Talk:Tangela (Pokémon)

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
001Bulbasaur RG.png Due to special coding in place in the article, the artwork featured on this article will change every year on

This will only affect the artwork shown in the infobox. This changes every year, so when the time comes, click here to return to the page and change the display.


why do we have a location for tangela in Diamond and Pwarl if a glich prevents irt from being found? The Placebo Effect 22:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, what? I never heard of a glitch, however, I don't think it's even a swarmer... TTEchidna 23:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Tangela was supposed to be found in a swarm, but from what I'm told, due to a glich in how the swarming area was chosen, it isn't catchable. The Placebo Effect 02:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The location is WRONG! The only three Pokémon that can be caught at the peak of Mt. Coronet (which is Spear Pillar) are Dialga, Palkia and Arceus (the Hall of Origin is above Speak Pillar, so I count it as Spear Pillar)! Optimus35Talk | DP Can you see this? 07:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
No, the PEAK is the snowy part on the way to Spear Pillar. Babyg 00:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The page is conflicting, it says None in Game Locations for D/P, yet in Trivia it says it is found on Mt. Coronet. That should be fixed. CrimsonCerberus 14:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Tangled up in blue?

Could Tangla's color be a referance to the song tangled up in blue? --ShinyPiKa (talk)

Was the song released in Japan? --FabuVinny |Talk Page| 20:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Not sure, probably not though ShinyPiKa 00:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Diamond/Pearl location

Does anyone have any definitive evidence or first-hand experience showing that Tangela does indeed swarm around Mt. Coronet? A couple early guides state this, but most do not. I reverted a change to the Tangrowth trivia since everywhere else on Bulbapedia indicates that Tangela is not catchable in Diamond and Pearl. — Laoris (Blah) 20:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No. Tangela does not swarm around Mount Coronet. Serebii said that for a while, but now they do not. Veekun says no. The official Nintendo guides say no. Someone here, out of all the users, would have had to run into the swarm by now if it existed.--The Kkllnnator blastoise 20:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
That's what I thought. However, Serebii does still say Tangela swarms. — Laoris (Blah) 20:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Not on the Pokédex page for Tangela.--The Kkllnnator blastoise 21:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Tangela, along with Tropius and the non-sinnoh legends/starters is unobtainable in DP. TheWiener 15:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. We know. Old comment. Move along, people. — THE TROM — 22:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


In the Origin section, it should be "Its Crystal sprite," not "It's."--Trebligoniqua 05:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Er, no. The contraction of "It is" is "It's". Oshawhat? 14:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Red/Green sprite

This probably isn't notable enough for the trivia section due to the subjective nature of it but does anyone else think the Tangela sprite from Pokémon Red and Green (here: has similar proportions to Tangrowth? Does anyone else think it might have been a possible design inspiration? Oshawhat? 14:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Pure Grass-typing

Should we add in the trivia that Tangela is the only pure Grass-type Pokémon from Generation I? SoftFurretWarmFurret (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

How is that Reflect thing not Trivia?

Look at this. Out of the original 151, Tangela's the only Pokemon to break the pattern; it can't learn it in RBY, but can in the other games. Unowninator (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes... and? This is overly specific to the point of nitpicking.--ForceFire 03:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

How not notable?

TeamFourStar's SoulSilver Nuzlocke had basically half a video (part 52) discussing the "fact" that there were no pure grass types in Gen1 (they have a running gag that they consider Tangela a glitch), and I came to this page solely to find out if they were right. This isn't Wikipedia where trivia lists are discouraged in general and everything requires a reliable secondary source, so how is notability for these trivia even defined? A semi-reliable source that points it out should be enough, surely? Satorukun0530 (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

By the way: Surely before edit-warring over it being added "COUNTLESS TIMES", it should have been brought up on the talk page and either left out or left in while discussion took place. Is Bulbapedia different from Wikipedia in this matter? Satorukun0530 (talk) 12:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Bulbapedia have their own set of rules and policy, we are not one and the same. As for Tangela being the only pure Grass type in Gen I. It's the first generation/game of the franchise. Something was bound to be the first pure grass type, regardless of it being the only.--ForceFire 12:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you replied to what I said and not what I didn't say. I did not say or even imply that I thought that Bulbapedia and Wikipedia were "one and the same". Wikipedia is very clearly stricter than Bulbapedia when it comes to things like this, so the fact that the two are different is not a reason not to include a factoid like this. If Bulbapedia doesn't have an equivalent to Wikipedia's BRD process, it would be nice if you would just say that; the idea that any editor can just decide that something doesn't belong in the article remove it "COUNTLESS TIMES" without ever bringing it up on the talk page is not intuitive to me.
Given that neither BP:TRIVIA nor BP:NOTE exist, and Bulbapedia:Notability requirements is about inclusion of an independent article on a topic and has nothing to say about inclusion of items in trivia lists, I don't have any policy or guideline to consult but what you direct me to, and on that point:
Your argument that it was the "first" and therefore the fact that it was the "only" one in Gen1 is not independently notable is irrelevant to my question, because the fact that it was the first pure grass type also doesn't appear to be mentioned at the moment.
Satorukun0530 (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Please don't link to articles that do not exist, it'll clog up the wanted pages with things that we don't need (not saying we don't need a trivia policy or anything, it's just the main reason why you don't link to articles that don't exist). You asked if we have any sort of equivalent to something Wikipedia has, and I answered accordingly.
There has been a trivia policy in the works for some time, it is heavily incomplete.
As for the trivia, then what are you even asking for anyway? We're not going to mention that it is the first pure grass type because something was bound to be the first pure grass type in the first installment of the franchise.--ForceFire 15:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. What I meant was to ask whether it is appropriate on Bulbapedia to edit-war over a point and eventually for the "leave it out" side to leave an invisible comment, without it having ever been brought up on the talk page. It just seemed like common sense to me that this would not be ideal, but I wanted to clarify that my "common sense" is strongly influenced by how things are done on Wikipedia.
Thank you for pointing me to the trivia policy. I'll give it a read, but if it is in the works then I'm guessing it can't be normative for this case either way.
It was the only pure grass type in Gen1; this having been pointed out in external sources surely makes it inherently more notable than most of the other trivia, no?
Satorukun0530 (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Our trivia standards have largely evolved via push-and-pull-and-then-the-staff-steps-in-with-an-executive-decision, and generally they've evolved in the direction of excluding things that can be seen by browsing the main text of any page. You can see that Tangela's the only pure Grass-type on the Kanto Pokédex listing, so it doesn't really fit the gist of our trivia standards (even if I don't know if it strictly fits any of the specific rulings in the draft trivia policy).
In any case, external sources don't matter to us like they matter to Wikipedia. Since so much of our wiki's data is directly derived from primary sources (the games, the anime, the TCG, etc), we don't have anything resembling Wikipedia's sourcing system or requirements, and in fact we often like to avoid using other fansites as sources in order to avoid reproducing their biases and mistaken assumptions. (These are just my observations as a non-staff member, however; Force Fire is a staff member, so he'd overrule me if he disagrees.) Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Edit-warring is not appropriate and, as covered on our blocking policy, is a blockable offense. Users are encouraged to use the edit summaries to explain their edits, and they should go directly to a talk page (either of the user that reverted them or the talk page of the article) and discuss the edit.
It's not notable as an "only" because it's too small of a group (1 in 6 families).
As for sourcing, there's also a policy for that in the works as well.--ForceFire 16:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)