Talk:Gengar (Pokémon)

Back sprite colors?

Gengar's front sprite uses a different coloration in HG/SS than it does in D/P/Pt. However, only one back sprite is shown here, and it uses the same colors as the D/P/Pt front sprite. Did they change the colors of Gengar's back sprite in HG/SS? It would seem odd to me if they didn't, but if they did, maybe a note to that effect should be added? HerbieHero 14:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Urm...someone messed up

I quote... "In Generations I and II, and if Gravity, Skill Swap, or Gastro Acid is used, if the opponent has Mold Breaker, or the Pokémon is given an Iron Ball, the effectiveness of Ground-type moves is 2×."... Were any of them things available in Gen 1 and 2...considering Gravity was introduced in Gen 4? - unsigned comment from Buizel1991 (talk • contribs)

It's not saying that those criteria apply in Generation I and II; It's saying that it was weak to Ground-types back then, before abilities were introduced, and still is if it loses its ability via any of the aforementioned items, abilities, or moves. In fact, it should mention the new move Smack Down as well. Oh, and sign your comments with four tildes (~). --Andy^P_K^M_N (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Woops my bad =\ curse my reading skills! Sorry, just forgot to sign the comment. slipped my mind =\ Buizel1991 23:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Trivia Worthy?

Gengar and Starmie are the only 2 Pokémon to be ranked as OU by Smogon in every generation, is this good enough to go into the trivia section? - Wexdarn 20:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC) See Starmie. --Spriteit 03:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Dongle?

For location for DPPt, it says "Dongle instead of something like "Rare" or "Common". What does "Dongle" mean? --Ipodboqi 21:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a dongle. Basically it means it'll appear when you have one of the Gen III games plugged into your DS at the same time as DPPt. ^★Jo the Marten^★ ಠ_ಠ♥ 21:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Origin

Gengar seems to be a Clefable ghost or shadow: they are about of the same size and they have similar shapes (Gengar spikes can perhaps be Clefable wings) - unsigned comment from Reizo20 (talk • contribs)

Trivia

With the Gastly/Haunter/Gengar line being treated as fully Ghost Types and I believe their secondary typing has not once been addressed in the anime (or even mentioned in a single episode). Would it be noteworthy that they are the only Generation I Pokémon whose secondary typing has not been mentioned once or used in the Anime? G50 03:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

They never mention any of the flying/normal types either. I don't think it's that important to be honest. ^★Jo the Marten^★ ಠ_ಠ♥ 03:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I understand G50 03:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Gingis rescue team

Who took out the part about gingis rescue team?!?!Ashichu 19:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

gingies rescue 2

I found two errors on the page. Gengar is NOT on team meanies outside of the anime and knows dobble edge. I am going to fix this.Ashichu (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

How do I get the box off my writing on the pages? Please tell me! Its realy annoying!Ashichu (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

small trivia edit

it says under trivia that gengar is tied for fastest ghost but i belive it shoulde be mentiond that arceus with the spooky plate is faster - unsigned comment from Gman0079 (talk • contribs)

HGSS backsprites

...Should they be on this page? KyuremsIceBlade 22:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Question about ゲンガー

That reads Ge N Ga (with that fourth character modifying the Ga), not Gangar. Why does it say Gangar? I've noticed this in quite a few pages, but I especially remember this one (now that we can edit, I'm asking now). - unsigned comment from Sinnoaria (talk • contribs)

It's the trademarked romanization, so while it's not how it would normally be read, it's how it's written out on official products. This is also the reason for any other ones you've probably seen. --It's Funktastic~!_{話してください} 05:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

A full list of trademarked romanizations can be found at our list of Japanese Pokémon names. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

According to https://patent-i.com/tm/record/T2020001646/ the trademark is Gengar. Is there any other source which indicates it was changed to Gangar? --User:Kaori9461

Shiny Mega Gengar

I don't know how to edit Wiki pages, but I bred a shiny ghastly and raised it to a shiny Gengar. Wanted to add the photo to Gengar's page. Here it is: [1] Hopefully someone who knows how to Wiki will add this photo for me. Thanks! - unsigned comment from Omgourds (talk • contribs)

Two new trivia.

Since I don't really know how to wiki, here two info that could pottentially fit in the trivia section.

• When viewing mega gengar in its pokedex entry, you are unable to move the camera up or down.

• Gengar, along with scizor, are the only pokémon unable to participate in sky battle that evolve form pokémon that are able to.

(Sorry for my bad english). SaikouTM (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Totoro Origin

Because of it's shape, grin and ability to fly, it could also be based on Totoro. - unsigned comment from Robbie (talk • contribs)

It doesn't really resemble Totoro much at all. Anyways, we try to avoid mentioning other copyrighted works in origins unless it's something that's unambiguously clear. --It's Funktastic~!_{話してください} 00:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure it does; it has a round shape, long pointy ears, a grin, and flies in the air.Robbie (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

When Gengar Mega Evolves...

When Gengar Mega Evolves, is that little "gem" in its forehead the Gengarite, or is it actually part of Gengar's body? I read the Mega Evolution description and to be honest, I'm confused! WATERWARRIOR67 (talk) 14:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a eye.--ForceFire 14:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! WATERWARRIOR67 (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Trivia: Both Steelix and Gengar tied with the distinction of being the first trade induced evolution (with or without item) to be met wild

Both Steelix and Gengar tied with the distinction of being the first trade induced evolution (with or without item) to be met wild, which occurred in Generation IV.

While Gengar comes first in the National Dex, it does require a third generation cart dongle, whereas Steelix can be encounterable without any such gimmicks.

After Gen IV, some other Trade-induced evolutions may be encounter-able in the wild (depending on the game), Such as Politoed, Huntail etc.

Theslayer (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

We generally go by the rule that something has to be unique (the only one) to be worth noting in Trivia. Since this is two separate Pokémon, it doesn't meet that rule. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Ability Trivia?

This question goes for all Pokemon who've had their ability changed between generations, but would it be worth noting that Gengar's ability changed from Levitate to Cursed Body in the Trivia section?Rainingblues (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I would rather the infobox be modified so we can include the information there. But until then, there's nowhere else on species pages where Abilities are mentioned, leaving Trivia the only place to put it, and I'd rather it be somewhere on species pages than not at all (it seems like quite important information, after all). Put me down as a hesitant vote in favor, but only until it can be put in the infobox instead. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Um. Can y'all look again at the infobox, and tell me what not adequate? I can't tell if I'm completely missing something here or what... Tiddlywinks (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah! Didn't see that. I was thinking more broadly about all of the Pokémon that have had Abilities added/changed over the years. I'm guessing y'all have designed that parameter such that it probably works only for Gengar, or maybe a few more but certainly not all that need it. I've seen Ability change trivia removed from several species pages (like Ferrothorn, for the first one off the top of my head), so I didn't think to check if the infobox was modified in this specific article. My request still stands in regard to the other Pokémon on the list, though. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

That's not exactly an Ability change on Ferrothorn, though, that's it gaining a HA. When an Ability completely changes like Gengar's (or Venipede's), then it's easier to show the old one in a separate place. But when there is no old Ability, in our current layout, it's much harder to add a note about when the "new" one became available. (Unless you think of the old one literally as "None" and try to do the something like with Gengar for Ferrothorn's HA. That still seems a bit odd, perhaps, though. And that's mostly HAs... I'm really unsure what you could/should do for something like Feebas's Oblivious.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm in favor of "None". Anything that makes the change easily visible. As for Feebas, perhaps "Swift Swim or Oblivious"/"Swift Swim (standard Ability prior to Generation VI)"? I'm kind of just spitballing here; I just think something more visible is better than what we've got now, where you have to bother to click to the Ability's page and scroll to the note at the bottom of the Pokemon list in order to even see whether it was changed or not. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Which picture of Mega Gengar should I use for Pokken? (To show the portal thing)

[link removed]

I tired to get a good shot of it alone, but it was really difficult, if not impossible. I took 6 pictures on my Switch and am wondering which one I should upload. ¿¡Unowninator?! (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Levitate

Is Gengar no longer capable of having Levitate, or is it now split between Lev and Cursed Body? The bio implies the former but I thought they still could Pallukun (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

It is the former. Cursed Body is now the only ability non-Mega Gengar can have. Gengarzilla! 19:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Popular Gengar Theories

There are two popular theories involving Gengar and its line that been around for quite a while. They're not in its page, but I believe they're significant and coherent enough to be discussed. As such, I'd like to talk about them a bit with the rest of the community:

1. Gengar's evolutionary stages represents a ghost gradually going through a portal;
2. Gengar as a Clefable's (or Clefairy's, less commonly) doppelgänger/shadow.

The first theory is fairly straightforward: said ghost starts with peaking its head through the portal (Gastly), then its hands (Haunter), and finally goes through it entirely (Gengar). This theory is somewhat supported by Gengar being able to go in and out of shadows and got more evidence over time with Mega Gengar's bottom clipping through another dimension and Gigantamax Gengar acting as a portal to the afterlife.

The second theory is one I'd like to go a bit more in-depth. There's a famous theory that says Gengar is supposed to be Clefable's shadow. This is often due to their similar shape, but also due to Gengar's likely doppelgänger references in its name and relationship with shadows (notably it mimicking a victims' shadow). While this may seem like a random link between two unrelated Pokémon, Clefairy (and consequently Clefable) was strongly considered to be the franchise's mascot in the early first generation, thus making it one the few Pokémon that would make sense for there to be a doppelgänger.

One of the common points brought up to dismiss this theory is that the body shapes aren't sufficiently similar, with Clefable having a slightly slimmer and taller figure, a big spiral-like tail, and noticeable wings. The fact the theory proposes it being a doppelgänger of Clefable rather than Clefairy's was also a common counterpoint. However, I believe both of these can actually be explained by pointing out that the early designs for Clefairy and Gengar were a lot more similar to each other, as seen in the Satoshi Tajiri: The Man Who Made Pokémon.

Furthermore I have found something I believe supports the second theory even more, given it can connect the shadow theme, doppelgängers, and both of Gengar's types: there's a Japanese type of ghost called 生霊 ikiryō, which refers to ghosts of living individuals. Notably, I'd like to point a specific case where this sort of ghostly phenomena happens due to an illness called 影の病 kage no yamai (shadow sickness), often causing out-of-body or doppelgänger-like situations to happen.

The fact a single potential origin seems to be able to connect that many aspects of Gengar seems a bit unlikely to be coincidental: an illness (which potentially explains Gengar's Poison type) named "shadow illness" (which may be nodded by Gengar's relationship with shadows) that can create doppelgänger ghosts (as hinted by its name, and as proposed by the Clefable/Clefairy's shadow theory).

Personally, I used to be fairly skeptical of this popular theory, but lately I've been a lot more inclined to actually believe it has solid enough foundations to be taken seriously given the aforementioned points. I'd like to hear what people think of the points brought up for both theories, but mainly for the second one.

ExLight (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I would say the first one is a pretty straightforward understanding of Gengar's design. If you look closely at Gastly's evolutionary line, it gets more libs, and becomes more physical when it evolves as if it was trying to materialize itself more and more in the real world and form a physical body. I'm dubious towards the second one, however I'd add that both Clefairy and Gengar are ones of the first Pokémon added to the game according to RG index order. Nonetheless, the most popular fan theories should have their place on this site somewhere.--Rocket Grunt 13:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, as far as #4 and #14 get. It's at the very least clear that they didn't have their evolutionary lines decided yet, so arguments and counter-arguments involving that aren't great.

I think my biggest concern is regarding how strongly speculative it is, specially since it involves another Pokémon. I think Ikiryō is a really good theory but it's also tied to whether or not we accept the theory of Gengar originally being planned to be an evil counterpart of Clefairy in the first place, which is why I'm requesting some discussion around it. It's not an original trope by any means (so much that Red's Clefairy even got its own "dark side" counterpart in Pocket Monsters), so it definitely feels plausible.

ExLight (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Talk pages aren't the place for casual discussion about fan theories; those would be better suited to the Bulbagarden Forums or Bulbagarden Discord. As far as including these theories on Gengar's page is concerned, I think the first could potentially be included in the origin section but the second is far too speculative to be worth including. Storm Aurora (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

This isn't casual discussion about fan theories. It's regarding whether or not it should be taken seriously given my proposed findings and whether or not it is worth mentioning it in its article's Origin section. The talk page has always been the place for this sort of discussion among people that contribute in this part of the wiki.

I'd appreciate if you could elaborate on your reasoning as to why you think it's far too speculative to be worth including.

ExLight (talk) 02:12, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I guess I should clarify that the part I think is too speculative is that Gengar is specifically Clefable's shadow/doppelgänger. Between its name and its behavior, it clearly has a connection to shadows/doppelgängers. But it can hide in anyone's shadow, and when it hides in shadows its shape changes to match the shadow's shape. So it can be anyone's doppelgänger. No relationship or connection between Gengar and Clefable has ever been shown in official media afaik, so the claim that the design intent was for them to parallel each other is reliant on some of these other origin hypotheses also being true. And when you start basing hypotheses off of hypotheses, your conclusions are basically just educated speculation. ...if that makes sense. Storm Aurora (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Some fan theories are so widespread that they've become an integral part of the fandom's culture and collective headcanon. This goes beyond casual speculation, these theories deserve consideration for inclusion on Bulbapedia. It's no different from how we already document fandom elements like memes (HSOWA, Mudkipz, Lord Helix) or worse, shipping. Currently, fandom-related content is severely underrepresented, largely due to staff's overly cautious stance against speculation, interpretation, and unofficial media. Instead of avoiding these topics entirely, we should aim to incorporate them with a clear distinction from official information. There are already examples, like the "Appendix:Fan terminology" page, that manage this balance effectively. Rocket Grunt 10:21, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

True, I think it's reasonable for us to cover the fan theory somewhere - I just don't think Gengar's page is the place to do it. Storm Aurora (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

⠀

@Storm Aurora I appreciate the feedback. I feel like we might agree in general. I been a bit on the fence on how to approach this popular theory, and while its plausible enough its not a must given how it speculates on aspects that are fairly hard to verify. I personally interpret doppelgängers as something a bit more tangible and objective, but – as you proposed – I could see Gengar mimicking one's shadow as a way to interpret it.

⠀

@Team Rocket Grunt The issue with fan theories is that they are slop most of the time. Nonsensical popular theories that lower the overall quality of the section such as "Butterfree and Venomoth had their lines swapped", "Gastly is a dead Shellder", "Ash is in a coma", "Salamence and Flygon / Golduck and Psyduck had their names swapped" are not worth mentioning just because a decently sized yet ignorant part of the community finds them entertaining. It's up to people that actually care and are willing to do proper research and filter this sort of stuff out.

ExLight (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

(resetting indent) I just want to point out that in all likelihood (and as evidence by their placement in the index list), the genesis of Gengar predates that of Clefable, making it highly unlikely that Gengar was designed with Clefable in mind. I agree that the theory should probably not be mentioned on Gengar's page. Nescientist (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2025 (UTC)