Talk:Fairy (type)

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Revision as of 15:49, 20 June 2013 by Kevasaurus (talk | contribs) (Intro)
Jump to: navigation, search

Pokebeach claims they have a leaker that poasted them informaion and he worked at GameFreak. In fact, he was found by Nintendo, and fired. Anyway, one thing he said is the type matchups for it. This is probably true considering he got the english names for the 4 new Pokemon(one of the foure being Gogoat) In Febuary, he revealed the name for Helioptile's attack right. And he said that there would be sky battles. He said there would be sky battles in Febuary. Anyway, here's what he said about the Fairy Type

Fairy will be 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.

So, please, take it upon yourself to put that in the type matchup section. If you want to be with caution, then okay.

Confirmed Fairy-types

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

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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)

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)


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)

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)