Talk:Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire

Merging

Not planning to merge this page anywhere; don't worry. I'm just mentioning that I too created a version of this page (titled "Pokémon OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire") before I knew about this one, and I merged that version into this page. I don't think I screwed anything up, but you might want to check the histories to see if anything got lost. Tezero (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Your version was not really any better, though. If anything, it's all full of unsourced speculation that these are actually to be full remakes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Not really. It might be a misinterpretation by the source, but it's not unsourced. Tezero (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

This is true. ALso, your gameplay section is really poor and shouldn't be on the page if it's just that one quoted statement.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair. I guess the main thing I added was the context about speculation, about which I'll look up more now. Tezero (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Remakes

I would argue that referring to the games as "enhanced remakes" is currently original research. While logic would dictate that they are, the trailer and press release from Nintendo refer to them as "a new adventure in a new world," and releasing a sequel to a previous game has happened before. The fact that Ruby and Sapphire are already compatible with the current games suggests this may not be a straight remake of those games. I would suggest not using any terms like remake or sequel until more information is known. ShadowUltra (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Neutral on this count, but I'm removing a couple categories that are little but speculation. Tezero (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure we can find a reliable source to call it a remake. There are also some scans out there right now if anyone can translate them. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

There are several sources calling them remakes, but they're all citing the Nintendo press release, which does not call them such. Perhaps the article should say "Media sources have described them as enhanced remakes of Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire," which would be more accurate. Also, the scans are fake. ShadowUltra (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I've modified the article to say that they are "highly speculated" to be remakes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The Nintendo press release does indeed explicitly call them a return to Hoenn, not a X and Y 2. I added it back in, but feel free to revert. KonveyorBelt 03:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

"CoroCoro leaks"

Wikipedia cannot post anything from what the fandom calls "CoroCoro leaks" because as "leaks" they are not considered reliable, even if other "reliable sources" post information acquired from the leaks. We should wait for the CoroCoro issue to be made available to the general public in Japan, which for the July 2014 issue where all the Mega Sceptile and Primordial Groudon stuff comes from is June 13. CoroCoro releases new issues the 15th of every month (unless that falls on a weekend as this month).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ryulong, can you please post a link to Wikipedia policy that backs up your stance? WP:V seems to contradict what you are saying. Artichoker^[talk] 20:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:V covers this exactly. No one can independently verify this content as it has not been (officially) published yet. Just because you have a random GameSpot columnist reporting on stuff posted on Serebii and /vp/ does not mean that Wikipedia can use that information. Not to mention the content could possibly be fake, and the official release date of the issue will provide more accurate information.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm still not quite following you. Where in WP:V does it say this exactly? As per policy in WP:V, here we have a reliable source providing third-party coverage. This information is therefore verifiable and can be added to the article. Unless you have some part of policy to quote that I've missed, WP:V does not appear to corroborate any of your statements. You have that opinion, but it does not appear to be grounded in policy. Artichoker^[talk] 23:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

You're right. It's not grounded in policy. However, I am completely within my right to contest the content that was added to the article based on the knowledge I have that the information should not be available. Leaks are not reliable sources for information in any context. That should just be common sense. Yes, this information is probably going to be proven to be true when the issue is released and people can see more than smartphone photos like this one. However that cannot be said for what's out there now. These "leaks" should not be used in any form until the actual issue of the magazine is released. I've been through this before when Keldeo, Meloetta, and Genesect were unreleased in any form but people knew they existed because someone went through the game data to find them. That wasn't a reliable source that could verify the content and neither are these crappy photos.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, what we have here is a reliable source that is providing verifiable information. You have an opinion otherwise, which I respect; but since you admit that you have no actual policy argument, I am going to go ahead and restore the content per WP:V. You are obviously entitled to your opinion, but an opinion alone that goes against established Wikipedia policy should not be used for making decisions with regards to article content and quality (unless you would like to open a discussion at an appropriate venue to establish consensus for a policy change). But until policy is changed, we should continue and follow the policy as it is now. Let me know if you have any other questions. Regards, Artichoker^[talk] 23:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

GameSpot is normally considered a reliable source, but due to the nature of the information that is presented in the citation you wish to use that particular article is not a reliable source as it cannot be independently verified in other reliable sources. I am contesting its addition to the page and I will just remove it again if you do add it all back because now you certainly have no consensus to add the content. There's your policy based argument.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, GameSpot is listed under "Situational sources" because some of the content in its articles can be deemed unreliable as I am doing here. The fact that in this article they are citing Serebii.net, which is not a reliable source means that this particular article is not a reliable source either. Wait for Friday, or whenever they announce this at E3.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I am still not seeing any references to existing policies, and am not sure where you are getting these rules from. However, this is still incorrect. The information can be independently verified in other reliable sources, such as this one here: [1]. So I am a bit confused as to why you continue reverting. In addition, statements such as this one: "I will just remove it again if you do add it all back because now you certainly have no consensus to add the content" give me pause because it appears to attempt to use a WP:BATTLEGROUND context to leverage your argument, which is unacceptable. In any case, since I have demonstrated now that there are multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources to support the content's inclusion, I will restore it along with an additional source to the link I provided above. (Aside, in case there are any doubts: yes, Slashgear is a reliable source. See here and here.) Artichoker^[talk] 23:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

In his case, because Slashgear is still citing Serebii, it is not a reliable source. The video games Wiki project has its own internal guidelines and GameSpot does not meet them and Slashgear is not even mentioned (you can also count out Siliconera too because it is also under the "situational sources" header). Do not add the information back onto the article. None of it is reliably sourced and you do not have consensus.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The internal guidelines for sources clearly state that GameSpot is situational only if the author is not a staff member. However, the source that I cite is authored by a staff member, and is therefore correctly used as a reliable source per our internal guidelines. Artichoker^[talk] 00:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

If Gamespot are OK with the source, we are. We're not here to question Gamespot's reliability, if they're saying that it's OK, it's OK. - hahnchen 00:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The guidelines only say to check if it's by a staff member. Not that if it is by a staff member hat it automatically gets a pass. The website is citing a known website that has been discounted as a reliable source on Wikipedia. That unreliability is inherited in this case. Again, let's just wait for the Nintendo conference at E3. Serebii is not and has never been a reliable source regardless of the information being repeated on Gamespot. And we do question. Gamespot's reliability. That's why it's not considered to always be a reliable source.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

That's bullshit. You can't inherit unreliability. If a reliable source says that an otherwise unreliable source is correct, you go by the reliable source. That doesn't mean you can take anything you wish from the unreliable source, just the things that has been asserted reliable. Who are you to say that Gamespot's fact checking isn't good enough? We only question Gamespot's reliability in that its database is user submitted which is not relevant in this case. - hahnchen 00:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec) So you continued pointing at our internal guidelines... until they stopped supporting your argument. Once again, everything you have said in your above comment appears to constitute your own opinion and is not grounded in any Wikipedia policy. My position is very clear and echoes Hahnchen: It's been shown to be a reliable source, and the information is verifiable. Therefore, why can't it be included? I believe my comment here sums up the crux of this dispute and why I believe Ryulong's argument is simply an opinion not based on any sort of policy. Artichoker^[talk] 00:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Gamespot is not a reliable source under WP:VG's guidelines. It is "situational" and in this situation I am calling into question the editorial integrity of posting content from Serebii which we at Wikipedia have already determined multiple times before is not reliable. For all we know their translations are completely incorrect because of the nature of what they have reported that is being spread around the net. Serebii is not reliable. And anything based entirely on their reporting cannot be reliable either.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You cite WP:VG's guidelines on sourcing (which I have linked to above). Once, again if you read the bit on GameSpot, it clearly states it is considered reliable source as long as it is written by a staff member. The reason the website is listed under "situational" is because some content on that site is user submitted. The article I have used is demonstrably written by a staff member and is therefore reliable. You don't get to abuse GameSpot's position under the "Situational sources" header to engineer a position that it is therefore unreliable for unrelated reasons besides what is said on the page. Artichoker^[talk] 00:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Previously established consensus on a similar issue suggests otherwise.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Huh? I just read the linked discussion, and unless I missed something big, it appeared that the dispute was resolved in favor of included the information along with those reliable sources. I am genuinely confused? Did you just provide precedent that supports my position? Artichoker^[talk] 01:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it really that hard to wait a couple days though? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 04:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It was not really solved in favor of the sources. The dispute ended when someone went ahead and added them anyway but treated them in a manner that did not have the information presented as fact. There is also nothing lost on our part by waiting for the E3 conference tomorrow or for Friday when this issue of CoroCoro is actually released to the general public.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so then we have precedent for adding the content back in. Also, I don't see why we need to wait. Please remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress. The information can be added in now, and if it changes soon, that is perfectly fine and after that fact, the article should be further updated to reflect the changes. But there really isn't a basis I'm seeing for preventing the information from being added now. Artichoker^[talk] 23:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no precedent. It is clear at WT:VG that there is no consensus for adding this content. You cannot just ignore that just because you don't like mine or Masem's arguments.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Huh? There is explicitly is precedent by your own words: "The dispute ended when someone went ahead and added them anyway but treated them in a manner that did not have the information presented as fact." But furthermore, I'm not really seeing an argument from you. All I'm seeing is an assertion of your opinion without any policy to back it up, whereas I have both policy and "previously established consensus on a similar issue". Artichoker^[talk] 23:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I was clearly wrong about the old discussion's results. But people still argued throughout that one and at WT:VG right now that the content being posted by the reliable sources is inherently problematic due to the nature of their acquisition. That means that anything particularly about CoroCoro before it hits newsstands is not a reliable source because as per The Last Guardian bullshit on IGN over the weekend, it cannot be reliably confirmed. Do not add anything about the new Megas or the Primeval versions to this article until sources other than those referring to the "CoroCoro leaks" report on it. Which will happen in less than 17 hours from now because that's when Nintendo is having the E3 announcements. Besides, random announcements of new Mega Evolutions aren't important for this page and other information which was in CoroCoro that the original poster at 2chan never bothered to take photos of are probably more important to report on on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You admit you were wrong after your attempt to gather evidence failed, and then revert to making the same argument? You don't get to just assert things like "content being posted by the reliable sources is inherently problematic due to the nature of their acquisition" as pure, unadulterated fact when there isn't a single Wikipedia policy to back it up. Your entire comment above is just grasping at straws because there is no Wikipedia policy corroborated your stance. I am truly bewildered as to how and why you keep putting up such fierce opposition and refusing to let go. Even after needing to concede many points to me, you still stick to the same tired argument that has been dismissed again and again. Artichoker^[talk] 23:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Just because you dismiss my argument and Masem's arguments does not mean that you have any consensus to add the contested text to this article. Until this content is verified beyond people quoting Serebii.net then there's no need for this article to be updated.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

"Until this content is verified beyond people quoting Serebii.net then there's no need for this article to be updated." This is exactly what I'm talking about. This argument you are presenting in opposition has no Wikipedia policy backing it up. It's just you stating your opinion. I could try and derail numerous content disputes on Wikipedia using similar logic to yours, but it would be completely fruitless, disruptive, and wrong. Artichoker^[talk] 23:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

No one at all can verify or corroborate Serebii.net's claims of what CoroCoro has published because the issue is not released to the public yet. That makes Serebii.net's claims unreliable, and anyone sourcing Serebii as an unreliable single source (including Siliconera and Gamespot for the purposes of this single issue on these games). That is the core issue. Being published in an RS does not "bless" the information as verifyable if it is being relayed through several other sources as the case here. --MASEM (t) 23:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec) @Masem, Thanks for concisely writing it out. I believe this is where our core disagreement is. You state that "That makes Serebii.net's claims unreliable, and anyone sourcing Serebii as an unreliable single source". Can you back up this second part of your claim with any Wikipedia policy? I have read WP:V, but I am not seeing it there, unless I missed it. All I have read makes me believe that the information can still be added to the article, because that GameSpot article is reliable due to the normal means (editorial oversight, etc.) Artichoker^[talk] 23:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:SOURCE: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is 'made available to the public in some form'." As the July 2014 issue of CoroCoro Comic has not yet been "made available to the public in some form", anything reporting information from CoroCoro via Serebii is not a reliable source.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:V's essence/intent states that if we give a source, someone should be able to go - without violating laws, tresspassing, etc. - to find that source and confirm the information in there. While I'm sure there are some writers of CoroCoro that have the issue, and a few people that work for them that likely snuck an issue out to scan pages, the release of that information right now can't be done by the public. I know the Serbii.net has scans of the page in question, but again, they are not an RS so that could also be bogus (I don't believe their intent is to deceive, mind you, just recognizing what the issue is). Given, within a few days, we will have access to CoroCoro and WP:V is met, then we'd be fine. Since WP does not need to be up-to-the-second proper, we can wait those few days. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources for this information yet. You have a GameSpot staff member reporting on Serebii.net reporting on an unreleased issue of a magazine. It cannot be independently verified by checking the magazine because it's not going to be available to the general public for another 3 days. It's only being repeated ad infinitum on websites which have slightly more clout on Wikipedia than Serebii.net. That does not make anything reporting on this information a reliable source in this situation. And, again, you lack consensus to add the information to the article based on the sources you are finding due to their problematic nature and the inability to independently verify the content. You can find as many websites as you want saying "Mega Swampert" and "CoroCoro" that you want that came out over the weekend. That's not going to change how they're not reliable in this situation. We have less than a day until all this stuff is going to be confirmed. Wikipedia does not need up to the minute reporting on these new Mega Evolutions. And thank you Masem. Perhaps after all is said and done here there should be something added to WP:VG's sources page on information from not-yet-released print sources.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I know I have not been actively involved in this ongoing discussion, but I know that input is helpful and welcome. I just wanted to say that I completely agree with Masem's assessment above. Chambr (talk) 00:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that using the GameSpot source, the most you can say is "Leaks of CoroCoro had this information". Just because GameSpot trusts the leak doesn't make it not a leak. The real argument here can be solved with WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Worldwide release?

This source says that the games will be released in Europe a week after everyone else, on November 28. http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2014/06/e3_2014_pokemon_omega_ruby_and_alpha_sapphire_confirmed_for_21st_november — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.2.58 (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The official Nintendo Australia website does not have the game listed anywhere, so we don't even know what date it could be released on. EB Games Australia is not a reliable source when it comes to release dates, 'cause for all we know, they could've got the release dates from off Wikipedia. —Platinum Lucario (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Technically, folks like EB Games Australia could have gotten release dates from Wikipedia already, BUT when it comes to release dates for items from companies like Nintendo, EB Games and other retailers will be given a "You will not provide these items before this date" sort of date from the game distributor as the release date handed down-from-on-high and such dates will typically be confirmed during things like press releases. Sites like Nintendo Australia aren't always updated the instant a Nintendo product has been given the clear to be put up for pre-orders through EB Games et all. In fact (and I know that this can be counted as Original Research, but I'm not suggesting this to be added to the main article) a quick search for 3DS games through Nintendo Australia only shows "out now" games and little-to-no hints of any games to be pre-ordered, and checking the catalog of games for all (current) Nintendo systems the only game whose status isn't "out now" is Bayonetta 2 and that's TBC as it's probably still being classified under the ACB system. El Nero Diablo (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of the leak

It's still more or less under discussion at WT:VG about whether or not the discussion of the leak is considered a reliable source, but now I think we just don't need to have the leak mentioned. It happened, but the leak itself is not particularly important that it did in the context of the development or release of the game because this happens constantly but this was just the first time that there was a big to do about it on Wikipedia. The text in question was simply in the article to serve as a source for the new Mega Evolutions and Primal forms and now that we have official statements and reliable sources reporting on those official statements, the overabundance of citations about the "leak" are now not needed to support any statement other than the one on the "leak" itself. The content of the "leak" was notable to discuss here but the leak itself is not a notable event.

I am proposing that we remove this text from the article as it is not relevant to the article as a whole or the history of this particular video game. Not to mention that someone having a week's advance copy of a magazine that is now available to the general public is not really a "leak". The fandom just likes to think of it that way.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. I have not read the extent of the discussion, but taking just your proposal of the removal into account, I completely agree. And from what I have read at WT:VG, your argument is very sound. Chambr (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec)I agree that discussion somewhat related to this matter is still ongoing at WT:VG. However, I think the leak is a perfectly valid topic for the article to cover because it was covered by these multiple sources and it does relate to the release of the game and could be valuable information to present to the reader in a "Development" or "Release" section because it covers some of the history of the release of the game. Although, if needed, we could certainly reduce the number of citations that are attributed to this text. I also think it satisfies the definition of a "leak", which is some information/content that was not intended to be released until a specific date, but for which the public learned of this information sooner. Artichoker^[talk] 00:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that the nature of the "leak" itself is relevant to the release of the article because it was simply contained to fansites and then the drama that happened here. The actual promotion of the game at E3 and in CoroCoro is more relevant than photos posted on 2channel/Futaba Channel and then posted on Serebii.net.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was covered by fansites, but it was also covered by a multitude of reliable sources, which could make a notable event for coverage. Also I agree with you that the promotion of the game at E3 and in CoroCoro is very relevant and believe discussion of E3 and CoroCoro should be prominent in the article (which it is currently). However, I don't see anything against discussing the leaks in the article as a component of the games' release history. Artichoker^[talk] 00:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I just do not see that there was a leak as crucial to discussion of the game's release and promotion because this happens every month for all aspects of the Pokemon franchise. No one bothers to report on them except the fansites because there wasn't the E3 conference hype building up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

That would be my core argument as well. Chambr (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec)I don't think it necessary needs to be "crucial", because I'm not sure how that's defined; but certainly I think its informative commentary covering an aspect of the game's release/promotion history. I think the key point to take away from this matter is that this particular event was covered by multiple reliable sources and influential news outlets (GameSpot, etc.) Artichoker^[talk] 00:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You have a low bar for whats "influential" then.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hoenn Confirmed

First of all, I never violated 3RR.

Okay, what is the real objection to mentioning that "Hoenn Confirmed" was an Internet meme? It's covered in the source and relates to long-time speculation about the game. WP:IDONTLIKEIT ain't gonna cut it. Tezero (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I never accused you of violating 3RR. I just said you were edit warring. There is a difference. The meme isn't notable. End of story.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time understanding why you are removing relevant, sourced material that covers commentary on this media. Just because you state it isn't notable, "end of story", doesn't mean it's the end of the story when there has not been adequate discussion before its removal. The status quo was having the information. Since both Tezero and I are disputing its removal it should stay until we can reach a consensus. So I'll start with this: why do you think it isn't notable? Artichoker^[talk] 23:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I also strongly dispute your unilateral removal of leaks material without discussion or consensus. You don't get to just wait a few days after a discussion (referring to the section above this one) didn't go your way and try to remove it again for the same disputed reasons. Artichoker^[talk] 23:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not relevant to the whole of the games history. It's a stupid meme that happened on /vp/ that we do not need to immortalize on Wikipedia. Nor do we need to immortalize the fact that Serebii gets CoroCoro illegally early. It happened. But the events themselves (the meme and the fact that there was what people call a "leak") are not integral to the discussion of this topic.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention Chambr and I both argued here that the leak isn't an essental part of this article. So there is a consensus to remove it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec)This phenomenon was covered by a third-party source and provides relevant commentary on perception and popularity surrounding the games' release history. It provides further real-world coverage for the article. Just because you say "it's a stupid meme", doesn't mean it's not notable. As for the CoroCoro thing that you have brought up again, I'll repeat: "I think its informative commentary covering an aspect of the game's release/promotion history. I think the key point to take away from this matter is that this particular event was covered by multiple reliable sources and influential news outlets". I'm still very puzzled as to why you're trying to remove relevant, sourced information from the article just because you don't like it. Artichoker^[talk] 23:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Memes are memes and are ephemeral internet nonsense.

And they were not reporting on the fact that there was a leak. They were reporting on the content of the leak itself. The leak itself is not a notable event. The information that was leaked was deemed vital to the video gaming media that they bothered to copy off of a website we here would never allow as a reliable source and that suddenly legitimized the content that was being posted when it never should have.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Saying that memes are "ephemeral internet nonsense" is nothing more than your own opinion. Countless times they have shown to be worthy enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. To cite just one of the many examples, take a look at School_Days_(visual_novel)#Delay_of_finale. As for the leak, they inherently are reporting that there is a leak when they report on its content. That seems pretty straightforward. This doesn't even address the fact that the information is content describing the release history of this media and is sourced by multiple, reliable sites. Artichoker^[talk] 23:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You know my opinion on it, Ryulong, but the consensus should decide and because no consensus has been reached and it seems what I have read at the WPVG talk page, leans towards excluding it and the original controversial edit added the material, the material should be left out of the article until a time at which a consensus to add the material is reached. Chambr (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The WPVG talk page never discussed covering the actual release history event of the leaks. That discussion was solely based on whether we should include the gameplay material (Ancient Evolutions, etc.) that the leaks were reporting on before Nintendo had confirmed it. Artichoker^[talk] 00:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

They're not discussing it as a leak because none of them bothered to do any background research other than trusting Serebii's editorial integrity. None of the sources discuss of it as a leak (except for one of them IIRC). And their usage as being citations for other content of the page was negated when the press conference happened. We can be without this content entirely.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

What they did or did not do (of which you cannot possibly know) is irrelevant. As I have said, this is a notable event in the release history of these games that is covered by multiple, independent, reliable sources. Artichoker^[talk] 00:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand that, Artichoker, that isn't the main point of my argument... I am simply saying, that the main controversial content should be left out until a consensus to add said content has been made. Either way, I am not too active in WPVG anymore to know the content of this particular argument. All I can say is that usually, in the Wikipedia community, it is best to leave out the controversial content than to keep it in until at least a general consensus is reached to add it. Either way I think you both make strong arguments. Chambr (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The existence of the leak is not notable at all. It's just a bunch of gaming websites reporting on something that we are aware is a "leak". None of them go "this information leaked" or "this issue of this magazine leaked". They're just presenting everything as is because all anyone gave a crap about before E3 were the new megas.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

"Leaks" again

I am tired of having this god damn conversation every week. The fact that there was a "leak" is not inherently important to the discussion of the video game. This happens every month when CoroCoro comes out but it was only because of E3 that people outside of Serebii and the other fansites picked up on it. We do not need to mention that the "leak" happened. We barely need the fifty different references that have the leaked content. Tezero, you only gave a shit about the "Hoenn Confirmed" mention which means you're only reverting me for the sake of reverting me. You said nothing in the discussion last week in my argument with Artichoker about the mention of the leak and Chambr supported me in its removal as did Masem when everything went down early last month. There's a consensus for exclusion of the information.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, we at Wikipedia do not need to report on the fact that someone in Japan gets their hands on a copy of a children's comics magazine a week before it shows up in the convenience stores every single month, takes photos of that issue, posts them to a blog or forum, and then the English speaking Pokémon fans post those photographs on their fansites. It is not a unique event. Just because a bunch of websites with a higher level of editorial control decided to say that the photos showed up is not essential to the understanding or release history of this video game or any other. We do not need to keep this sentence in. We should not have reported on it in the first place. Artichoker, I do not understand why you are insisting that this content be kept in this page. It adds nothing to the article other than setting a precedent that we should not care about the known release dates of publications and we should let this stuff be reported on by Wikipedia in the future so long as someone at Gamespot decided to steal something from Serebii for their own ad revenue.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec)If you're tired, maybe we should have this discussion once (without you edit warring on the article) and also without you leaving partway though the discussion, then silent waiting for a few days before trying to revert again without discussion. Now to the topic at hand: you refer to this content as "leaks", but the article does not even use that word. As I have maintained before, this is simply commentary on the games' release history backed up by multiple, independent, reliable sources. Also, please don't attempt to leverage Masem here. He supported removal of the content when the game information had not yet been reported by Nintendo and we were using the sources to report on this game information. Now the sources are being used for sourcing a part of this product's release history which is a completely separate issue. You continue to claim consensus for this issue, but I'm don't see how there is at all. Artichoker^[talk] 18:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I never left part way through any of these discussions. I was the last editor to comment on all of them, and in the last case it was within 10 minutes of you leaving your previous comment after which no one contributed to the thread again. Chambr and I have both advocated for the removal of the content after the E3 conference happened. Masem and I consistently argued against usage of the sources prior to the conference, and there was only a stalemate then because you had Hahnchen to support you in your argument that there's nothing that can ever make a website an unreliable source in a certain situation when its consistently considered reliable in other cases. You are the only one who has been consistent in insisting that the content be retained. The statement that the information illegally appeared early is not relevant to the discussion here because it is not a unique event. The fansites post on this sort of thing constantly but no one cares because it's anime garbage instead of some updated game mechanics that the fansites barely touched upon. You have no consensus for the retention of the statement that the "leak" happened.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict, and I think your above comment may have changed, but here's my reply)See my response here regarding previous discussions. Tezero and I have both oppose the removal of this content, so you can't just state it's 2 vs 1 against me (not that that's how consensus works in any case.) Now, in reply to the issue at hand: I don't see how not being a unique event is a relevant argument here. The creators presenting a game at E3 is "not a unique event", so I don't see how this criteria for exclusion could possibly be applied. Artichoker^[talk] 18:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Serebii had the photos and a bunch of websites reporting on Serebii getting those photos just isn't relevant to the release history of this video game or any other. It's not like how Masahiro Sakurai has stated that he's been working on the promotional releases for the new Smash Bros differently because he wasn't pleased with how the spoilers all appeared online when Brawl first came out. And besides, as it stands the sentence is a violation of WP:OR. There's nothing in any of the sources cited that state that the information arrived early. It's just talking about how the information is online in some form with the apparent understanding that the magazine was released to the public, which is what we know is not the case. I figured the best compromise for this whole thing was just to remove the sentence and leave the references in place. And I really doubt that Tezero has anything to say about this considering he barely said anything in the discussion over the inclusion of the meme.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't only reverting you for the sake of reverting you. It's not my problem if you want to make both removals with a false pretense of consensus and me reverting those changes looks similar in both cases. Tezero (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec)I don't see how the sentence violates WP:OR. The date of the articles makes it clear the information arrived early, since they were reporting on this information before it was officially revealed by CoroCoro or Nintendo. Also, I don't know how readers would get "the apparent understanding that the magazine was released to the public", considering the article states: "Photographs of the issue's content surfaced online a week prior to its release". Artichoker^[talk] 18:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

We do not need to report that it happened. It's not inherently important to the game's release history to say that in this one case, the information was discovered online through what we are aware are illicit means. And I have not said that Wikipedia is presenting the fact that the magazine was released at that point. I am saying that the various gaming websites you're using as sources are presenting that information. We gain nothing from pointing out that the "leak" happened because none of the websites are acknowledging the fact that it was early or a "leak" that would be something of note. All they care about is Mega Sceptile and Devolved Groudon or whatever they were calling it prior to the Nintendo press releases.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how we don't gain anything by reporting this information; nor do I see how it's not inherently important. It is discriminate, real-world information about an event in the games' release history, and it was covered by multiple, reliable sources. Artichoker^[talk] 19:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not an event. It's barely a blip on the radar. And you are still extrapolating that it came out early when none of the sources remark on that.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Being "barely a blip on the radar" only constitutes your own opinion. I could just as well say that I believe it was a notable event (which I do). The only difference is that I have reliable sources backing up my claim on this event. And the articles reporting on the information were dated before the information was officially released by CoroCoro and Nintendo, making the statement a routine date calculation and thus falling under WP:CALC. Artichoker^[talk] 19:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, you're extrapolating the reporting on the content of the leak as being evident that the leak itself was important, neither of which are really important in the long run here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I still don't see how that's not important. It was covered by multiple sources and is part of the games' release history, so I don't see how it's not important enough to be included in the article. Artichoker^[talk] 20:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The content of what we and the Pokemon fansites consider a leak was what was covered in reliable sources. The reliable sources covering this content does not constitute something worthy of coverage.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

You once again state "The reliable sources covering this content does not constitute something worthy of coverage" as a matter-of-fact, but I disagree. I don't see why this isn't worthy of coverage. I've already stated above regarding my reasons why I believe this should be covered. Artichoker^[talk] 21:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

And I disagree with your arguments because I feel that they do not hold water in this situation.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Why doesn't it constitute something worthy of coverage? That's like saying that in games' Reception sections, we should simply say "the game has a good story" instead of "so and so from such and such praised the game's story" because no other reliable sources have covered that review. Tezero (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Because spending a sentence saying "oh and this stuff leaked early" is not important when the sources for that statement regard the content rather than the fact it was leaked.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Similarly, a review will focus on an assessment of the game rather than the reviewer or publication itself. Tezero (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

So you're comparing "reviewers said" to "this was posted early"? We generally use the content of reviews when discussing reviews. In this case we are discussing the leak rather than its content.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Section break

Oh come on, this has happened every single time I've attempted this discussion. It goes for a day and then no one says anything after because you think you won.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ryulong. I don't necessarily have any comment on your discussion above with Tezero because I wasn't involved. However, at the end of our conversation, you simply stated: "And I disagree with your arguments because I feel that they do not hold water in this situation." Echoing exactly what happened in previous discussions, this isn't really an argument and thus I took it as a concession and did not reply; simply because I had nothing to say to such a comment. I am very disappointed to see that you have now come back and done the exact same thing for at least the third time in a row: you waited silently for a few days and then violated consensus to restore your preferred version of the article by removing the valid, sourced content. I must ask that you please stop this process of yours that has now become ad nauseum. If you still dispute this content, you need to obtain consensus, not just lie in wait and make your revert after a few days as you have repeatedly done. We can continue to discuss it, or you can try enlisting more third opinion (although we also had Tezero who agreed with me and disputed your removal of this sourced content.) However, your current actions are simply not acceptable and I am tired of going through this exact same thing for the third time over. Thank you. Artichoker^[talk] 23:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Well it's the only damn way I can get your attention isn't it? I had consensus weeks ago. You didn't agree to it. There is no reason that this sentence that photos showed up early should be allowed on this article. It is not directly supported by the references cited. It's an unimportant event in the history of these video games. Just because a bunch of reliable sources reported on the content that was posted early, which happens every single month there's a new issue of the comic book, does not make the actual event of the content being posted early of note. And really, all your arguments in this matter have been to disagree with my points by just saying "it is notable because it was posted by reliable sources". No one cares that this happened other than you and the Pokémon fans who read the source Serebii anyway. It is a non-event that you are giving too much credence. The content was highly controversial when it was first added and now it's controversial when it's still here. I'm posting on WT:VG to get someone else in on this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Title isn't OmegaRed and AlphaSapphire?

No CamelCase for the remakes' title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.156.82.190 (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I would've thought so, too - in fact, I initially created the page under that title. For whatever reason, though, that's not how the media or the Pokémon Company/Nintendo has generally chosen to represent it. Tezero (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Plot summary: Should we keep the link to RS's synopsis or write another one for ORAS?

I have noted that while the plot is essentially the same, there are some substantial changes that alter the course of the plot, such as each villainous team choosing the right orb to awaken Groudon and Kyogre, respectively, and the results of doing so. Also, there is an extension to the plot called the "Delta Episode" which essentially turns RS's sidequest of catching Rayquaza at Spear Pillar into something part of the games' story, and which is, for obvious reasons, missing in the original versions' synopsis.

What I suggest is one of the following solutions to this issue:

• Copying the synopsis of Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire found here and change any details required.
• Writing a synopsis in the lines of "Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire's plot is essentially the same as the original games with some differences, like..." and then specifically mention the main changes in the plot.
• Just leave it as it is. (My least favorite one)

I could easily do any of the two first options (or by extension, all three, although the third obviously means doing nothing) but I prefer to discuss it until there is a consensus, so as to prevent doing some work just to find it reverted a second later. I'll be waiting for your opinion. Arikk507 (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I definitely don't support doing nothing, either; I only added the link to encourage expansion so it didn't only have Development and Reception sections. I'd prefer the first option out of all three. Tezero (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll take care of this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Team Magma motives.

Just to ask. Was Team Magma drying up the land for land pokemon, as stated in this article, or for the sake of humanity, as I believe is the case. I have already finished Omega Ruby, and all other sources, such as Bulbapedia and the original Wikipedia article for Ruby and Sapphire do not state why they are aiming to achieve their goals. Zoruila (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Their goal is only stated to be drying up the oceans but I cannot recall why, not that I think it is particularly relevant for the article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Name Acronym ORAS

Should the article mention that Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire is commonly abbreviated as ORAS, or OR and AS? Benjamin (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I am an inexperienced editor, but I will proceed with the edit if there are no objections. Benjamin (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

7.8/10 Too much water meme

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So, in terms of reliable sources, can this Bulbapedia editorial - http://bulbanews.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Gotta_Meme_'em_All:_7.8/10_Too_Much_Water be considered as one?

It's the shame that one of the most tedious memes generated by this game doesn't even get a mention. xyzman (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

i agree! the pictures on bulbanews are pretty funny, especially the one with the earth Valehd (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

7.8/10: too much water

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

this article should mention the infamous rating of 7.8/10: too much water. it has become an internet meme. 173.62.251.253 (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

tttttt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.70.109.68 (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use of the term "enhanced remakes"

Hi, there is currently a discussion going on at the talk page for Pokémon Brilliant Diamond and Shining Pearl about the use of the term "enhanced remakes". As any consensus should be reflected in all Pokémon remake articles, any input would be appreciated. Anarchyte (talk • work) 05:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Recent changes

Hi, I restored the last version before some recent major revisions to this article as seen here. These include some formatting errors ("much appreciated Wikipedians" is not something you should see in the middle of an article). The rest appears to be the addition of good faith content even if it's mostly extraneous. Regardless I figured starting a talk page discussion would be for the best. Some of these extra details may be WP:DUE if proper coverage in reliable sources can be found. I'll take a closer look myself sometime in the next few days. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

To be a bit more precise on what I mean here by "extraneous", the level of detail we provide is generally what's summarized in reliable sources. We're not a video game guide or a fan wiki (e.g. Bulbapedia). So excessive detail on specific game aspects is best avoided (see {{excessive detail}} for when this becomes an issue). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)