Talk:Type: Null (Pokémon)

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

Russian name

Could someone in the staff please add this line?

|ru=Тип: Ноль Tip: Nol'|rumeaning=Literally Type: Zero

--Raltseye prata med mej 15:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Also could soneone add that it's the first Pokémon to have a different Spanish and Italian name unless UB-01 is revealed to be a Pokémon. --Raltseye prata med mej 15:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
It's "Tipo Zero" in Italian, literally "type zero" (yes, with no ":"). --Tano (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and as far as I manage in all those language (except Spanish) it means Type: Zero. So could someone please add this? --Raltseye prata med mej 20:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Like you said, not until we find out if there are other Pokemon that follow this trend in Gen VII. Starscream (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Appearance

The mask has a collar that is exactly like the ring on Arceus's waist. Since this is a genetically manufactured Pokémon and the mask is a limiter, it's like they're saying that religion limits Science. --Tano (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a bit of a stretch. Bulbapedia is for verifiable facts, not inferences and interpretations. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree, the second part is more like a fun talk. The fact is actually the collar part. May be a coincidence of course. --Tano (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
In addition the horn-thing, looks like a mix between the tao trio's wings.Animaltamer711:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
You mean the head-hatchet thing? I thought it did look like a Zekrom wing. Also, the collar spikes have green hexagons on them.--Pokencyclopedia (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
While I agree Tano's comment is too speculatory, I do think there is ample evidence and reference to note that Type:Null has a relationship with Arceus. Between the collar, the line on the pokemon site that says it was an attempt to create an artificial pokemon to replicate the power of a mythical pokemon, the fact that it's evolution has an ability that's essentially a duplicate of Arceus's, and said ability is called RKS systems (RKS - Arrkayus - Arceus), I think it's more then clear that there is an intentional link. There are pokemon with origins listed on their pages that have much less evidence.
In light of the recent news regarding it's evolution and how that ties into this that I outlined above, does anybody have any issues with it being added?Jabberwockxeno (talk) 02:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
We can still wait until the game comes out and we have all the lore available to us, so we know exactly how to frame it in a non-speculative way. There's no harm in waiting. Bulbapedia doesn't have a deadline. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Genderless

As shown in the Japanese trailer, it it a genderless Pokemon. Mettie7 (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Yet another Pokémon with a name that consists of two words...

...after Mr. Mime, Mime Jr. and the recently-announced Tapu Koko. However, I think it's the first Pokémon to have a colon in its name. - LDEJRuff 18:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Catch Rates

How do game-players traditionally determine the numerical catch-rate for a Pokemon? Is this done by just throwing regular Pokeballs at a Pokemon while it is at full health and measuring how many attempts it takes to capture it, or is it by hacking the game? Avert (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It's done by consulting the game's source code, yes. On a separate note, your signature goes at the end of your post, not the beginning. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 04:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Name Trivia

Isn't this the first Pokémon to not keep its English name in the Spanish and Italian localizations? Technickal (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is but it will be added once all the Gen VII Pokémon have been revealed incase any more follows this trend. --Raltseye prata med mej 17:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


I think this should be added

It is currently not known to evolve into or from any other Pokémon. Lokki (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Nope, none of our prerelease Pokémon articles have that clause, because we have no way of knowing whether they have no evolutions or if their evolved forms just haven't been revealed yet. If Type: Null doesn't evolve, that clause will be added after the games come out. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
And what's Oricorio then? Lokki (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
And also Solgaleo, Lunala and Magearna Lokki (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The latter three are Legendaries/Mythicals, which as a rule don't evolve, but yes, it doesn't belong on Oricorio. As a side note, please use link templates. Don't casually link to redirects. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Bulbapedia strives to have most accurate, least speculative information available; not to be the first to state something or to follow the fandom's theories. Right now, there's very little we can say that won't delve into speculative territory. That goes not just for this page, but for many other pages as well. Regardless of how 'probable' or 'obvious' something is, we'd rather wait for confirmation or more information in general. Please keep this in mind as the games' release approaches. Crystal Talian 06:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Type: null; and Sillicon Valley

Null is a programmer term meaning.... well, "null", nothing, indicating a glitch of some kind (like with MissingNo.). And then, this glitch evolves into Sil-vally, like in Sillicon Valley, place that's well known for Hi-tech stuff, computers etc.

So, both are hi-tech synthetic Pokemon, one is named after software, second one after hardware...

Makes sense.... kind of xD - unsigned comment from Khamira (talkcontribs)

Griffin

Both Type: Null and Silvally appear to have some inspiration from chimeras, but there is also a striking resemblance to griffins: both have eagle-like talons as front feet and have a vaguely feline back legs and body. The blade on the heads of both Pokemon resembles an eagle's head in profile. Silvally's feline ears resemble that of a griffin's, and when contrasted against its dark body, its head resembles that of a Bald Eagle. Its mouth also appears to end in a beak.

--Geektreecko (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

A pretty defining characteristic of griffins is wings. Neither Pokemon has wings. I would also say the fish tail is a pretty drastic divergence from griffins. I think chimera is really the primary inspiration, and griffins just happen to have some common points. (And a parallel is not the same thing as a design influence.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

STAB

Should Type: Null get italicized STABs on its learnset/move pages since it evolves into a Pokémon that can change types? Right now there's none on its learnset, and the move pages aren't consistent at all with whether or not it gets italicized. The only precedent I can think of for this kind of thing is Darumaka, who has Zen Headbutt italicized in its learnset (but isn't italicized on the page itself)--Cold (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Branch Chief F

In the basement, there are notes from a "Branch Chief F" talking about how to be the best manager you can be, and noting at one point how this king among men created a restraint device that was stolen by his supervisor's family.

Seems to be talking about Faba inventing the restraint devices here.KrytenKoro (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Material of Type: Null's Mask?

In the biology section of the article, Type: Null's mask is described as being made of wood. Is this confirmed anywhere or is it just speculation? I don't recall seeing anything in the game or pre-release material describing the mask as wood. Skyarrow (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning

I think there seriously needs to be some sort of spoiler warning for the bio section of Type: Null. I'm playing through the game at the moment, and I'm trying to be as spoiler free as possible. I remember seeing this Pokémon in one of the major trailers, and I wanted to learn about its biology and what it exactly is. An entire third paragraph included inside that section containing easily visible massive spoilers was really disappointing. --MatrVincent (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

IMO, you're absolutely right. I mean, there's one for (I won't say), so Type: Null should too. {{spoilers}} Unowninator (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Type: Null's Legendary Status

Edit: I was just about to post this new section as-is when I noticed the edits in the history page. I figure we should probably take the discussion here instead. If I could add my own 2 cents, I disagree with Pumpkinking0192 in that this is not a confirmation of TN's Legendary status. TN already fits most qualifications for being a legendary, so this just serves as extra proof. Besides, it makes zero sense to have one step in an evolutionary chain be Legendary while the other isn't. Legendary families have never really been a thing before Gen VII, but the Cosmog line should set enough of a precedent for this decision. Heck, even Phione gets a spot on the Mythicals page, and that guy is heavily disputed, even more than TN. I personally feel that TN should get at least some kind of mention about its Legendary status. It doesn't have to be a full admission, but it should at the very minimum be something like what we did with UBs, where we at least acknowledged that their status was disputed. Original post below.


With today's GameStop event announcement, Silvally has now been officially confirmed as a Legendary Pokemon. Silvally's entry page has been updated to reflect this change, but now I'm wondering if we should do the same for Type: Null. I'm personally leaning more towards yes, but I'd like to see what others have to say first. --Troof (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you can really say it doesn't make any sense for an evolutionary line to be only partially Legendary. These kinds of "rules" can easily change, the only real criteria for Legendary/Mythical status should be explicit confirmation of some kind (which Phione has received in the past despite being contradicted, and Type: Null currently doesn't have afaik).--Cold (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. I guess we'll just have to wait until the Pokemon Company clarifies this for us. On a slightly off-topic note, when exactly were Cosmog/Cosmoem explicitly confirmed as Legendaries? Not calling you out or anything, but I'm trying real hard to recall a moment where they were referred to as Legendaries and I'm coming up blank. Was it actually in-game or was it in some kind of announcement like with Silvally? I'm not sure if I missed something, and now I'm really curious. --Troof (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
It was in-game; the Rotom Dex says, "Zzzrt! You registered a Legendary Pokémon! That's, well, legendary! Let'zzz check it out!" when Cosmog and Cosmoem are registered in the Pokédex. For the guardian deities, Type: Null, Silvally, and the Ultra Beasts, it gives a unique phrase that doesn't indicate their status, which is why we've had months (and months and months) of talk page discussions on what to do with them. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Prior to this Silvally event, all acknowledged Legendary Pokemon were marked as such in Ga-Ole. Silvally is the only current one who wasn't, but it did still at least have some special marking: "Super Strong". Type:Null, however, has no special marking whatsoever. This treatment for Null means it still warrants an abundance of caution. The attribution for Silvally is somewhat of a surprise (personally, anyway), but at the moment, there's not reason to jump the gun on Null. Conflicting/ambiguous information should be clarified officially, not by our assumptions. Tiddlywinks (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
...I don't even know where to begin with how inane this whole argument is. People here denied that the tapu were legendary, and then they were confirmed to be legendary. People here denied that Silvally was a legendary, and then it was confirmed to be a legendary. People here deny that the Ultra Beasts are legendaries, and one day somebody in Game Freak or TPCI will call them legendary. All of these Pokémon and Type: Null are legendaries. They're treated as such in the coding, not just in the battle facilities, but in their Pokédex entry backgrounds and in the GTS's legendary/mythical filter as well. This argument has been going on for ELEVEN months. If USUM has a National Dex, which we'll probably be able to find out whether that's the case in three weeks given the inevitable leaks from some lucky sap who got their hands on a copy thanks to a broken street date, the other battle facility-legal legendaries are going to have the same backgrounds as these guys, and if the background colour grouping indicators are going to be in any future Pokédexes then they're sure as hell going to share those backgrounds, and of course people here will find a way to argue that some future legendaries aren't legendaries in the event that "they were never explicitly stated to be legendaries" in-game.. They'll have 3 perfect IVs if that trend continues, their catch rates will be abysmal, and they'll be available in limited amounts for a single save file. Azureprism (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
All that is/was assumption. It means nothing if your guess was proved correct, it's still a guess. Tiddlywinks (talk) 00:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Azureprism: Bulbapedia strives to be as accurate as possible. What seems common sense to you, and to the majority, needs to be confirmed first. We can't say that Type: Null is legendary quite yet, there's not enough evidence for the staff to accept it yet. And the color indicators don't mean anything. We need text evidence without any degree of doubt to confirm anything. We can't use past precedents, either, because we know how that worked in Sun and Moon.
This isn't a site for speculation; we do absolutely need "explicit" statements. --Celadonkey 00:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Azureprism, nobody denied the Tapu or Ultra Beasts were Legendary. Instead, there was no convincing evidence that they were, so it was simply unconfirmed as to whether or not they were. The fact that the Tapu were later revealed to be Legendary does not mean it was incorrect to wait for that confirmation. --SnorlaxMonster 01:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I know we should just wait for official confirmation. But people always bring up the GTS filter as confirmation. It specifically state "Legendary and Mythical Pokémon". It is really strange for them to use that specific phase and include pokemon that are not legendary or mythical. In previous discussions in legendary pokemon talk page, we somehow come to a conclusion that since type: null, tapus and UBs are filtered under that list, they are EITHER legendary OR mythical. and since they should not be mythical, they are legendary? But we know in japan the filter is just referred to as "Special Pokémon". So, a final decision is still not made.
but still, the filter had to mean something for type:null and the ultra beasts. what exactly make them so special from normal pokemon? -Pokeant (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
In Japanese, the filter apparently is for 「幻や 伝説ポケモンをほしがっている 人を」 (people looking for Mythical or Legendary Pokémon). The filter specifying "Special Pokémon" is in Generation VI only. --SnorlaxMonster 10:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately this whole Wiki as of late has been relying too much on external sources for the information and not enough on what the players can determine all on their own. So let me give you the clearest answer in the form of a trick question; what can Type: Null do that Phione can't? Shiramu Kuromu (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
As a rule, I dislike when people want you to read their minds. IMO, if you want to make a point, you can make it without trying to make people guess at your own personal logic. Tiddlywinks (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
It's not up to players to decide if Pokemon are legendary or not. If Gamefreak says a Pokemon is legendary then it is. If they say a Pokemon is not legendary then it's not. If they don't say anything then we don't say anything either. It's pretty simple.
If any given player says that Pikachu is a legendary, would that make it a legendary? In their mind, perhaps, but this is a professional wiki that deals with only official information, especially with such discrete categories such as "legendary" --Celadonkey 02:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

(Reset indent) The argument most people made is always about the gts filter.
Fact 1: it is filtered away by the gts, so we know it is NOT a normal pokemon, or at least we know it is special.
Fact 2: the filter is named legendary and mythical pokemon.
So the question is, are WE the ones creating new labels now for type null, since we do not want to classify it as normal pokemon, yet we do not want to classify it as legendary. same for UBs. Ultra Beast/ is just a group name (not a classification), just like every other legendary group name. -Pokeant (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
(add on) For know, it is best to have a dispute section like phione's page, where we provide both sides of the argument for type: null being legendary or not, or have the section in the legendary pokemon page first before a final decision is made, or official statement is made. -Pokeant (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it's as much "disputed" as it is "not confirmed". Not too many arguments can be made against it that I know of that's not just assumptions about what it means to be a Legendary Pokemon.
Phione is a special case because discussion about Phione's mythical status has been going for probably 10 years now. Even almost a year after Sun and Moon, Type:Null's legendary status isn't exactly a hot topic. --Celadonkey 12:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Phione is a special case because it has had official confirmation both for and against its Mythical status. Type: Null (and the UBs, and Silvally prior to its confirmation, and the guardian deities prior to theirs) is different because they have had no official confirmation one way or the other, just insinuations. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, that depends on what's considered an "official confirmation". But it's really not worth arguing about, because either way, Phione is a special case and we don't need a disputed section for really anything else unless something has the same or similar scenario.
Anyways, pokeant, we don't need to create new labels for type:null only. It's not a part of any group. It's not, by Bulbapedia standards, legendary, so we wouldn't need to mark it as disputed or anything. --Celadonkey 00:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)