Talk:Type chart

Separate charts

Why are Generation I and Generation II type chart separate. Can I combined the two charts into this article? - Clarky13

Read the article. Dark and Steel! tc26 13:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

He means place the two charts in the article, not combine them. Θρtιmαtum♏_Talk|Links 13:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, so instead of three different articles, we make one. - Clarky13

I was just coming to suggest putting each on their own page, for easier printing. HyperHacker 03:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Dragon attacks not very effective against Fire in Generation I?

In the chart, it lists Dragon attacks as being not very effective against Fire Pokémon in Generation I. Has this actually been tested with an "artificial" Dragon-type move in a Generation I game? Thanks. Ultraflame 05:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Dual-Type Mechanics in Generation I

IIRC, in Generation I, dual-type Pokémon's type mechanics worked differently. If you were a dual-type hit by a move that one of your types was weak against and the other resistant to, instead of balancing out like they did in later generations, they want by just your type-two stat. For example, a Zubat getting hit by Leech Life would take x2 damage because Poison is his second type, and a Bellsprout getting hit by Poison Sting would take 1/2x damage for the same reason. However, this is from pretty far back in my memory. Can anyone confirm? Schreiber 13:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that it worked just like it does in current games (barring the changes to the type chart, that is). The difference was that it displayed "It's super-effective!/It's not very effective..." based on one of the two types, rather than both.--Purimpopoie 13:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It is different in Gen I. At least in Red/Blue. My Venusaur's Razor Leaf was always ineffective against Gyarados. - unsigned comment from CitruX (talk • contribs)

No, that's only what the game says. The actual effectiveness was still calculated in the same way. In Generation I it may say that Zubat's Leech Life on another Aubat is "Super effective", but in reality Zubat's Poison and Flying types did cancel each other out. Ultraflame 17:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

How the game determines what message to display is here, if you scroll down to the "The Type Message Experiment" section. As stated above, this only shows the message, not the actual calculation. Stag019 17:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

unique

so, what type variations HAVENT been done? - unsigned comment from DJLO (talk • contribs)

ElectAbuzzzz has a sub page for that. Just be aware that that page also takes order of the types into account. Werdnae (talk) 07:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Reorganization

Since the removal of special/physical descriptors depending on type, I think we should rearrange the charts into their official order as Nintendo puts them. --Dr. Forrester 20:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

That is the order Nintendo puts them. The Pokedexes from BW, HGSS and Platinum all use that same order. I don't have a copy of DP to check on, but I imagine that's the same. Werdnae (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It's also the order they are stored internally. And yes, DP Pokédex is the same, as are RSE's and FRLG's. --SnorlaxMonster 08:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Merging article with Type

So, the Type Chart article's got a header saying "The contents of this article have been suggested to be merged into the page Type." I don't know how you other people use this page, but I use the page a lot as a quick reference. It's probably the article I use the most, and it's seldom for more than a few seconds. That's why I like how it's quite a short article with the chart I need in the top of the article. No scrolling, no extra time that's wasted. Of course, it depends on how it's implemented, but I'm pretty negative to the idea of merging this article with the Type-article. That's my five cents. Laxsill (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, although there should be a subsection on Type that shows the current type chart (not previous gen's) with a "main article" link to here. - poikins 17:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Considering no discussion has been made on this, I am going to recommend removing the template. Tacopill (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Effectiveness Program

Using Visual Basic, I may make a program that tells you how effective an attack is against certain-typed Pokémon, just like the Pokétch app in Diamond. It'll define wether the damage is x4, x2, x1, x.5, x.25, or x0. Any thoughts? And yes, it will be inserted onto the article if allowed. - unsigned comment from -SirBunny- (talk • contribs)

That's not the kind of thing that we put into articles. You're welcome to make it for yourself, but here's not the place to put it. Werdnae (talk) 06:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Generation V and VI

Is there any change in the element type chart in generation V or VI from Generation IV?

--Ishu bagaria (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

No. _{Sneaking from page to page... It's the page-editing purple ghost...} Gengarzilla! 19:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, we don't know enough about Gen VI yet, so there could still be a change. --SnorlaxMonster 07:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

In the section of the article, it says the only change between V and VI's old type relations is that Steel no longer resists Ghost and Dark. Have none of us noticed that Fighting is no longer immune to ghost? - unsigned comment from ArtistKyurem (talk • contribs)

If that's true, then you may edit the article yourself. (I can't confirm since I don't have Gen V or VI games.) - poikins 07:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That is, when the lockdown is lifted after the games are no longer new. - poikins 07:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Fighting has never been immune to Ghost. --It's Funktastic~!_{話してください} 07:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Fighting has never been immune to Ghost. Ghost is still immune to Normal and Fighting (as it always has been), and Normal is still immune to Ghost (as it always has been). If you've seen Normal- or Fighting-type moves hit a Ghost type, that would be due to Scrappy, Foresight or Odor Sleuth. --SnorlaxMonster 07:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Huh, I must have blanked out when I posted that.ArtistKyurem (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Shouldn't we include a notice saying this is outdated now since the Fairy type is here? --HoennMaster 19:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Type chart isn't outdated yet, when X and Y is out, then it would be outdated. — Reshi643 (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

This second type table is still there until the release of X and Y, it will be outdated and replaced with the new one because of the Fairy type is added. Just wait for a few months. Thank you.Cinday123 (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The current table is listed as Generation II-V. Until we actually have enough information about how it will be in Generation VI to make a table (since they may change other weaknesses/resistances like they did last time), we don't need a table for Generation VI.- unsigned comment from SnorlaxMonster (talk • contribs)

Differences

Sorry if this comes across as nitpicking, but shouldn't the differences between 'Generation V and IV' be the differences between 'Generation V and VI'?

On a separate note, with reference to the merging suggestion banner, I'm in favor of merging the two pages; I think if someone were to search for 'type', then they would probably want to know how each type fared against other types, and having the type chart(s), even if just the current chart with links to the outdated charts for reference, would be useful.

Thanks, Deccers (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Official Generation 6 Type Chart (PDF Version)

There's an official version found here (linked to from the official English Pokémon X and Y website). Not sure how to go about converting it to PNG format for use in the article, though. Fenyx4 (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Minor type alterations

Should the pieces of information (like Ghost-type Pokémon being immune to trapping moves, and Grass-type Pokémon being immune to "powder and spore moves") be added to this article? They are significant type-related changes compared to previous generations, and they do involve a "match-up" in a certain way, albeit a more specific variant. Fenyx4 (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so; we don't mention that Steel-types changed between Gen 2 and 3 from being vulnerable to the Poison status condition (albeit immune to the type, and thus only vulnerable to the status via Twineedle) to being immune to both the status and the type. This seems like the same situation to me. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Type Chart additional column?

Would it be possible to add one more column to the type charts? It would allow the user to click on two different types and the column would show the effectiveness of the attacks to that dual type.

Separate question: what colors would be associated with 4x and ¼x? I'm asking because I made my own extended chart that I may or may not put up on my personal page.--Astromath (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

To the first question, if that is possible, it is far outside my wikicoding abilities and probably requires a few extensions we don't have have; it's not really worthwhile. As for colors, they would just be arbitrary, so it doesn't matter. --SnorlaxMonster 15:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't really know how to do it either. But I found a site that does it easily. Maybe you can modify the code somehow to make it presentable on this site. Dual Type Match-Up Chart

--Astromath (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed, he uses multiple webpages to get this effect. I guess you can't use it.--Astromath (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikicode is far less flexible than a generic webpage. I don't think it would be possible without an extension that we wouldn't get. --SnorlaxMonster 08:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Inverse Battles?

Should we add a chart for the type chart that is used in the Inverse House of Route 18? --GoldenSandslash15 (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I think so, but it seems to me like that belongs on the Route 18 page. - poikins 17:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Should redirect to Type#Type_chart instead of just Type

Title. I can't edit this page for some reason (it doesn't seem to be protected?). Blueapple128 (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion it should be linked to Type/Type chart. - unsigned comment from Tor3 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)