Talk:Grass (type)
Type Chart
Apparently although the statistical averages are pretty useless I'm supposed to leave them alone. I don't mind that too much as they are small and actually look nice. However, the additional type chart is going a little too far. The information was already there, in a format that looked better, conveyed the information better, didn't take up unnecessary space, and didn't stretch the screen in a resolution smaller than 1024x768. Is there any problem with the format evkl established?
- Jshadias
Listing
Another thing, we need to decide on either a numerical or alphabetical listing of the Pokemon. I'm partial to numerical personally - among other things, it groups most evolution chains nicely.
- Jshadias
Statistical Average
I was going to add the average stats to all the other type pages, but my calculations don't turn up the same for Grass as what's reported on this article. I get these:
HP: 63 ATK: 68 DEF: 64 SPD: 56 S.ATK: 74 S.DEF: 68
Were the originals calculated manually? I made a simple routine to do it automatically that's sound but I want to make sure with the original poster. Sheep 01:13, 17 Feb 2005 (GMT)
The dude who posted the stat totals (whose name I don't remember well enough to spell) hadn't included dual-types into the calculations yet. Feel free to include a more accurate version, but keep the current appearance. IMO it'd be a good idea to discount pre-evos as well.
- Jshadias
But with respect to pre-evos, for instance, I don't think we should consider Scyther a pre-evo of Scizor for the Bug-types, or Onix and Steelix Rock-types.
Although that sets up an interesting "when do we draw the line" question, but I think we can figure that out for ourselves.
-Evan
It seems to me like the statistical average should include all those pokemon listed on the page, otherwise it would be misleading without a note under each statistical average report that lists all the pokemon counted. People still use pre-evolutions anyway, if they're playing the game and they havn't evolved yet. Sheep 16:08, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
So have a note.
What value does including pre-evolutions have to someone just playing the game? I never said they weren't used, but they aren't very relevant to the stat averages. Not that the stat averages are relevant in the first place.
-Jshadias
It doesn't have any value at all to anyone playing the game, you're right. It's simply more encyclopedic. I think we need to be careful about turning an encyclopedia into a more game-guide oriented thing. Not that this is that big of an issue, but accuracy and noteworthiness need to be taken together. The problem with having a note is that it may pad or confuse the point of stat averages - in an article about a type, isn't every pokemon of that type noteworthy? Sheep 23:07, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Why exactly is it any good to be "encylopedic" if the information isn't very useful? Not including pre-evolutions would simply make the stat averages more relevant. Adding a few extra words is a pretty tiny price to pay.
Jshadias 07:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I did the averages so that it only considers pure type Pokemon for each respective type. Of course you get some strange sets for the Rock and Ice type because they are under-represented. Throwing out pre-evolutions and keeping last-stage evolutions doesn't matter - the difference between the stats is what appears in the averages so Squirtle and Blastoise still have the same statistical percentages from the normal but Squirtles is a percentage of the pre-evolution set and Blastoise of the final-stage set of regular stats. You can include all pokemon listed on the page in your calculation but you have to add some weighting - I've written the program to approximate a Pokemon's stats without a certain type influence so making Bulbasaur a pure Grass-type rather than dual Grass- and Poison- type, but the process of making real averages would take many repeats. It can be done and I can put up the source code for anyone who wants to improve it. - Ainohuyuah
The hell?
What the hell's going on with the duplicate "Super/not very" effective thing here? No reason to have doubles of it. Evkl 02:54, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Interesting
Is this worth trivia: Grass happens to be super effective against everyone of Fire's weaknesses Me and my fellow torchics agree on this - Sk8torchic 22:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's quite interesting. TESHIGIGAS 22:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- I noted it on the Fire page. Diachronos 17:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Friendly?
I don't remember if I have siad this before but . . .
I notice that a lot of the grass-types in the anime are very affectionate. For example Jame's grass-type's allways bite him or hug him in affection. And Ash's Turtwig likes to bite Ash as affection. Does anyone think that is worthy trivia? -- Landfish7 06:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Hmmmm... I think it might be worth it, go ahead. SpecialK Leiks Lucario and The Celebi Glitch 12:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Grass/Fire?
It says that, in the trivia section, that Grass has been Paired with all types super effective against it. Although there have been part Bug, Flying, Poison, and Ice, there has not been a Grass/Fire Pokemon to date. - Jorshamo 16:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- You do have a point. Why not remove it? Turtwig A (talk | contribs) 16:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Wrong Trivia
The Trivia says that Grass types begin every regional Pokedex. This is incorrect because of the new addition of Vicnity. Lucario and Pichu 16:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- We don't know if it is a grass type or not. Also, see this and read the bottom section. Turtwig's A-B-Cs (talk | contribs) 16:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Victini is Psychic/Fire :D MAMOSWINEPwnz! (Torngentleman2) 20:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Grass Mixer
Someone needs to add Grass Mixer to the moves. We put Nitro Charge in Fire, Grass Mixer can go in Grass. MAMOSWINEPwnz! (Torngentleman2) 20:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Nitro Charge was added because it is confirmed that it is a Physical move. I.e. we have information about it. All we know about Grass Mixer is it's name and the fact that it is a move. Until we have more info, it shouldn't be added. Werdnae (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect Trivia
"Although about a third of the Grass-type Pokémon were introduced in Generation I, only one is a pure Grass-type Pokémon." There were 14 grass Pokemon introduced in Gen I, out of 75 total. This is below 20% of grass types. Even pre-Gen V, the percentage introduced in Gen I is significantly less than 1/3. - unsigned comment from Nytik (talk • contribs)
More Trivia Business
It seems to me that the following trivia could be a little ambiguous: Grass is paired with 14 of the 17 types, including itself. The only types that have yet to be paired with Grass are Fire, Ghost, and Dragon. Since the "including itself" part sounds like it's saying there's a Grass/Grass pokémon but there isn't. WrightJustice 16:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ew, you're right that's impossible. It's changed now. Thank you. :D --P S Yライダー☮ 16:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Trivia Suggestion
When we are allowed to put trivia on again, could this be considered?
"The Grass type is the only starter type that has not been paired with the Ghost type"
It is true, thanks to the Frillish and Litwick families, but is it notable? --I Liek Gengarz! Do Joo Liek Dem? 12:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect Introduction
The first paragraph of the grass type article is incorrect: "Prior to Generation IV, where moves are designated physical or special based on the move itself rather than its type, all Grass-type moves were special." The moves: Leaf Blade, Pin Missile and Needle Arm are all physical grass type moves available in generation III. To prove the point, these links state my case: Leaf Blade (move) Pin Missile (move) Needle Arm (move)
- Owen
- Pin Missile is a Bug-type move. And you're wrong, they classify it as physical now on those pages because they are physical now. It even says on the talk of Leaf Blade. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes: ~ < those things. --☆YoshisWorld☆ 12:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- To further clarify the physical/special thing. In generations I, II and III, the attack and defense stats which a move used were determined by their types. All Normal type moves did physical damage, for example, while all Grass attacks did special damage. In generation IV, the damage category was defined by the move itself, rather than the type. This meant some moves changed from doing physical damage to doing special damage, and vice versa. For example, In generations I, II and III Hyper Beam did physical damage - it's a normal type move. From generation IV onwards, Hyper Beam does special damage - it's defined by the move. Consequently, an Alakazam using Hyper Beam does a lot more damage in a generation IV game than a generation III game, even if the same individual Pokemon are used as attacker and target. Werdnae (talk) 05:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Trivia
I have seen the trivia fact that Grass is super-effective against all of the types which fire is weak to (i.e. Ground, Rock, Water). Is it also notable that in Generation I, Grass was not very effective against all of the types that fire resisted (i.e. Grass, Bug, Fire)? This was changed in Generation II when fire resisted Ice. Tk3141 04:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
