Talk:Damage category: Difference between revisions
From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Latest comment: 13 December 2022 by Pichugetic in topic Move
Pichugetic (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
I believe the article should be moved, in order to avoid confusion between damaging and non-damaging moves. | I believe the article should be moved, in order to avoid confusion between damaging and non-damaging moves. | ||
[[User:GalarChamp Cinderace|GalarChamp Cinderace]] ([[User talk:GalarChamp Cinderace|talk]]) 22:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC) | [[User:GalarChamp Cinderace|GalarChamp Cinderace]] ([[User talk:GalarChamp Cinderace|talk]]) 22:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC) | ||
I cast my vote in favour. Status moves aren't a damage category at all, now, are they? [[User:Pichugetic|Pichugetic]] ([[User talk:Pichugetic|talk]]) 04:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:45, 13 December 2022
Move
I didn't propose the move, but I definitely support it (if we want to stick to the template and what's displayed onscreen), seeing that Secret Sword, for example, is said to deal "physical damage" by its Pokédex entry when in fact it is a special move. The leading sentence should then be changed (and focus on the SpAtk vs. Atk). Nescientist (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- I also support this. Not all moves deal damage-most status moves don't, in fact-so damage category is a bit misleading. TechSkylander1518 (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- My approval. TheUltimateGamer (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I believe the article should be moved, in order to avoid confusion between damaging and non-damaging moves. GalarChamp Cinderace (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I cast my vote in favour. Status moves aren't a damage category at all, now, are they? Pichugetic (talk) 04:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
