YES, Generation VI is confirmed. PLEASE DO NOT ADD SPECULATION TO PAGES. As soon as information is confirmed by a reliable source, it will be added.
Please remember to follow the manual of style and code of conduct at all times. Check and Bulbanews for up-to-date Pokémon news and discuss it on the or irc channel #bulbapedia.
That "pure" blurb is actually inaccurate in two ways, as Missingno. is of the Bird -type if I recall correctly, and anyone with half a brain knows there are no pure-flyings. Evkl 20:58, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- In all technicalities, it should. As does Porygon/2/Z when it uses Conversion/2, or Kecleon, insome instances.
- Hm, anyone know what happens to a dual-type Pokémon when it skill swaps Kecleon's ability? Tom Temprotran 12:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Nope. Let's try it out :D. On an unrelated not, never try to catch Registeel in a Nest Ball. Alakazam 2
the trivia states that there are no animals that are primarly in the air, but there are certain species of swifts that spend the majority of their lives in the air, landing only for nesting. of course without any pokemon based on the swift, it still makes sense there are no pure flying typeGoldkear 21:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Heh, I'm new to Bulbapedia and might have caused a few problems when I edited some of the articles. I'm sorry for that... I just spotted out some things nobody else seemed to notice (such as how can people not notice how Chikorita is orange in Gold and Silver?) If I cause anymore problems, just let me know on my page and I'll fix it. User:Linkoman 21:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Should Cyrus really have the right to be called a flying "specialist." I mean he does have a good portion of flying pokemon but he has only one less dark pokemon so I think he should be taken off. Any takers? BrokenMotor 21:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Completely coincidental. Removed. —darklordtrom 22:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Pluck is stated to do double damage when the foe is holding a berry. I believe this to be incorrect. SPP's move dex says the same as this page; however Smogon and my own experiences would lead me to disagree. The page for Pluck does not make this claim, either. TheBeardedRobot 08:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
new pure flying type!?
i heard on another site (one that has one full-time editor) that in gen 5 there will be a PURE flying type, he himself said that there will be around 649 mon to collect in gen V --Earthquake! 16:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but the person who posted that has yet to provide any information about where they got that information, meaning that it could well just be speculation. Once it has been confirmed by an official source, then it can be added. Werdnae (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
apparently its true, I saw three of the legendary pokemon from the list in pictures, so the rest should be confirmed.--Makupe 22:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- still not confirmed Ataro 22:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
well those pictures didnt contain it, but now i found the REAL picture of the pure Flying-type.--Makupe 20:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Pure Flying and Roost
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQI-khPHGtg&feature=sub Here it is proven that Pure Flying type in Gen V who uses Roost becomes a normal type. This is not a joke or a prank. Please do not delete my edit. I'm citing evidence here. --Ryuutakeshi 18:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete your edit? Never dream of it. Now get back to your nasty little forum, Mister Ryuu.... ;) —darklordtrom 01:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh alright. But I'm watching you sneaky wiki mods. I know your kind ;-) --Ryuutakeshi 05:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- The Flying-type is the type with most two-turn moves, with a total of four moves.
can this be added? --SamuStar 20:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- "Please remember to follow the manual of style and code of conduct at all times. Also, check out our IRC channel at #bulbapedia. Note: 1. Do not add any trivia. 2. Userspace editing has been reduced to allow only one edit per day." --BP ♣♣ Ƒǿҫὑṩ ❺❽ ♣♣ 20:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I can read and I know there is this rule, that's why I asked on the talk page -.- It's really annoying to receive answers like this --SamuStar 15:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
How is Normal/Flying not immune to Ghost ?
- It is immune. Is there something on this page that makes it seem otherwise? --It's Funktastic~!話してください 00:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- As Normal is immune to Ghost, the entire Pokémon is immune. When a Pokémon has a type that is immune to one type, the entire Pokémon is immune. From a mathematical standpoint, if all Pokémon types are given a number that is multiplied when determining how much damage a move inflicts, a type like Normal would have the number 0 is a Ghost type move is used against it. When the game determines how much damage is done, this number is taken into affect and multiplied by the number of the second type. So for example, if a Ghost move is used on a Normal flying, Flying's multiplier is 1, Normal's is 0, and Ghost's is 1 (1.5 if a STAB is gained). In all circumstances, unless the Normal type can be negated, 1 (Flying's number)x0 (Normal's number) = 0 (Number by which Ghost's multiplier is multiplied), and 0x1 (Ghost number) = 0 (damage inflicted). These numbers is just a small portion of what is taken in when damage is inflicted on an opposing Pokémon, --NOBODY (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
The trivia said that the only type not paired with Flying is Fighting, and that it's tied with Water with the most type pairings. This is outdated. So far, there is no Fairy/Flying yet either, but it may change when all the Generation VI Pokémon are revealed. As of now, the Water type has the honor of being paired with the most types even after the new type reveal, as Marill was changed to Water/Fairy. Berrenta (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's a good idea to leave trivia like this alone until everything's revealed and we know for sure what is and isn't going to happen in X and Y. Rushing to change every minor thing like this immediately will just lead to some things getting left out, changed incorrectly, or removed and then having to be re-added when new information arises. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)