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:List of Pokémon with unique type combinations

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

Repetition

Should we list Pokémon here twice? Like Surksit would be both under "Bug" and "Water"? Or would that be a bad idea? --Someone Else 11:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be listed only under its first type (Such as Bug with Surskit..) but that's just me. Tina δ281 15:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC}


Question

Is Aron not there because there is already a Rock/Steel type?? And is rhyhorn not listed beciz there already is Rock/Ground?? I accidentally added rhyperior and others... like Aron and family is the only steel/rock... but beciz there is already rock/steel should it be added...?--Wowy 09:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


Families

Do solrock/lunatone and latias/latios really count as families? They aren't evolution families just counterparts. We wouldn't say that zangoose/seviper are the same family. Or the electabuzz and magmar lines seeing as how they are usually represented together (normally only available in oppositely paired games, recieved same evolutionary families in same generation) So shouldn't the solrock/lunatone and latias/latios be removed? TheAlmightyChris 20:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You missed the Nidos♥ Otherwise, no comment--Kkllnn blastoise 20:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree, Solrock/Lunatone and Latios/Latias and the Nidos shouldn't be considered families, since they don't evolve from or to each other. Maybe there should be a section for unique counterpart groups? Although, then you have the issue whether there are other counterparts (like seviper/zangoose) that could/should be included. It might be best if they're just removed. :-/ Jazzmoth 18:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
But wait-In the case of the Nidos, they are technically related, considering that , when Nidoran(F)(Can't make female sign) breeds, it could be either Nidoran, like how any multi-gendered pokemon breeds, it could be either gender. They're only separated by Gen I's lack of genders. Me and my fellow torchics agree on this - Sk8torchic 16:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Latios and Latias ARE related. It's in the 5th movie for crying out loud. Take a look at the Gender page. It says that Latios and Latias are counterparts. --ケンジガール 00:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Are we still talking about this? I don't know, but maybe in the case of Lunatone and Solrock, we should come up to discuss the meaning of the term "family". Does it mean the actual relationship or the true evolutionary line? Kevin Y (talk) 04:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I say cut Solrock and Lunatone until they get they get a shared form (like how Hitmonlee and Hitmonchan weren't related until Gen 2 introduced Tyrogue). Lati@s, however, are all but confirmed ingame as being the Legendary equivalent of the Nidos so they should probably stay put.- unsigned comment from Blackstone Dresden (talkcontribs)

What is Anorith and Armaldo doing there? Shuckle is also their type. :/ --Makupe 23:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Shuckle is Bug/Rock, not Rock/Bug.-- Dragonic ICE (User:Cold)(page, talk) 23:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


Spiritomb

Spiritomb needs to be added but I'm not sure how to do it. Someone feel free to do it. This is my first time posting here (User:RPinney)(page, talk) 04:34, 15 April 2009 (CST)

Sprirtomb is not unique. It has the same type combination as Sableye --ASCII 09:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I think... ASCII 09:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
It is. Just the types are reversed. And type order doesn't mean it's unique.--ケンジガール 05:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey....

Since they've announced the typings for Reshiram and Zekrom, can we add them, or do we have to wait for Black and White to come out? - Gold Dialga

Don't forget Meguroko :) Kikugi 16:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Latias and Latios.

Well, Latias and Latios are a unique type pairing if they are to be counted in the same family, but not if there are two Pokémon that aren't related. We took off Solrock and Lunatone because they aren't. The frist paragraph states that they are either alone with their combination, or they share it with an evolutionary family. Maybe we should move them to families, or take them off? Or failing that, maybe mention this in the article. Samjohn95 05:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I put Lati@s under families, but SpecialK reverted me. If he has a reason for this he can state it here within a few days or I'll revert over him because there is justification for what I did and apparently none for what he did. —darklordtrom 09:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Am I too late to put this :p? Latios and Latias are NOT related. SpecialK Leiks Lucario and the Celebi Glitch 16:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
But, if I do remember, they are considered to be a family in the movie Pokémon Heroes. However, the relation depends on whether you mean evolutionary family or bloodline family. Turtwig's A-B-Cs (talk | contribs) 16:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Format

I dislike the format of this page... it seems unnecessarily segmented. We can make a sortable table which will allow people to sort by type. If single vs. family is that important, an additional column may be made indicating that. What do you guys think? - MK (t/c) 08:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you create a mockup in the userspace? I think this would be a good idea. --SnorlaxMonster 12:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I will do so when the message to avoid userpage editing is gone. I couldn't even add this reply without getting multiple session errors. - MK (t/c) 02:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
That message is specifically referring to personal content. If it is something for the mainspace then the userspace limits are much less strictly enforced. Werdnae (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Well, before I go further, here is my concept:

Not sure family even needs to be given a column; all we'd need to do is put a note at the top along with everything else stating that that any Pokémon that have the same type combo on the list are from the same family. Opinions? - MK (t/c) 08:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking something more like this:

This way the families get their types merged to show that they are families, and we don't use those bulky sprites. --SnorlaxMonster 12:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Merged cells largely screw up with sortable tables, because the merged cells aren't always next to each other. Werdnae (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Forgot about that. How about we use the first suggestion, but just use MS instead of the bulky sprites. --SnorlaxMonster 02:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah the normal sprites are far too large. I just forgot to change them when I made my concept (it was late!). Nevertheless...simply removing the rowspan and making the colspans unsortable fixes that issue:
# 000 Name Types
400 Bibarel Bibarel  Normal   Water 
648 Meloetta Meloetta
(Step Forme)
 Normal   Fighting 
585 Shikijika Shikijika  Normal   Grass 
586 Mebukijika Mebukijika  Normal   Grass 
031 Nidoqueen Nidoqueen  Poison   Ground 
034 Nidoking Nidoking  Poison   Ground 
041 Zubat Zubat  Poison   Flying 
042 Golbat Golbat  Poison   Flying 
169 Crobat Crobat  Poison   Flying 
453 Croagunk Croagunk  Poison   Fighting 
454 Toxicroak Toxicroak  Poison   Fighting 

Only issue then is what to put in the MissingNo. link area, and whether to keep the row-spanning type name columns, which only sort for the first type. - MK (t/c) 05:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Which do not sort meaningfully. - MK (t/c) 05:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I fixed the MS link—just us {{MS}} instead of {{MSP}}. Anyway, I removed the type headers as they just interfere with the sorting, and I guess they aren't that important. I edited your one because I didn't want to flood this page with more of an almost identical template. --SnorlaxMonster 11:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
So does anybody object to using this template? If nobody does, then I will implement it soon. --SnorlaxMonster 10:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Been a year and nobody seems to object. In fact, I came to the talk page because I was going to complain about the current format so, please implement this someone! --Twilightdusk 11:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder. It was actually discussed again later (as you can see lower down on the talk page), and I had a draft one ready to go in my userspace, and people liked it, so now I've put it in use. --SnorlaxMonster 12:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

More PKMN

Carvanha > Sharpedo are Water/Dark. What other PKMN/Line shares this type? *Edit: oops, Crawdaunt, nvm :P*

Also, Arceus with the Flying type plate was the 1st pure Flying type.- unsigned comment from Tesseract (talkcontribs)

I don't think Arceus forms count, but you do have a point. --SnorlaxMonster 12:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
No, it doesn't count. We used to have this piece on a few different articles, but now it's only on the Flying page. R.A. Hunter Blade 13:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Total # combinations

The total number of combinations is 289 as stated (17 pure types + 272 permutations), but since types are commutative, the total number of effective type combinations is 153 (17 pure types + 136 combinations). Is this worth mentioning? --Stratelier 03:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Since the article already states that types are commutative, just change the number. --SnorlaxMonster 00:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Aerodactyl

Aerodactyl no longer has a unique type combination because of the additions of Aaken and Archeos in Generation V. ----Zewis (29) 02:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Aerodactyl is not listed anyway. --SnorlaxMonster 02:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Girafarig

Why is Girafarig missing from this page? Last time I checked he is the only Normal and Psychic Type.

Zaqix 07:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Meloetta would beg to differ. --ケンジガール 07:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Haha. Yea, I just saw that. My bad. Zaqix 07:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Formerly unique type combinations

How about adding a note of these to a new section? XVuvuzela2010X 03:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes,i would support that idea strongly.It is very interesting to know which combinations were unique,like water/fighting prior to genV.- unsigned comment from Rajjoaby (talkcontribs)
Yeah, that would be interesting to see former unique type combinations(Plokool 15:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC))
I'll get round to this later today. Vuvuzela2010 Δ 17:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Here's a list of Pokémon with former unique type combinations, should it have its own page, or be merged with this one Vuvuzela2010 Δ 19:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be best to first put the article in this kind of table, so we can then do one for each generation. --SnorlaxMonster 00:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Done, though I think splitting them by Generation would be unhelpful, since they can now be sorted (includiong by secondary type), unless you meant add an extra column? Vuvuzela2010 Δ 01:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I meant making 5 tables, Pokémon with unique type combinations in Generation V, etc. For example, Magnemite and Magneton would show up in Generation II onwards, but not be in Generation I. --SnorlaxMonster 01:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
What about something with highlighted cells for generations like the move articles? —darklordtrom 02:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd prefer that to multiple tables, and it would be easier for sorting types, etc. Vuvuzela2010 Δ 02:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I've made an example here, though I don't know how to fix the types of single-typed Pokemon so that the one type covers both columns. Vuvuzela2010 Δ 03:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Colspan. But if you do, you cannot have any column in the table sortable (I had a lot of issues trying to workaround this yesterday, no success). --SnorlaxMonster 03:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I fixed it a bit. But there's this extra cell for singular pokemon. Don't know why though.--ForceFire 03:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I fixed the extra spot for single Pokémon types. I put in "none" in the extra || that was left blank. --Pokemaster97 03:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
If it can't be sortable, then I guess there's nothing we can do about that. If the template is ready, can the current one on the page be replaced with this one? Also, how will they be ordered, still by type, or Nat Dex no.? Vuvuzela2010 Δ 04:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I think by type, because it keeps Zubat and Golbat with Crobat, when they have a unique family type combo. Yeah, if the template's done, may as well implement it. --SnorlaxMonster 04:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I've moved the templates, so all that is left to do is to change this page, I've previewed how it will look here, just incase there's any changes that could be made. Vuvuzela2010 Δ 06:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I suggest making two separate tables, one with current unique type combination and the other with former unique type combinations.--ForceFire 06:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I have an additional two suggestions, one could either make subpages for each generation like is the case with Learnsets, or we could do what happens with Signature moves, and asterisk "prior to generation #". One could take the latter step further and bold the names of those Pokémon still unique. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 07:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, I'd rather set it up like priority. --SnorlaxMonster 07:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow how the two pages can be compared. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 07:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I meant to make a section for each generation, with 5 separate lists in total. Anyway, this is my preferred way to do alternate forms if we do go this way. However, I agree that a current generation list and a former list would be good. Subpages should not be used for this at all. --SnorlaxMonster 09:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I vote for the above layout. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 11:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Celebi, Exeggcute and Exeggutor

Celebi is a Psychic/Grass. Exeggcute and Exeggutor are Grass/Psychic. If there are 24 different species of Pokémon who do not have the same type combination as another, and Generaton V introduced 32 Pokémon with unique type combinations, I don't see why not to put Celebi, Exeggcute and Exeggutor. I will put because there are no other Psychic/Grass or Grass/Psychic. Correct me later. - unsigned comment from Henry301199 (talkcontribs)

Unfortunately, you're incorrect. As far as this page is concerned Psychic/Grass & Grass/Psychic are the same. This is the exact same reason Wash Rotom & the family of Chinchou and Lanturn are not listed. Unique combination requires that the entire combination, regardless of type order, be unique. - Kogoro - Talk to me - 13:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of the use of the term "combinations"

The word "combinations" in the first paragraph seems to include single types (confirmed by the numbers "289" and "153", which only make sense when including single types.) However, in the second paragraph "combinations" seems to be contrasted with single types. I changed the phrasing here to hopefully be a bit less ambiguous. - unsigned comment from Zedadex (talkcontribs)

Order of the Table

I like the new table but it's a pity it isn't sortable. That's the reason why I'd suggest to sort it manually:


1) All Pokémon who have a unique type combination as of Generation V, sorted by evolution family and National Dex number

2) All Pokémon who had a unique type combination until Generation V

3) All Pokémon who had a unique type combination until Generation IV

4) All Pokémon who had a unique type combination until Generation III

5) All Pokémon who only had a unique type combination in Generation I


This could all happen in the same table without need for additional ones. That way you could clearly see which Pokémon currently have a unique type combination, beginning with those who have one since Generation I. Scrolling down you'd see Pokémon who lost the uniqueness of their type combination, ending with Pokémon like Tangela, whose type combination hasn't been unique for over ten years now. Perlgia 12:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I like this. --SnorlaxMonster 11:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Type order?

I wonder why type order is always ignored. It might not mean much during gameplay, but it says a lot about the Pokémon's identity: Exeggutor is basically a plant (with psychic abilities) while Celebi is a mirage Pokémon like Mew (with plant-like features). There are seven more unique pairs like Exeggutor and Celebi (Sableye and Spiritomb, Steelix and Excadrill, Lucario and Cobalion...) and in fact there are only two Pokémon with a reversed common type combination: Skorupi (Poison/Bug) and Sealeo and its evolutions (Ice/Water). Even though I find this interesting, I'm not quite sure if that's actually noteworthy or just useless trivia. What do you think? Perlgia 22:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Type order is really unimportant. I don't see it as needing to be included. --SnorlaxMonster 11:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Some of the type aren't unique

Hello, I'd just like to note this because it was driving me crazy, Paras/Parasect type combo of Bug/Grass is now shared with the Sewaddle/Swadloon/Leavanny line. Dratini/Dragonair also share their typing with Druddigon. Combusken/Blaziken share their type combo with Monfernape/Infernape and Pignite/Emboar. Misdreavus now shares her typing with Cofagrigus and the Shuppet and Duskull line. Exeggutor/Exeggcute have the Grass/Psychic shared also... A lot of the info just isn't accurate. I think it would be appropriate to make the changes. --Kemon77 8:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  • But they once were, that's what the columns with the generation numbers are for. If they are ticked, it means that it was a unique type combination in that generation. You will notice ones you noted such as Misdreavus has one tick, Generation II (none in Gen I seeming it wasn't around then), but hasn't after that due to Duskull and Shuppet lines and now the Cofagrigus line. ----samm :) 08:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Umbreon

why is Umbreon on this list? Yamitora1 16:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

See the checkboxes? Umbreon only has one for generation II showing that it was the only pure-dark type in generation II. After Generation III it was no longer the only pure dark type. Hope that clears things up. Frozen Fennec 16:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
then how come Sableye isn't listed? Yamitora1 16:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
It is, actually. --HeroicJay 16:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Trivia and intro note they don't have a unique type combination. Frozen Fennec 16:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
The reason he asked is because Sableye did, once upon a time, have a unique type combo, exactly the way Umbreon did. But his question was pointless: Sableye is on the list had was when he asked. --HeroicJay 17:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't see his icon or a check list stating he had a unique combination in gen III Yamitora1 17:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Dark Pokemon section, Dark/Ghost, there is a checkbox there. :) Frozen Fennec 17:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Oops, I'm using firefox and i had Sableye typed into the find box, but i had a space after it. pressing find kept switching me from the trivia and intro and not highlighting list which has no space. Yamitora1 17:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Order

Shouldn't we use the order on this template, {{Types}} left side then the right side, like before and all the other pages that list pokemon by type? Diamond Lanturn CodeName: 05308 15:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess that would be a good idea. --SnorlaxMonster 10:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Unused

Do you think maybe we should add a list of unused type combinations? Diamond Lanturn CodeName: 05308 18:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Kingdra and palkia

I was going through this article, and that is when I saw Kingdra.

Given that Kingdra has the same typing as Palkia (although Palkia isn't in this article), I have two suggestions.

1. Create a new segment that shows the more rarer, but not entirely unique combinations, such as lunatone/solrock (not relatives), Kingdra/Palkia, etc.

2. Remove Kingdra as it is not unique as there is Palkia, and not related to palkia.- unsigned comment from Theslayer (talkcontribs)

Kingdra has check marks only in Generations II and III, because Palkia didn't exist back then and Kingdra did have a unique type combination. If you didn't notice, there are also many other Pokémon like that (such as Shuckle) in the list.--Den Zen 16:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Generational Differences

This seems to be bothering not only myself but plenty of other people. The tick mark system is confusing people and they are wondering why certain Pokemon weren't removed because of a newer version of that type combination. It is frustrating and confusing to say the least.

I believe it needs to be set up in the same way Pokemon learn moves at certain leves, or what tm's they can learn. Meaning that, at the bottom of the chart, you can select which generation you want to view and it shows the unique type combinations as of that generation. i.e. When you first come upon the webpage, Pokemon such as Seadra and Steelix don't show up, because in generation V, Palkia and Excadrill exist. If you were to then scroll down and select generation II, Seadra and Steelix would show up because there are no other Pokemon with Water + Dragon and Ground + Steel typings in that generation.

The edit is simple and would really help a lot of confused people who come across this page. Milesgagar (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how the table is confusing. For example, when you see Meditite and Medicham, you should see they have check marks only for Generation III, unlike Baltoy and Claydol who have check marks from Generation III to V. It's pretty simple and is also used in TM move pages.--Den Zen 09:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I very much so agree with applying the sorting options we have for move/TM lists. Yes, people might be interested to see who was the original 'mon with a certain type combination or how long they've remained special, but others - like me - would be helped much more with a list of 'current' unique type combinations without having to wade through tables of have-beens. Nebulak (talk) 11:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I htink what needs to happen is the list needs to be in National Dex order, not the seemingly random order it's in now. --Spriteit (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I went through the discussion page and counted six opened discussions on this topic, and eight Pokemon listed that should not exist on the page, with over 33% of the discussions confused on the topic I would feel that for this type of page, the current system is confusing enough people to attempt to make a change. The problem lies in a another discussion where it was requested that the old unique Pokemon be listed, which I would agree is something that is interesting and something I enjoy. Giving the subject more thought I see three solutions, the first one is one I listed above. It is a format that already exists on the website and would be more easily understood by any person who stumbles upon the website. Another option is to simply have five separate charts. Create five separate headings, starting with the fifth generation moving down to the first. Under each heading, containing a graph of all the unique typings in that generation. This format makes it impossible to misinterpret the data, but may take more time to create. In either of these options, order by typing is perfectly acceptable, in fact, I find it easier to navigate in that manner, but the final option is to simply organize it by Pokedex number, yet keep the ability to rearrange the chart however you please. This would be similar to the page tat lists all of the Pokemon by Pokedex number, just instead of being able to rearrange it by base statistics, it would be able to be organized by first type and second type, and generation exclusivity. Although this option is the one I like least of all, it would form a basic table where the exclusivity by generation would easily be read. It would happen that the first n Pokemon are generation one unique typings, then the next n Pokemon that would be exclusives listed would naturally be all of the unique typings that were introduced in generation two, and the chart would fall into place like this. No matter how this ends up being resolved though, the current system is one that causes the chart to look incorrect at a glance. Milesgagar (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Anyone who gets confused by the chart ignores the whole right hand half of it. The whole point of those check marks is to show in which generations those Pokémon have unique type combination. If they don't have a check mark for Generation V, their type combination is not unique anymore. It's just plain stupid to not understand it.--Den Zen 14:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
It's not about being too stupid to read a table. It's about the table being cluttered with varying amounts of useless information depending on what you use it for. If I want to know what type combinations are unique in Gen V only, why wade through a heap of entries that say "I was unique until this Gen and no more in V"? That contributes nothing to the task at hand.Nebulak (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Here's a perfect example of a similar type page done in a way where you can easily understand what's going on. http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_that_are_not_part_of_an_evolutionary_line It really isn't a matter of stupidity, and were really not hear to point fingers and call people names, myself and other people feel it would be much easier to understand with a different formatMilesgagar (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I think it makes sense to have separate lists for current and former unique type combinations, like the page linked in the previous message. --SnorlaxMonster 15:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I kinda agree too. Here's a template for Pokémon with formerly unique type combination (without the category).--Den Zen 16:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
That looks perfect. If you could somehow incorporate the Pokemon that was introduced to make it so it wasn't unique that would be a cool addition but otherwise two separate lists would be awesome. Milesgagar (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much for finding a solution and making it work. I find the page as it is now very insight- and useful.Nebulak (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I would like to say thank you as well. This page as a lot easier to understand and I think it will help a lot of people. I am very grateful for all of the time you put into editing the page Dennou Zenshi|! Milesgagar (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Erikiteru

We shouldn't add Erikiteru(Electric-Normal) right now as it might have further Evos. Rajjoaby (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not the reason, since evolution families are included on this page; the real reason is that we don't know the full Gen VI dex, so there might be unrelated Pokemon that are also its type. In any case, the page is already locked to everyone except admins, so I don't see the point in bringing this up on the talk page. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


Fairy types??? We need to add Marill, Jigglypuff, Flabébé, and Sylveon ASAP! - unsigned comment from Stickipedia (talkcontribs)

Already you mentioned two pokémon who are automatically excluded from this list, since both Flabebe and Sylveon are pure Fairy and unrelated, thus making the typing not unique. And since we don't know if any of the retyped pokémon will be unique, we're not adding them yet. Luna Tiger * the Arc Toraph 23:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

nidoqueen and king

technically they are different pokemon but whatever. 0danmaster0 (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe the reason they're here is because both genders of Nidoran can lay eggs of the other gender, so the assumption is that programming limitations in Gen 1 are the reason they're separate evolution lines rather than a Burmy/Wormadam/Mothim-style gender split. But yes, I agree that they don't belong here because they aren't technically evolutionarily related. Latias and Latios need to be removed for the same reason. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Latios and Latias are related in the same way as the Nidos, though--male and female members of the same species. You just can't see it "in-game" because the game mechanics don't allow you to breed legendaries (in order to keep them rare)... even in the case of legendary Pokémon that are clearly a whole species (not a "one-of-a-kind" thing) and should be capable of reproducing: like Latios/Latias which are males/females of one species (and were even mentioned in the Pokédex to live in "colonies" somewhere), and Heatran which is a species with both males and females. FnrrfYgmSchnish (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
That's anime canon. In the games, Latias and Latios are separate species because they cannot breed; their legendary status is irrelevant, and attempting to impose logic ("should be capable of reproducing") onto the game mechanics is fanon. Our mission is to report, not to make up explanations. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Pangoro

Since Pangoro is a Fighting/Dark type can some Admin move Scraggy and Scrafty to the formerly unique type combination list? Vienna Waltz (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of checks

Should the generational checks be removed from the "Unique type combinations" section? With the addition of "Formerly unique" as a separate section and the removal of Pokémon who are no longer unique in type, these now essentially only illustrate the generation wherein the Pokémon/family was introduced. griffindaly (talk) 04:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Total combination/permutation update with addition of Fairy

Should the total number of type combinations and permutations be updated to reflect those made by the new type, Fairy—i.e.: 153→162 and 289→324? griffindaly (talk) 05:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

When the page is unlocked so we can edit it, yes. That's not until the games come out, though, so be patient, please. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The new amount of combinations is actually 171 (18C2 + 18).--Den Zen 07:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Unused type combinations redux

It seems someone asked this question over a year ago and it probably just fell through the cracks. Is it possible there is enough information to warrant a page on unused type combinations (possibly as of Gen VI if it's put off until after X and Y are out), with a few pieces of information on that combination, including the weaknesses and resistances it would have by using {{Type effectiveness}}? Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 12:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Since no one has even said anything, I just decided to start on a test page to show what my idea entailed. It's only got two so far, but the point is there. Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 20:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't have the type effectiveness charts, but List of type combinations by abundance does list every possible combination in a sortable chart, which you can sort so you can see all the ones that are unused. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
The first chart that has the sprites only lists used combinations, but the next one has unused ones as well. Regardless, that page I made is only a sketch idea. I may fill it out later. Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 22:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

No other type combination

You know how on the trivia section it says no other Pokémon has this type combination. Well, they are alot of Pokémon that are that way. So I think it is not notable as my opinion. --Ethan7 (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it's notable or not, but I agree that it's unnecessary clutter in the trivia section. I'd suggest that, if people are insistent on keeping it in individual Pokemon articles, we move it to the Biology section instead? That's where we include signature moves, and unique type combinations don't seem too different from that, at least to me. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, that seams like a good idea. Maybe then it would not be so cluttered.--Ethan7 (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Why they aren't unique anymore

Do you think it would be a good idea to, in the Formerly unique section, add a column with other Pokémon of their type combo? Just for convenience; I can't think of any other Dragon/Electric guys and it's really bugging me. And yes, I do know how easy it is to find this out, but I'm just lazy. ~Zaffre~ 01:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I would say no, simply because there are too many to list. Ampharos's Mega Evolution is Dragon/Electric, if you want to know.--ForceFire 03:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Mega Sceptile

Should Mega Sceptile be added to the list? Vienna Waltz (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Not yet. It's possible that there are other Grass/Dragon types in ORAS.--Den Zen 20:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)