Talk:Poison (type)

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

Reverting

I'm reverting for now, as most of the changes weren't written very well and most weren't needed. The only thing I'd keep is maybe the mention of Levitate, since it has such a large effect. "Offensively, the Poison type has a few setbacks due to poison being a really annoying status effect to have." doesn't even make sense. That isn't really for the place for listing what types can and can't be poisoned, and it could be done a lot better. --Jshadias 00:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I edited general information about Posion-types

I don't really like Posion-types either, but it doesn't seem much objective to write "one of the worst types" about them. - unsigned comment from Gorebyss (talkcontribs)

"On the other hand"

Reworded the offensive/defensive sections slightly. "On the other hand" is used when you're comparing the pros/cons of something (e.g, "Shuckle can take a serious beating; on the other hand, its damage output is too low to even be considered 'crappy'"), not when you're adding support to something that's already been said. Diachronos 18:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

quick question

Question: what would a poison attack look like in the anime? Like a sludge bomb, or an acid, for instance? because I have a theory about shaymin that I need to complete.- unsigned comment from 16ipodfanatic (talkcontribs)

That's easy. Look at the articles. here.--Dark ICE (User:Cold)(page, talk) 16:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks!16ipodfanatic 12:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"It is also the only move capable of badly poisoning the foe that does not have the word "Toxic" in its name."

What about Toxic Spikes? - unsigned comment from Pjbarnoy (talkcontribs)

Read it again. It says It is also the only move capable of badly poisoning the foe that does not have the word "Toxic" in its name. Werdnae (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

notable trainers

why is aya mentioned? Kanjo 19:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ironic Trivia

In the second bullet point of the third piece of trivia it starts with the word "Ironically," and yet I fail to see what is ironic about it. Am I missing something or is this just poorly worded? jas61292 03:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I don't really think it's needed. PhantomJunkie 03:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Removed. Werdnae (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Legendary Pokémon

Should it be noted that Poison is the only type with no legendary Pokémon? ~~User:Ariano 17:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Homika

Should Homika be noted on this page despite the fact that we know very little about her, and despite the fact that BW2 are yet to be released? I think it's better to wait until June 23rd to be making changes like that. Don't Hug Lucario! 19:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You answered your own question :P. --Spriteit 06:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Trivia

Is it worth mentioning that there were more Poison Pokémon introduced in Gen 1 than all of Gens 2-5? Xolotl (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

"Generation I introduced the most Poison-type Pokémon of any generation, with 33", "As of Generation V, there are 57 Poison-type Pokémon". The information is already there, just in two separate pieces. I wouldn't push to connect the dots explicitly in a trivia point quite yet, since we don't know how many Poison-types will be introduced in Gen 6, so Gen I may no longer be the supermajority. If Gen 6 ends up introducing six or fewer Poison-types, it might be notable since Gen I would still be equal to or more than all the others combined. If Gen 6 introduces more than six, writing the trivia point so that Gens 2-5 are lumped together and 6 is arbitrarily excluded would be silly. (Even if Gen 6 does introduce six or fewer, I still don't like the idea of putting it up 'cause it'll just have to be removed when Gen 7 comes around anyway.) Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Since the legendary trivia was added yet again...

...should we add a <!--hidden notice--> saying not to add it? Unowninator (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Is that not trivia? MutantGerbil00 (talk) 03:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
It was formerly until they decided to differentiate legendaries & mythicals. It was removedBesides, it's already mentioned to be the only type without a genderless Pokemon.
Also, in the future, use a colon : to indent your posts properly. When a space is the 1st character in a line, it makes a weird box
like this, see what I mean? 
Unowninator (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed it again. Now that we've split Legendaries and Mythicals into two separate groups, Poison is no longer the only type absent from either group (there also are no Bug-type Legendaries and no Ground-, Electric-, Ice- or Dragon-type Mythicals), and since the two groups are now totally separate I don't feel it's appropriate to group them for the sake of trying to force a trivium about Poison being the only missing type they have in common. My rule of thumb is that if it feels like you're trying to force it, the trivium probably isn't notable. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
You've worded it better than I could PumpkinKing, thanks for that, as well as removing it. Unowninator (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
One thing I have to note: Even though the Mythical and Legendary Pokemon are now split, Poison is still the only type to have neither. Isn't that notable enough? I mean, there are 18 types, and only one lacks both. No matter how many types are only missing one of the two, I highly doubt that any new type will ever be without one or the other. (And frankly, I feel that Poison will never get a legitimate Legendary/Mythical Pokemon, but at least it would end this debate permanently.) --DarkShinyLugia (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Legendary Trivia Redux

I know this has been discussed extensively over the years, but with the recent confirmation the UBs aren't Legendary, I just wanted to share my own opinion. Of the 18 types, Bug and Poison are the only two without any representation among Legendaries. Counting Zeraora, then Poison, Ice, Ground, and Dragon are the only ones without any Mythicals. Of these 5 types, Poison is only one without representation in either category. Surely this is something noteworthy, right?

The hidden notice in the editor states that this isn't considered noteworthy because "Several other types lack one or the other", but in the case of Poison it lacks both, which is completely unique. I'm really curious to know the reasoning as to why this isn't worth putting in the Trivia section. DarkShinyLugia asked this in the previous thread, but it was never resolved. -ImNotGoodAtPasswords (talk) 06:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

From my perspective, it's an arbitrary point. Sure, Poison is the only type that lacks both a Legendary and a Mythical. So what? You could just as arbitrarily say (and I'm speaking in hypotheticals here) that X is the only type that lacks both a pseudo-legendary and a Totem Pokemon, or that Y is the only one that lacks both a Mega Evolution and a species-exclusive Z-Crystal. It means nothing to join together two disparate groups like that, in my opinion. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 06:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Makes sense, but I kind of disagree about the "disparate groups" part. I mean, for the longest time the two categories were considered the same, outside of Japan at least. Both groups even appear in and share the same template that's at the bottom of every Mythical/Legendary's article. It just seems disingenuous and overly pedantic to say that the two groups were chosen arbitrarily and have nothing to do with each other. -ImNotGoodAtPasswords (talk) 07:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree that with ImNotGoodAtPasswords that it's willfully ignorant to pretend like "Legendary and Mythical" is an arbitrary grouping. Pretty much anyone outside of Bulbapedia would agree that this piece of trivia is relevant to the Poison type; but uptight pedants keep editing it out because they've got their panties in a twist over it. I'll keep putting this piece of trivia back in regardless. -castformrain (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
That's the thing, they're both separate groups, that's why it says "several other types lack one or the other". Saying that Poison lacks both a Mythical or legendary is basically a combined way of saying "Poison lacks a mythical" (but so does three other types) and "Poison lacks a legendary" (but so does Bug) - as you can see, it becomes a case of not unique = not notable. If they were one big group, then yes, it'd be notable. But they're not, they are two separate groups.--ForceFire 12:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Pokemon table

Is there any purpose of dividing Pokemon of the type like that? For me, it was very inconvenient when I was looking for a Pokemon because most of the time you need to find it in the corresponding generation. Also, there is no significant difference if the type is in the first or the second slot. This is why I made an example, how I imagine it:

--Rocket Grunt (Report To Me) 22:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding more templates to an already template heavy page is not a solution. This is about a type, so lumping them together by type attribute makes more sense than sorting by generation. If you want a generational list, other pages do that just fine. The types are divided by primary and secondly as it makes it looker cleaner having the main type by all on one side, rather than having it alternate with every Pokémon.--ForceFire 05:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
If you don't want so many templates on one page, then I would suggest merging the whole list into one, which definitely won't be a problem if the Flying-type table already works this way. Pokemon will be listed by National Pokedex order making it enough easy to read. Again, the current division doesn't serve a purpose, many Pokemon which change type when they evolve are shown separated what makes a mess.--Rocket Grunt (Report To Me) 15:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Flying-type's table is formatted the same way as it is here and on every other type page, it only appears as one list because there isn't many pure Flying types or Pokémon with Flying as their primary type. Again, the page is about the type, not evolution lines or generation, so sorting it by pure, primary, and secondary makes sense. If you want a list where the evolutionary lines are grouped together, there are other pages that does that just fine.--ForceFire 16:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I just meant, that Flying-type page serves as an example how would the merged list look like and I would like you to try to understand my idea of presenting the data. When someone is looking for an unspecific Pokemon they go to the page that contains all Pokemon with one specific trait, like the type. Then to narrow down all potential Pokemon, they need to be sorted out by another feature and the second important one is the generation because unfortunately, some games don't contain all Pokemon listed on the page. I would like us to end this discussion and wait for someone else's opinion because we cannot agree on this issue.--Rocket Grunt (Report To Me) 18:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
How is the Flying type page an example of how the merged list would look like if it's not formatted that way? We have a page on version exclusives, or they can go the the regional Pokedex pages to check. You come to a type page to look for something that is of that type, not to check if a Pokémon is in a certain game or not.--ForceFire 05:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
It's just an example, and yes regional Pokedex also is a good example of a merged list of Pokemon, Flying-type isn't perfectly ideal but would look very similar. Please, end this if you don't really understand the situation. I'm am not making yet and changes on the page so your opinion isn't compulsory.--Rocket Grunt (Report To Me) 08:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I know what you're asking for, you want them to be grouped by generations. And I'm saying that this is not what the article is about. The regional dex listing and the listing on this page are vastly different. They are not the same thing. And others will chime in when they want.--ForceFire 09:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I'm sorry for my behavior. I thought I haven't made myself clear enough. I just don't like the how it looks now and I feel like the difference would be only cosmetic, so why would not make this change if most of the people would agree on it? Do you know the stuff which could vote on this proposition? If only it would get the majority, then we would know if it is a good suggestion.


--Rocket Grunt (Report To Me) 17:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)