Difference between revisions of "Talk:After You (move)"

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
(It says that the move is unaffected by Protect...)
("Go Ahead" is neither more accurate nor more natural as a translation, so why is it necessary?: new section)
Line 7: Line 7:
 
[[User:Sumwun|Sumwun]] ([[User talk:Sumwun|talk]]) 01:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 
[[User:Sumwun|Sumwun]] ([[User talk:Sumwun|talk]]) 01:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 
:"Not affected by Protect" means that the move is not blocked by Protect. Of course, this is because After You is a non-damaging move. --[[User:Abcboy|Abcboy]] ([[User talk:Abcboy|talk]]) 02:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 
:"Not affected by Protect" means that the move is not blocked by Protect. Of course, this is because After You is a non-damaging move. --[[User:Abcboy|Abcboy]] ([[User talk:Abcboy|talk]]) 02:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  +
  +
== "Go Ahead" is neither more accurate nor more natural as a translation, so why is it necessary? ==
  +
  +
@Force Fire: Re [http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/w/index.php?title=After_You_%28move%29&type=revision&diff=2579637&oldid=2579635 this]. What is the point of giving a less accurate translation when the official English name is both accurate and natural? [[User:Satorukun0530|Satorukun0530]] ([[User talk:Satorukun0530|talk]]) 09:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:55, 9 January 2017

does after you fail on allys? Pokemoninfo 22:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No, using After You on allies is the entire point of the move. Blazios 22:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It says that the move is unaffected by Protect...

If Protect has priority, doesn't it mean that a user of Protect always goes first, and then After You fails on it? Where it says "Affected by Protect: no" shouldn't it say yes? Sumwun (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

"Not affected by Protect" means that the move is not blocked by Protect. Of course, this is because After You is a non-damaging move. --Abcboy (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

"Go Ahead" is neither more accurate nor more natural as a translation, so why is it necessary?

@Force Fire: Re this. What is the point of giving a less accurate translation when the official English name is both accurate and natural? Satorukun0530 (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)