moves.

I think this should be addressed so that it doesn't seem so bias and phoned in. Yamitora1 (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't really say that it's neither physical nor special, it says it doesn't have an assigned category. Which is true--all the other types do. Rather, they did at one point.
The only way to "correct it" would be to add that all damaging Fairy-type moves except for one are Special. However, that's not really notable enough to warrant a mention in Trivia (I believe Play Rough's page does mention it being the only physical Fairy-move) and when you get right down to it there's nothing inherently wrong with the statement on never having been assigned a damage category. At least, not to me. --KiANGLO (TALK) 03:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Pairing up with this type

Is Fairy-type have the fewest types that have paired up with it or is it expected? --Cinday123 (Talk) 02:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The type has just been introduced, so it is expected that it will have the least combinations. What until the next Generation or so, then it'll probably be notable; if it still does have the least, that is.--ForceFire 02:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

"Additionally, every type that resists Fairy is weak to Ground, making Fairy types with Ground-type attacks potentially popular."

Statement is not entirely true. Provided we're discounting effects like Gravity and Ring Target and relying purely on typing alone, Skarmory resists Fairy and is immune to Ground. --The Truth aka Relicant 14:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The statement itself is entirely true, as the individual types Fire, Poison, and Steel are all weak to Ground. It doesn't apply to mixed typings, such as Skarmory. In my opinion, these Offensive/Defensive sections on type pages are unencyclopedic and more akin to Smogon. --TheVeryBest 15:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
We shouldn't be disregarding dual-types. Flying can remove Fire, Poison, and Steel's weakness to Ground (unless an external effect such as Smack Down is used), therefore your argument is invalid. --The Truth aka Relicant 15:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Slow down there, bud. You can't deny that the quote itself, without any exceptions like Flying or Levitate, is completely true. Had you read my last sentence, you wouldn't have said I was "arguing" to keep it in. If it were up to me, I'd delete the whole section. And… try to be nicer, okay? --TheVeryBest 16:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

........... and why was my valid point (all single-typed pokémon and most type combinations that resist fairy...) removed? its completely valid. --The Truth aka Relicant 22:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Offensive and Defensive Charactaristics

I am going to dispute the content of the offensive and defensive charactaristics section of this page. There is too much opinion and use of competitive meta analysis.

"Fairy is widely considered to be the best defensive type" - opinion

"it has a key resistance to the powerfull fighting type " - competetitive meta

"resistance to pursuit and U-Turn" - competitive meta

" It has a usefull immunity to Dragon" - slight opinion (not too bad)

"steel and poison types are rarely, if ever, used offensively" - competitive meta and opinion

"leave them open to the common bullet punch" - competitive meta (bullet punch is not common by non-competitive standards: It is useable by only 8 pokemon families)

"very strong on offense as well" - opinion

"super effective against Dragon, Dark, fighting, all of which are otherwise great types defensively" - competitive meta

"making fairy and ground a potentially popular attacking combination" - competitive meta


I suggest a total rewrite of this section, and any other sections of type pages that are similarily full of opinion and competitive meta. Taking a look at the Dragon Type page charactarisitcs, that is exactly what this section should be like. - unsigned comment from Mindlord0013 (talkcontribs)

I agree with your assessment of this particular section, but I disagree with your proposed solution. I'd much rather just delete the sections altogether, as they (A) attract editors who try to load them with non-neutral competitive meta and (B), if the meta is removed, don't do much except regurgitate type coverage and statistical averages, which can already be seen on the templates on the top half of the page.
You can see this on the Dragon (type) page you just pointed out — the only fact in the entire section that isn't part of those templates is that most Dragon-types have wide movepools, which is itself vague and potentially opinionated (how wide constitutes wide enough to be worth mentioning? how many Dragon-types is enough to be worth mentioning?). I think these sections have no value that isn't already better-executed elsewhere on the page, so we should mercilessly and indiscriminately delete them. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea, but should be brought up with the bulbapedia admins (as it is quite a substantial change). Who would be the best person to query regarding this issue? --Mindlord0013 (talk) 08:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I asked Maverick Nate, the admin who normally runs administrative policy discussion on the forums, and he didn't really seem in favor of it. I only just got around to going to Jo The Marten, our Head of Games, whom Nate said would be the next person to discuss it with. I don't know how long it'll be until she responds. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

dual type resistance vs super effective damage question

How come the Mr. Mime and Ralts lines take only 1x damage from Dark type Pokémon/Moves, but Pokémon like Scolipede and Heracross has a 2x Damage to Psychic types?

Bug resists and is strong against Psychic types the same way fairy types are resistant and strong against Dark types, but for some reason a Psychic type move is still super effective against Scolipede/Heracross but a Dark type move isn't against the Mr. Mime and Ralts evolutionary lines.

What is the deal? Yamitora1 (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Bug doesn't resist Psychic. --It's Funktastic~!話してください 05:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh, ok my bad, I see now. Man this was racking my brain all day, glad to have that cleared up now. thank you. Yamitora1 (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Origin of Fairy typing

It should be noted that the Fairy type could be based off the Fairy especially in regards to the weakness fairies possessed to what they referred to as "cold iron", which was any sort of steel. Still trying to work out the weakness to Poison. Ikarigullwing (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be too speculative to include type-matchup explanations on mainspace pages. (As a side note, the explanation I've heard for its Poison weakness is that certain fairies in folklore are sort of FernGully-esque genius loci that are negatively affected when their environment is harmed, i.e. by pollution/Poison-types.) Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Fairy-Types In Previous Generations

I feel like it should be stated in the Kanto/Johto/Hoenn/Sinnoh/Unova Pokédexes that a Pokémon's type has changed. Only Magnemite and Magneton have had their type change acknowledged on the Kanto Dex. Rotom's type change is stated on its own page, but not in the Sinnoh Dex page. And NONE of the fairy-types have had their typing changes acknowledged in any of the pre-Kalos Pokédexes. I suggest fixing this by adding Fairy to the Dex listings and having a little underlined asterisk that says "As of Generation VI" much like this page itself has done with the retconned fairy-types. --BlackButterfree (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

So, you mean post fake information on pages? The Kanto dex was also in Gen III, one gen after Steel was introduced. Rotom's types were changed in Gen V, one gen after the Sinnoh Dex. None of the pre-Kalos dexes are in a game after X and Y, except the new unreleased Hoenn Dex. Therefore, claiming that they had these types in these generations prior to them existing is completely wrong. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 20:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
You obviously misunderstood what I said. -_- I said add the retconned typings to the old Pokédex entries, but have Fairy/Fire/Grass/whatever with an underlined asterisk labeled "Generation 5/6 onwards" on the changed typing. It's not claiming they had those typings in previous generations, it's stating the official typings of the Pokémon with a disclaimer that it wasn't always the official typing. Having the old typings on the old Dexes just seems inconsistent. At the very least, the typing changes should be acknowledged in the trivia sections. And there's no need to be rude. --BlackButterfree (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The regional dexes correspond to the games. Magnemite and Magneton have Steel/Electric because tat was its type during FRLG. Rotom's forms are still Electric/Ghost because that was its type during DPPt. The Fairy retcons will not have Fairy because they were not Fairy types in the games the dex was in.--ForceFire 10:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I did not misunderstand what you said at all. I just told you that if you do that, it would be inserting false information for the reasons Force Fire gave. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 10:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)