Talk:Water (type)

Attack Notes

should they be to the point, or fancy?

Aqua Jet

• Always attacks first
• The user lunges at the foe at a speed that makes it almost invisible. It is sure to strike first.

MAGNEDETHTALK 02:16, 12 December 2007 (UT)

Centered?

Damage-dealing moves

Name	Category	Contest	Power	Accuracy	PP	Target	Notes
Aqua Jet	File:PhysicalIC.gif	File:BeautyIC.gif	40	100%	20	One foe	Always attacks first
Aqua Tail	File:PhysicalIC.gif	File:CuteIC.gif	90	90%	10	One foe	The user attacks by swinging its tail as if it were a vicious wave in a raging storm.

centered? or just leave them off to the right? MAGNEDETHTALK 03:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Just.. to the left. Tina ^δ♫ 03:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

left?!?! thats not really an option.. MAGNEDETHTALK 03:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah just leave it as it is, to the left. You do know which way is left and right. Right?Pokemaniac102 03:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

yes, but im asking, put the damage/accuracy in the center or to the right? all the pages are to the right, and i was thinking about converting them. MAGNEDETHTALK 03:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look tacky in the right. Leave it. Tina ^δ♫ 03:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Put them in the center.Pokemaniac102 03:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

we have a conflict here. one says this, and the other says that. try looking at Electric and Water. also, could somone answer my question above about attack notes? MAGNEDETHTALK 03:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

To the point for the attacks, and actually, center sounds good. Tina ^δ♫ 22:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What she said. To the point and in the center. -File:Spr 3e 186.gifニョロトノ666File:Spr 3e 186.gif

some moves have no secondary notes (like Surf) so, should they be left blank? MAGNEDETHTALK 22:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

yes leave it blank. duh!Lilio 00:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Call it "No other effects". END. It's the Θρtιmαtum♏_Talk|Links01:27 22 Jun 2008

holy crap, this is from back in December. ive completed them all. -- MAGNEDETH 04:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

WHAT???!!!!Lilio3:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Look at the dates on the comment. You were replying to a seven-month-old conversation. --Martonimos_{((Argh|Blargh))} 07:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

"There is at least one Pokémon of each type combination that has a 4x weakness to Water."

What does this mean?--Skaisdead 00:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It means that in every type, there is a Pokémon that has a 4x weakness to water, though this isn't exactly true, cause Dragon and Grass are resistant to Water Chuck67322 20:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it means that there is a Pokémon created with each of the type combinations that are 4x weak to Water. These are Rock/Ground (e.g. Onix), Fire/Rock (e.g. Magcargo) and Fire/Ground (e.g. Camerupt). There are no other type combinations with 4x weakness to Water. UltimateSephiroth ^{(about me · chat · edits)} 21:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The same is true of Flying and Grass. What of it? --Skaisdead 00:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Added to the Flying and Grass pages. Werdnae (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Type combination trivia

Since it has been recently removed and re-added, I'v decided to bring this up here. The section above explains what the trivia should mean, but the current wording is ambiguous and could mean either the intended meaning, or that each type has a Pokémon which is double weak to water, which is, of course, incorrect.

Currently it reads There is at least one Pokémon of each type combination that has a double weakness to Water.

I'm unsure how to word it better. All I could come up with was For each possible type combination with a double weakness to Water there is at least one Pokémon with that type combination. However that sounds a bit too wordy.

Can anyone come up with something better? (i.e. isn't ambiguous, but isn't too wordy) Werdnae (talk) 06:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"For each possible type combination with a double weakness to Water there is at least one Pokémon with that type combination. (examples: Ground/Rock, Geodude, Fire/Rock, Magcargo, Fire/Ground, Numel)" Or we could list them off, like:

• Ground/Rock, *insert Pokémon*
• Fire/Ground, *insert Pokémon*

And so on. It might be wordy, but if it works, it's fine. R.A. Hunter Blade 16:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

Every main character in the anime (with the obvious exception of Max) has had at least one Water-type Pokémon.)

Would the fact that Max borrowed a Poliwag from Roxanne in Gonna Rule the School! and Corphish from Ash in Candid Camerupt! qualify him to be a main character in the anime has had at least one Water-type Pokémon. Elemental 02:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope. We could always change it to "owned a Water-type" if you think it's still too ambiguous. --ZestyCactus 02:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistency

In the statistics section, it says there are 110 water types, but in the trivia section, it says 109. Which one should be changed? --エルレイド 22:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring all alternate forms (Arceus, Castform, Rotom, others?), I'm pretty sure that 109 is the correct number. --Minimiscience 22:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Signature move

Could we mention that water type was the type with highest signature move? such as crabhammer,shellblade,octazooka and camouflage. jomphol 12:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Dragons have more: Mist Ball, Luster Purge, Spacial Rend, Roar of Time, Shadow Force, Cross Flame/Thunder Blue Fire, Lightning Strike and Frozen World.

Also Bugs have more, and Shell Blade has never been sig move.----無限の知性 ◎ ＤＥＮＮＯＵ◆ＺＥＮＳＨＩ 12:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Special or Physical?

In generations I and II (and III?), were water-type moves special or physical? Should this be included in all type articles? EnosShayrem 02:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You are completely correct, it should be included in the articles. It used to be included in the box on the right, but was removed when it was redesigned. Somehow it never made it into the text of the articles. I've gone and put it on all type articles now. --SnorlaxMonster 04:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

But, but {{Types}} template lists previously special types on the left and physical on the right, isn't it enough? I think we just can include notice about this formating into this template and thats it. — ∀ЫъГѣ ∃Talk page 11:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I see, so it was there. But why was it removed? EnosShayrem's question proves that this was needed. --— ∀ЫъГѣ ∃Talk page 11:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It still lists them left and right, but it doesn't label that. It is better to have it in the article in text form, either by itself or accompanied by the template. I think it was removed because it is no longer relevant and has the potential to confuse users playing Generations IV and V. --SnorlaxMonster 11:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Elemental types
Formerly Physical Normal	Formerly Special Fire

Generations I to III are as viable as IV V, aren't they? We can include notice about category split in Generation IV... Maybe something like this? I tried to merge old and new templates (though I'm not good with formatting). — ∀ЫъГѣ ∃Talk page 11:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Now that it's mentioned in the intro of each type article, I don't see any need for that. Werdnae (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Images?

I noticed on a couple of the type pages there is an image of (insert type here) Pokémon in the anime. Are they really needed? If not I'll just remove them. Frozen Fennec 20:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Completely unnecessary IMO. Werdnae (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright then, I'll remove them, not sure why they were added in the first place. Frozen Fennec 22:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Shizui

In the section where the Gym Leaders/other specialists are listed, it states that Shizui is from an unreleased location. How do we know that he isn't from already known city/town, like Driftveil City or Icirrus City? Ariano 11:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it means that its unknown where or what it is. Not that it's a never before released location. --ケンジのガール 12:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

So why does it state "unreleased location". I suggest moving to "currently unknown location". Ariano 12:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Marill

Since Marill has been retconned to be a Water/Fairy-type in Generation VI, can someone update the page to include Marill as a pure Water-type and as a Water/Fairy-type? Like how Magnemite, Magneton, and Rotom are labeled after their type changes? For example:

# Name 183 Marill*

# Name Type 1 Type 2 183 Marill* Water Fairy

--PKMNAdventurer (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Someone did it, but they accidentally put Marill in the wrong position. Marill is currently between 131 Lapras and 170 Chinchou when it should be between 171 Lanturn and 194 Wooper. - Tasty Salamanders (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Counting Mega-Evolutions as different Pokémon

I've already said this on other "type" pages, but this way more people can see it, as it affects this page too. There's way too much inconsistency when throwing Mega-Evolutions among ordinary Pokémon in the type listings (Gyarados is listed twice because its Mega has a different type, but Blastoise is listed only once). Gyarados should be listed once as it is ONE Pokémon that *sometimes* undergoes a type change that WEARS OFF after battle. Personally, I think the absolute BEST way to go about this is to have a different list for Mega-Evolutions, and I mean exactly like how the Pokéstar Studios Pokémon are separated. That way all Megas are represented equally and still earn a place on the page. Anyone agree? --KiANGLO ^(TALK) 01:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I suppose the best way to go about it is to put an asterisk on the affected pokemon and mention any type changes when it goes mega--BigBadBatter (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree; especially since some Pokemon only belong to a certain type in their Mega form, such as Ampharos and Dragon. I really think the best way is a separate box as with Pokestar "pokemon". --KiANGLO ^(TALK) 03:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)