Talk:Move

should we put in data for mystery dungeon on the move pages, for example a list of pokémon that can learn Surf in Mystery Dungeon Red/Blue?? OrigamiGuy-_T-C-M 11:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the compatability lists for moves like Surf or Solarbeam is the same as in the Generation III main games. Only moves exclusive to Mystery Dungeon, such as Horizontal Cut from the first game or Wide Slash from the second, have truly unique compatability lists. --Shiningpikablu252 14:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

Can someone make "Command" redirect to here, I don't know how...Aura-Knight 01:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not see the point to that.PLease explainDCM

Command is regularly used in many media as an alternative to "use a move", Trainers issue a command and the Pokémon does the move. Aura-Knight 22:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

-- (move)

Why does -- (move) redirect here? Is there some new move I don't know about? Baby G 13:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Move tables

I feel that we should make a table to go on the top of every move table, somewhat like the one on top of the Special rounds. like... <--001 Pound | 002 Karate Chop | 003 Doubleslap-->--RexRacer -talk 15:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Learned at start?

What does this mean on learnsets? - unsigned comment from Vib (talk • contribs)

It learns it, hypothetically, before level 1, meaning you need a move relearner to get the moves back (unless you've just hatched it from an egg). — THE TROM — 22:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Anime debuts

Shuld we include move debuts in anime episode pages just like pokemon debuts? Tell me what you think. - unsigned comment from Tomas (talk • contribs)

No because moves are usually argued about in the anime while Pokémon and humans aren't really argued as much. Turtwig A Contributions Talk 13:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Let's take James's Carnivine's Vine Whip for example. There were people who thought it was Power Whip. Some moves may look a like, like Water Gun and Hydro Pump. ^tc²₆tc₂₆ 13:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Glitch move redirect

I really don't think that "Unknown_glitch_move_(move)" should redirect here.. Eric the espeon 20:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Anime move learning

Should the comment that all anime moves are apparently learned by level up be clarified or expanded? Ash has been shown many times to help and drill his pokemon to help them learn new moves (Pikachu's Iron Tail, Swellow's Aerial Ace, Treeko's Bullet Seed, Turtwig's Energy Ball, and even currently Gible's Draco Meteor are examples). These and others could count as the anime versions of Technical Machines (like the bars which Swellow had to dive under) or Move Tutoring (Would Ash have been able to teach Turtwig Energy Ball if Kenny hadn't helped)? --Splunge 14:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The TCG

If a move that exists in the games is also mentioned in/on a card in the TCG should we put a description of it on the move's page. Like an 'In the TCG' section? Gallevoir 22:31, 07 August 2010 (UTC)

It will happen soon enough. But not yet. It will be soon though. ^Maverick_Nate 22:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

In-game move image quality

Hmm... A lot of move images are low quality. Either the colours are desaturated, or the transparencies are incorrect (black). Can I help in inserting the correct versions of these pictures? Turtwig Lover 14:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

V-Generate

Despite knowing that V-Generate will be one of Victini's Signature moves, it hasn't been acknowledged as it yet, so should it be in the Trivia section with Kyurem's unconfirmed moves? Azure42 17:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

4 limit

is the four move limit also in the anime? - unsigned comment from Darknesslover5000 (talk • contribs)

No not really since it has never been acknowledged. -Tyler53841 09:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

k. howsabout in the Adventures manga?--Darknesslover5000 09:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Pikachu VS Ponyta

... is a Gen IV picture. I normally wouldn't mind, but just four minutes ago i saw a talk page saying that Bulbapedia prefers to use newer pictures depicting the same thing rather than old ones. So, should we replace it? EvilKirikizan 22:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

to be considered anime move errors or not?

Examples being Vaporeon using BubbleBeam in Best Wishes series or Ash's Charizard using DragonBreath in Advanced Generation series, among others. Technically, Generation I. and II. games are less canon, with Generations III. and IV. remakes of them respectively taking precedence. So even though these two pokemon could use those moves at some point in the games, there's no legal way to have a BubbleBeam using Vaporeon nor DragonBreath using Charizard in the "online connected continuity" of Generations III-VI.

Therefore I think we should consider such instances to be anime move errors. Opinions?--Elveonora (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Bump--Elveonora (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Things that have appeared in the anime wouldn't need to disappear just because the games don't have them. It wouldn't make sense, for example, to mark a move as an error if a Pokemon knew a move that they could learn in one generation because they didn't suddenly forget it in the next season of the anime. We'd know that it would have been learned legitimately. It doesn't make too much sense to do it that way since it's not like the anime is held to the same connectivity standards as the games. --It's Funktastic~!_{話してください} 10:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I meant, I didn't expect Pikachu to suddenly forget Iron Tail in the anime once XY games came out, just because it can't learn it in them. That's because an Iron Tail using Pikachu is still canon as of Gen VI. one just has to teach it the move in Gens III-V. games and transfer it to a Gen VI. game.

What I was talking about is a Pokemon in the anime using a move that it can't learn since Gen III. in an episode that has aired after the 3rd Gen. came out. To me it's like if an XY anime episode were stating that a Crefairy is a Normal-type, we would obviously consider that a continuity error, so why not this? A Vaporeon using BubbleBeam back then in the anime before wasn't an error, but a Vaporeon using BubbleBeam in the Best Wishes series obviously is an error since neither Gens I. and II. are connected with the newer ones, not to mention they were remade. So no matter how I look at it, BubbleBeam Vaporeon was retconned--Elveonora (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed these things are already mentioned in anime move errors article, so I suppose I brought this up for no reason--Elveonora (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Generation V moves

I noticed that many Pokemon from that generation have in their "prior to evolution" learnset some moves with "BW" affix. For example this one. I suppose it means that Cottonee learns Giga Drain, Helping Hand and Endeavor only in Black/White but not the sequels Black 2/White 2. If so, wouldn't it be good to specify such here?--Elveonora (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

No, that means that the only way for Whimsicott to have those moves in BW is via Cottonee. The "prior evolution" section is the 'last resort' of knowable moves, meaning if an evolution can learn a move via TM or tutor, it won't be there. In the case of those three moves, Whimsicott can learn them via tutor in B2W2. Were the moveset different between games, Cottonee's level-up table would have two columns (BW and B2W2) to reflect the differences. Kai * the Arc Toraph 17:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, I didn't think of that. I thought the movesets were different, so was wondering why the second column is missing, thanks.--Elveonora (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Moves learned by multiple methods

Exactly what happens if a pokemon learns a move via tutor or TM or otherwise already knows a move, then levels up to a level where it learns it by level up? I would imagine it would fail to learn the move, but does any message show, or does it possibly even succeed at learning the move? I can see in Smeargle's case in particular that you might want to have the same move multiple times (two Sketches when you haven't decided what to make the first one yet) --Xolroc (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

In the case in which a Pokémon already knows a move (regardless of how they learned it), no message will show when it levels up to the level where it would have learned the move. In the case of Smeargle, it isn't able to know more than one Sketch at once (or any other move, really). --Carmen★ (Talk | contribs) 20:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

BDSP

Sorry I Can Not Find The Talk Page. According Too The Pokémon Brilliant Diamond And Shining Pearl Websites, I Think The Contest In Generation Eight Will be Called

A 'Super Contest Show'.- unsigned comment from Trj2009 (talk • contribs) 

about generation VIII

According to this page, Generation VIII introduced 80 moves. According to the category for its moves, that generation introduced 141 moves. Pikachu210 (talk) 05:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Basic attack and other "non move actions" split.

The Unite section of this page (look, I typed this before maintenance and then the page was suddenly split before I got back) is only going to get more unwieldy with time given the game is all about introducing new and unique variations on it's character design. There are already 2 paragraphs here basically going "character X is a special exception". For practicality's sake, we should consider places to move article content to in order to keep this page from bloating out of control. I have identified such a case. UNITE's "basic attacks" are not moves, Sand Stream and Snow Warning say so. Therefore we can split them off into a separate article.

But wait a second, there are other games with attacks that aren't moves, and other cases where games have actions that Pokemon can perform that still are not moves. I propose splitting all cases of non-move actions Pokemon can perform into a new article conjecturally titled "Non-move actions" with plenty of redirects for each concept carried. This would involve the following concepts, and likely others from games I'm less familiar with.

The "basic attacks"

• UNITE: basic attack
• Mystery Dungeon: basic attack, standard attack,, etc. (Different pages call this different things)
• Quest: that thing Pokemon do depending on if they are long range or close range Pokemon. Yeah that. I don't think it has a name.

Some examples of other "non-move actions"

• Quest: Scatter
• Pokken: Blocking
• UNITE: "To Base"

So, options:

Status quo. Do not split this page

Make more articles for all of these non-move concepts.

Do the split

Call the page "non-move actions" and include all of those outliers

This split is only about Basic Attacks and equivalents. So other non-moves don't go there

Make more articles for all of these non-move concepts anyway.

Salmancer (talk) 01:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for opening this discussion and looking into the difference between actual moves, basic attacks, and other non-move actions. In my opinion, creating a separate page for the basic attack is a good idea.

The other day I did that page split you mentioned. I transferred the UNITE information from "Move" to the newly created Move (UNITE). You see, the UNITE section was nearly 1/3 of the "Move" page so that seemed to be a bit too long for the main page.

I think you mentioned that you didn't like the split, right? Maybe "Move (UNITE)" was not good enough as the page title? Or maybe it's OK to have a "Move (UNITE)" page as long as the basic attacks are explained elsewhere?

I think we won't want to create separate pages for every possible action like "Block (Pokkén)" or "Scatter (Quest)" since I assume they would be very short, but at least these actions should be located somewhere in pages like Pokémon battle.

Another possible idea that we can consider would be having a general-purpose page like "Battle (UNITE)" or "Pokémon battle (UNITE)" with all kinds of UNITE battle mechanics together in one place. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

So part of it is selfish reasons and part of it is generally helpful. The split of Move (UNITE) was required to happen somewhere down the line, but there are certain sentences that should have been allowed on both pages to provide general information for browsing. (Those sentences got recreated here, so this is resolved). I did want to have Basic Attack split off selfishly because I think the "combining move with basic attack/move" portions reads better as a single paragraph. it can't stay that way if the "Move" page is being sectioned into "Usage" and "Basic Attacks" but it could if there was a "Basic attack" split.

As for Scatter, so my opinion on the topic is that while Scatter is not as important as a move, and lacks all of the data that a move page would elaborate on, correct use of Scatter is still very important to Quest's design and as such it needs some space dedicated to it. As far as I can tell, the only mention of it is two sentences on Quest's page and it should get more. Battle would be a spot... but I'm fairly certain Quest's own gameplay is not described as a Pokémon battle. (Quick check of game text says it's an "expedition", but I only have a cleared save on hand and tutorial text might offer other words.) Another option is just to add subsections to "gameplay" on game pages where detailed descriptions can be put. (I'm favoring the latter here a little.)

I don't think any theoretical Pokken page would have a problem with being too short. It's a fighting game, and fans of fighting games detail actions down to frame counts. Salmancer (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It appears that these are the officially used terms:

• "regular attack" (lowercase) in Mystery Dungeon
• "basic attack" (lowercase) in UNITE
• "Standard Attack" (title case) in Quest (as seen in the bonus "Wait for Standard Attacks")

Yes, I see that the "regular attack", "basic attack", or "Standard Attack" is officially not a move in those games.

You know, maybe we should have the article "Unite Battle" explaining all the mechanics of Unite Battles. I suggested using "Battle (UNITE)" or "Pokémon battle (UNITE)" above, but I'm currently thinking that "Unite Battle" is the best option.

For reference, we have this UNITE game quote by Professor Phorus which uses both the terms "Pokémon battle" and "Unite Battle":

• "Here on Aeos Island, we have unique Pokémon battles known as Unite Battles [...]"

There is still a bunch of information about moves in UNITE, so perhaps we could keep at least "Unite Battle" and "Move (UNITE)" as separate articles.

About the gameplay in Pokémon Quest, maybe "Expedition (Quest)" would be the best title to explain all the expedition gameplay mechanics since this appears to be the main term repeatedly used in-game.

In any case, the word "battle" is also officially used referring to Pokémon Quest on Pokémon.com:

• "Welcome to Tumblecube Island, home to a wild variety of cube-shaped Pokémon! Open the map to learn all about your upcoming adventures, where you’ll befriend Pokémon and battle your way through the island on a quest for treasure." (source)

Personally, my opinion is this: Yes, I think we most likely should properly explain all the spin-off game mechanics, including Block (Pokkén) and Scatter (Quest). But if we currently have only 2 sentences explaining Scatter, then I think we can at least agree that a very small Scatter article with only 2 sentences is not wanted. We can probably talk about creating a separate article for Scatter when we have more information about it. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't this split template get addressed before the Move (UNITE) page gets split a second time? Like, an answer? Of any kind? Anybody? Salmancer (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I created Basic attack (UNITE) for the reason that the page Move (UNITE) appeared to be serving as the main place explaining the basic attacks, but they are not moves.

I just created "Basic attack (UNITE)" today rather than before because you have been recently using the page "Move (UNITE)" to expand the coverage about basic attacks. Thank you for the content added about basic attacks, there's no problem with that. I'm just saying that the main place explaining all the details about basic attacks most likely should not be a page about something else, right?

Based on the discussion above, it seems that at least we agree that moves and basic attacks are different things. I would be surprised if you argued in favor of specifically using "Move (UNITE)" for a complete coverage of basic attacks. But I also realize that you suggested something else: The idea you mentioned above was creating a single page merging the "basic attack" varieties from UNITE, Mystery Dungeon, and Quest, which can still be discussed if you want. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, a single "skill that is a tier below move" article is what I intended. (Presumably titled "Basic attack" with the intro admitting the name varies on a per game basis instead of committing to naming the concept and having each section provide the name for its game.) It's organizationally interesting that three games had to deal with the same question of "If moves are special and cannot be used all the time, what do Pokemon do to fight when they cannot or do not want to use a move?" and independently created similar answers. There should be a way to move between all three interpretations. Salmancer (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

It could always be a "hub and spokes" set up, where a single page mostly serves as links to all the rest. Not a disambig, because of the need to explain what the shared concept is. Salmancer (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think I see what you mean. It appears we could have the "Basic attack" article explaining how that shared concept works in all games where applicable, including UNITE, Mystery Dungeon, and Quest. I agree with you that it's interesting how multiple games deal with that kind of situation.

If the "Basic attack" article is supposed to work in the "hub and spokes" manner you mentioned, then I assume we would still be able to keep Basic attack (UNITE) and Regular attack (Mystery Dungeon) for the detailed in-depth explanation of the gameplay and mechanics in those games. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 06:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the suggestions here, and the resulting splits that were carried out, are the right solution to this problem. What we have is a complicated page that's trying to detail too much. Before making a complicated web of pages all trying to split the content in all directions, I think it would have been better to start with splitting things between "Move" and "Attack" and going from there. What makes "Basic attack" (and the premature subpages Basic attack (UNITE) and Regular attack (Mystery Dungeon)) more significant than the other attacks mentioned here like Fast attacks, or attacks in the TCG? The current ideas presented here feel far too convoluted to be easily understandable. ^Maverick_Nate 10:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

You see, I was just asking some questions about how that might work and pointing out that the games have some differences in terminology and mechanics.

Personally I'm not yet convinced that we should have a "Basic attack" page covering multiple games at once. That's why I created separate pages for the basic attack and regular attack instead of attempting to create a single page explaining them all together.

I'm not a fan of the idea of using a name like "Basic attack" for an article referring to multiple kinds of attacks with different official names in different games. Officially, the attack in Mystery Dungeon is not a basic attack, it's a regular attack.

If we created the proposed "Basic attack" page covering all kinds of simple attacks that may not be considered moves, then would this page have all the instances in the anime where a Pokémon just attacks without a named move? This happened multiple times in the M01 at least.

It's true that the "Move" page explains Fast Attacks and Charged Attacks from GO, and attacks from TCG, while also pointing to Move (GO) and Attack (TCG) for details. They are all based on the core series moves (for instance, the "Vine Whip" exists in both GO and TCG). GO and TCG don't seem to have that kind of game logic where an attack is officially not a move.

In the case of UNITE and Mystery Dungeon, I assume we can agree that the page named "Move" should not be the place for in-depth details of basic attacks and regular attacks. The reason is that those games specifically feature moves but officially consider the basic attacks and regular attacks as separate from moves.

Maybe it would be best if Basic attack (UNITE) and Regular attack (Mystery Dungeon) were moved to pages named "Basic attack" and "Regular attack", respectively. They can still point to each other as hatnotes for disambiguation. They are currently linking to each other in the "See also" section. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

What makes UNITE basic attacks more important is that the game goes out of its way to distinguish the two in gameplay terms. Basic attack isn't a subdivision of moves, it full on appears to be considered a separate entity. It's not "moves (excluding basic attacks)", it's "move" and the fact basic attacks don't trigger things unless the text says so is assumed. (To compare, Unite Moves trigger Hadron Engine so those are a subdivision of moves. (I could swear that I once saw "move [excluding Unite Move]" somewhere, but I can't find it.) moves As of yet, there is no full distinction of of two different groups of attacks in the TCG. A GX attack is still an attack, and so is a VSTAR Power assuming it is an attack and not an Ability. (And besides, TCG attacks already have a dedicated page, which I wouldn't want to group with other things because it's long enough as it is and is serving a key role in TCG rules.) Salmancer (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and a "list of times Pokémon in the anime attack without a defined move" is probably a separate page from any manner of basic attack. Connecting them can be done in prose or via a See Also link. Conflating something with a name with a vague group of things that don't is fraught with peril. (And against move speculation policy, apparently. A policy that we have, also apparently.) Salmancer (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)