Talk:Gallade (Pokémon)

Altered some of the information to make Gardevoir less confusing. Gardevoir is a feminine yet gender neutral evolution of Kirlia. - unsigned comment from Melinarat (talk • contribs)

Quick question, is Gallade's mouth the beak-like part of his head or the semi-visible line below his eye? - unsigned comment from Ytlow (talk • contribs)

Pretty sure it's the latter. -- Jioruji Derako.> 17:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Think maybe Gallade's English name came from Sir Galahad? Just a random thought. - unsigned comment from Shrikeswind (talk • contribs)

Image

a:File:GalladeAnime.jpg This is an image from the anime. I can't use it because it hasn't been uploaded yet and I can't upload it because I don't know if it is legal to use it since it is from serebii.net. So someone who knows what to do, please upload this picture or a better picture so we can use it in the article.Pokemaniac102 07:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, Serebii would certainly not like it very much hotlinked. TTEchidna^G_SDS! 10:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, nothing better at serebii.net. Nothing good at unown.un.funpic.org.Pokemaniac102 22:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Link?

who thinks Gallade looks like Link from Zelda?? MAGNEDETHTALK 22:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite Possible, colorwise that is.Pokemaniac102 22:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

i think its quite a stretch, i just dont think it should be in the Trivia section MAGNEDETHTALK 22:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't really want it's to be in trivia. It way more than a stretch. Probably many lightyears long.Pokemaniac102 22:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

uh...what? MAGNEDETHTALK 22:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You said it was quite a stretch. It is way more than that. A stretch that couldn't fit inside the universe.Pokemaniac102 22:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

no, i got what you said, you just had a few too many errors to understand it. that being said, should it be taken out of trivia then? MAGNEDETHTALK 22:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. There is little resemblance between them and it is unlikely that the idea of how the pokémon should look was taken from Link.Pokemaniac102 23:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

its almost to say that Octillery looks like an Octork, but, unless things are really really close, i think they shouldnt be allowed. MAGNEDETHTALK 23:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Add to Trivia

Wouldn't Gallade be the first Fighting pokemon to learn a Ghost-Type move through Baby? It can learn Confuse Ray and Destiny Bond, so maybe we can add it to Trivia? - unsigned comment from Nidolord500 (talk • contribs)

..not really. I mean, if it was the only Fighting-type to learn a Ghost-type move, THEN it'd be notable, but otherwise, not really. Tina ^δ♫ 15:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Patriotic Gladiator

Gallade is based off of a gladiator. Gladiators traditionally hail from Rome, Italy. Italy's flag's colors are green, white, and red, as are Gallades. Coincidence or not, I believe it deserves to be in the Trivia section. - unsigned comment from Starleged (talk • contribs)

It's already in the Origin section. And the flag color is speculation, so I guess there's no need to add it anymore. ►Ҝəυzø8 03:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ralts, Kirlia, and Gardevoir have the same colors, yet they aren't based off of Italian fighting styles. R.A. Hunter B. 17:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hourglass-shaped? Kilt?

Ok, i'm not sure what hourglasses the writer of the Physiology is use to seeing, but that is not a hourglass shaped figure.

Being this is for a wiki on a kid oriented show, i'll use the pg talk on what its body looks like.

If anything, it's body looks like a "novelty" smoking "accessory." Similar to the one that got Tommy Chong some legal trouble.

Heck even the bottle from "I Dream of Jeannie" looks more like its body then a hourglass.

There is no way that looks like a hour glass. Black Widows have an Hourglass in its Physiology but Gallade doesn't.

Also I fail to see how its lower body looks like a kilt. I don't see them every day, but i know what a kilt look like and Gallade does not look like it has a kilt down there. Google Kilt and look at the first image only (the others are NSFW.) Yami 12:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It does have a rough hourglass shaped body.... and you kinda made the description a bit worse, while a bit better. It was fine as it was, and all you had to do was a few minor tweaks, not redo the whole freaking thing. R.A. Hunter Blade 20:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Male

Since Gallade is male only, why does the article say "it" instead of "he"? Turtwig A (talk | contribs) 17:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been wondering that, and I think we did that while ago, but somebody said to keep "it". I might be wrong, but I thought we did something like that. R.A. Hunter Blade 17:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

Is it really notable that a Pokémon can't learn an Egg move via TM? I mean, if a Pokémon can learn a move via TM, why make it an egg move anyway? That just seems like common sense to me. Yes, it is available as a TM, but just because Gallade can't use it doesn't mean it should be notable that it can learn it from its father who can learn the TM. I'm sure Gallade isn't the only Pokémon to be in that position.--PhantomJunkie 17:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Name

It's name could also be based on Salad, you know its legs look like leeks. The Ralts evolutionary family have also been refereed to plants. ♢ DeadUniverse ^Hello! ♢ 20:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

They do resemble leeks, though it may (or may not) be coincidental. Also, when were they compared to plants? That would certainly shed new light on Gallade's pre-evolution Kirlia's similarities to Cosmo from Sonic X (which for some bizzare reason is not mentioned anywhere in Kirlia's trivia section) XVuvuzela2010X 21:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Name origin

Maybe Gallade's name came from arabic " جلاد " ( spells Jallade ) and that means "Executioner"

Is this trivia worthy?

I noticed something unique about Gallade that sets him apart from all of the other 16 Pokémon that change one of their types after evolving. Before the Fairy-type was introduced in Gen VI, his pre-evolution Kirlia was a pure Psychic-type. Is it trivia worthy saying that Gallade is unique from all Pokémon that changed one of their types after evolving for his pre-evolution originally had one type before the Fairy-type was introduced in Gen VI? Or should this be put in Kirlia's page instead? --PKMNAdventurer (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

That's neither interesting nor useful trivia, really, and doesn't sound like it would have lasting relevance. Even if it were, it would go on Kirlia's page. —TheVeryBest 05:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Moveset Filter

Maybe this is just my computer bugging up, but when I click on the filter buttons above Gallade's "Moves Learned via Level Up", they don't sort in order. EG, clicking on Category should sort them into Physical, Special, and Status, but they're still very mixed up, beginning with Close Combat and ending with False Swipe (both physical). Does anyone else have this problem? Scribbl 09:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

mega trivia

slowbro is branched and also mega evolves

Possible new category

I don't know if any other Pokémon fit this strange criteria, but Gallade appears to be in a rare if not unique situation where it loses a previous typing upon evolving. So maybe that could be a category? "Pokémon that lose a type upon evolving" or something better worded? Mega Aggron might even technically fit that bill. Draceon (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Categories are generally not created if they will only contain a very small number of pages. They're meant to group things, and when there's very few things, that's not much use. Tiddlywinks (talk) 06:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. It's far from a "unique" situation, as it shares that distinction with many other Pokémon. That may be enough to warrant the creation of a category page. The other Pokémon who "lost" a type during evolution are, to the best of my knowledge: Vaporeon, Jolteon, Flareon, Espeon, Umbreon, Leafeon, Glaceon, Sylveon, Marill, Bellossom, Steelix, Scizor, Masquerain, Ninjask, Altaria, Drapion, Dragalge, and of course Gallade itself. That would bring the total to eighteen Pokémon whose pre-evolutions "lost" a type when they evolved. I'm not counting Mega Evolutions as they're temporary. So it's more than "very few things", since categories of around that number of entries or less do exist, but it may also be better applied to the pre-evolutions themselves, as they are the one who "lose" the types. — KiANGLO ^TALK 09:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

In that case...honestly, my own reaction is mostly, "So?". (If others want to express their own opinion, that's fine; that's just mine.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

It's definitely ambiguously necessary, but I'm pleased to see how many examples actually exist - I forgot to count eeveelutions entirely - and I certainly didn't mean to say it should be a category because few Pokémon, even one, are in that weird situation, I really meant the seeming rarity of it intrigued me, and I wanted to see if there were other examples before pressing the creation of a category. Still... there's only 18 of them, so I'll leave it to others to decide if it's warranted. We may even get new additions to this "category" (patent pending) when Sun and Moon come out! At the very least, the category name could most likely be worded better than my initial attempt, and actually applying the category to the pre-evolutions might not be a bad idea... Raises a question in Gallade's case to be fair, as that's a branched evolution, but. Yeah. EDIT: Shedinja too, actually, so 19. Draceon (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I intentionally left out Shedinja because it doesn't really evolve from Nincada per se; Ninjask is its evolution and Shedinja is just... there. I wouldn't personally include it in this list. However. For some reason I could swear I remember that this little bit of trivia used to exist on some pages, such as Swablu or Altaria's, some long time ago, and was since removed. I distinctly recall seeing something about how Swablu changes its primary type upon evolution (which was rare), and I can't imagine anywhere else where I would have seen it.

And Tiddlywinks, you say "So?", but there are a lot of really arbitrary categories on this wiki that would make a lot of other people say the same. For example, there's got to be "category" for every possible BST, most of which have only one Pokémon included in them. There's also a "category" for each and every method of evolution, one of which containing every single Pokémon in the universe that evolves using a Prism Scale. Therefore, I hardly think that a lack of entries makes a category unworthy of creation. I'm still not sure how to phrase such a category, though. — KiANGLO ^TALK 04:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

If you think "So?" is in response to, "Actually, there's several Pokemon that can fit the category", casually dismissing that, you're quite mistaken. That's in response to the category idea itself ("They lose a type. OK...so?" I.e., IMO it's not very interesting/worthwhile.)

The BST categories are automatic (generated by the base stats template), and for all intents and purposes you can consider the evolution method categories automatic too (there's plenty reason for those). Categories like those are the exact reason I said "generally" right from the get-go; they're not what I was talking about. Something like protection moves is a far better analogy. If we only had Protect, we wouldn't have created that category; but once a few more such moves appeared, it became a worthy grouping to make. 04:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the fact that it's rare makes it noteworthy. Pokémon overwhelmingly remain the same type, or gain a secondary type upon evolving (after being single-typed). The fact that only eighteen Pokémon share this distinction makes it notable enough that it's not a "regular" occurrence that should just be overlooked, but at the same time, the fact that an entire eighteen Pokémon share this distinction makes it more than just a blip on the radar that would only be worth mentioning on the pages of the few that it pertained to. The logic I'm looking at here is, it's too many examples to list them on those Pokémon's pages as trivia. But for that reason there should be some sort of category page for it. I really don't see a reason why not; and it is somewhat notable from a gameplay standpoint, as these Pokémon's strengths and weaknesses may change drastically when they evolve. There's a huge difference between a Normal/Flying type like Swablu and a Dragon/Flying type like Altaria. In short, these eighteen Pokémon go against the unwritten expectations that come with evolution. Why shouldn't that get the slightest bit of acknowledgement? — KiANGLO ^TALK 05:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's the problem, actually. Y'all are looking at this as if it's trivia. "This is rare/unique/interesting." It's not anything else. Trivia doesn't make for a good category, period, pretty much. Categories should be things that need linking. And a trivial fact does not need linking that much. Hell, it's not even worthy trivia, because it's not unique. (Also, I don't think I'm at ALL with you on the idea that it's unexpected.)

If there were some compelling reason to link it in some pages' main text, it might be worth creating a category (that's what I've really meant by interesting/noteworthy)—and yes, I mean multiple pages, and compelling: it wouldn't become worthy just because you could, say, mention on Evolution that some Pokemon lose a type. Like I said originally, categories group things—things that need grouping. The only need evident here is "trivial". (And frankly, the fact that it's only come up as trivial, and not for an "actual" need, I think highlights the fact that this truly isn't needed. And I don't think it's possible to manufacture a truly compelling reason now that I've pointed out that as the problem—again, if such a reason were present enough, it should have come out either somewhere else or before this point.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)