Talk:Pokémon Sword and Shield/Archive 1

Archive 1

Accented E

It’s Pokémon not Pokemon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearbro123 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

We need pictures

I'm i'm not really able to take time off currently to find pics, but, there was a nintendo direct, right? And they must have at least revealed the logo. The page would be a lot prettier with that on it. -Bearbro123 Update: Good Job!-Bearbro123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearbro123 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

"Seemingly resembles"

Hey it's been a pretty long time, maybe literally 5+ years since I last used a Wikipedia talk page.

I'd like to question the use of the phrase "seemingly resembles" in the image of the game's map: "Sword and Shield are set in the Galar region, which seemingly resembles the shape of Great Britain as viewed from the north."

I don't quite understand why it isn't just "resembles", even if it hasn't been explicitly confirmed to be inspired by Britain.: "Sword and Shield are set in the Galar region, which resembles the shape of Great Britain as viewed from the north."

To resemble something means to be similar to something, usually in appearance, whether or not it's a coincidence. I think the phrase "seemingly resembles" is redundant. Other parts of the game's trailer resemble Britain so much that I don't think the phrase "seemingly resembles" needs to be said in this case instead of just "resembles".

-Cookie Fonster^talk _sign! 02:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC) (do I still have a goofy looking signature? only one way to find out)

Criticism

Should there be a section about the current pre-release criticism following the Nintendo treehouse at E3, where they said they would not be allowing every pokemon from previous games to be transferred into the latest games? rufioh^talk_sign 14:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

References

"the shape of Great Britain"

"Sword and Shield are set in the Galar region, which appears to resemble the shape of Great Britain as viewed from the north" this does not resemble Great Britain and so this part of the comment should be removed.

The citation says it does, and it definitely looks like it does. L ke (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Coastline seems plausible, but the topographic shape is almost cartoonishly inaccurate, even compared to the days of yore. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Pre-release reception concerns

I am growing concerned about the "Reception" section getting increasingly verbose. User:Cyclonebiscuit apparently feels the need to catalog everything that's been going down with the pre-release controversy surrounding the games. I am also concerned that the section is one-sided in that it only talks about the negatives concerning the games. So let me ask: should we continue to allow mention of the controversy, or should we avoid covering it in the article? ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 22:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The controversy is there and definitely warrants inclusion but I agree that at this state it is quite overkill. Juxlos (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

We definitely should be including it. A comprehensive reception section is one of the most important aspects of any video game article, since we typically want to focus more on the game's real-world impact than on minutiae of plot and gameplay. The whole national dex thing has received a lot of coverage, and I don't think it's possible to have thorough encyclopedic coverage of the game without including it.

That said, I do agree that we need to be proportionate in our coverage, and that the current coverage probably goes over that line. I think that part of the problem is that there hasn't really been a whole lot of positive reception so far, which is not because everyone is hating on the game, but because it isn't out yet. There just isn't a whole lot to give reception to. Most media outlets and reliable sources aren't really saying "we think this is bad"; they're reporting on what's happening on social media, saying "lots of other people think this is bad". They aren't really reporting people who like it or don't really care either way, because that isn't news and they don't have the same requirement that we do.

I think that, for the most part, the problem will end up fixing itself when the game has actually been released, and we have a lot more reception to draw on to create a fuller, more balanced section. Once more positive reception exists (or once it comes out and is met with universally negative reception should that be the case), then balance and proportion will probably happen on their own.

For now though, I think that we should: (a) carry on including the current negative reception, (b) trim it back to only cover the most important details, and (c) try to make clearer that most reliable sources aren't actually being all that negative about the game, but are reporting on a social media controversy. Lowercaserho (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

FWIW I've been trying to find positive reception, but it's barely covered in reliable sources. The extent of positive reception I've been able to find is "some people are excited". There was one instance from a data scientist, whose reliability I couldn't verify, reporting the controversy to be evenly split; however, the data had no clear control source and was picked with hashtags from twitter so the validity is questionable. Per WP:N we reflect what's being reported, and what's been reported is largely negative thus far. So long as the article is reflecting what's reported and not asserting its own claims, it satisfies WP:N. Once the game is out, the balance of these arguments will almost certainly change but that's not for us to determine at this time. @Lowercaserho: I've largely tried to be clear on what's stemming from fans and what's coming from the media outlets. The first sentence is clear about this "drew criticism from many fans", it doesn't indicate any media outlet opinions. I've gone ahead and removed the second paragraph, the first part of it is redundant to a statement in the first paragraph and the model argument is just visual comparison by fans and not based on hard evidence. The remaining text should be sufficient: existence of a controversy, the reason for it, background information to provide context, and the official response from Masuda. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources are mentioning it, so it’s worth mentioning, though it definitely needs to be trimmed back some. It’s very redundant and overly worded as is. We don’t need multiple paragraphs full of paraphrasing the idea of “people are upset not all Pokémon aren’t in the game” over and over again. Sergecross73 msg me 17:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I've had a shot at pruning the section back to something more managable. How do people feel about it now? Lowercaserho (talk) 05:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I see no controversy. Just criticism, complaints, concerns, condolences and compromises. Can you clarify or correct? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Current opening sentence suggests the company's decision was inherently a controversy before complainers named it. Makes no sense. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Good call. I've gone ahead and reworded to get rid of all mentions of controversy and controversial. While some of the sources we have do refer to it that way, I agree that it isn't a particularly apt terminology. Lowercaserho (talk) 07:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Placement of the word "controversy" wasn't ideal, but it meets the definition of one ("disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated") and is referred to as one regularly, including in an article today. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

That article is rather clear that fan madness is prolonged, public and heated. But the developers and publishers (ostensibly the other side), seem to know this and accept it as the way things are. For a disagreement, we'd need a contrary stance from them, I think. Fewer Pokemon isn't unpopular and upsetting, fans should shut up and smile, something like that. If I had to guess, the word is being thrown around in the press because "controversy creates cash", as notoriously prolonged rabblerouser Eric Bischoff once sold another world. Unless Wikipedia is getting a slice, it's not time to play their game. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's a few news articles that I've seen that talks about and/or disputes one of the many complaints by fans: This page talks about how the fans' claims that Game Freak was being lazy towards the 3D models (which has been a highly humongous claim by fans who say that they were just porting the graphics from the 3DS era) is not true as the team had to rebuild everything from scratch. This one is another about the graphics claims, trying to use a bootleg Pokemon game as proof of Game Freak's laziness. Ashura Blaze (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion here seems to have become dormant (only one comment in the last ten days), the section has been substantially modified since the POV concern was originally raised, and I believe the problems have been addressed. Does anyone (Electricburst1996? InedibleHulk?) still have any concerns with the page as it stands now, or can we safely remove the NPOV tag? Lowercaserho (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I never had a problem with the neutrality, just the deception. Seems fine now, as far as I know. But I've only ever played Pokemon Snap and watched about a dozen cartoon episodes back when living rooms existed; I don't do know what Pikachu evolves into and will defer to anyone who does on in-universe lies. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Phelan Porteus spilled the beans a few days back. What he becomes, what he was. I heard everything. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

In the absence of any remaining specific concerns, I've gone ahead and removed the tag. If anyone does still have problems, feel free to retag and bring up your concerns here. Lowercaserho (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Dexit in the lead section

Hello fellow Pokefans! I'd like to discuss the proposal of adding a short paragraph, probably two sentences, in the intro about Dexit. This is because of how much coverage there has been on the topic, even prompting a response from Gamefreak. I'm not asking for anything crazy, but I do think it should be noted. Thoughts? Cheers! ShalomSir (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that it is best left out of the lead because of WP:WEIGHT issues, at least for the time being. Once the games have actually been released and there have been reviews, sales figures, etc. that we can use to build a proper reception section, then we will probably want to have a paragraph in the lead summarising the reception section. At that point then it would make sense to judge how significant "Dexit" has been to the reception of the game as a whole, and to give it weight accordingly, but until we have the ability to truly place it in context, I'm reticent to give it much prominence. Lowercaserho (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

So a wait and see approach? Alright, I can work with that. There isn't even that much left to wait. Thanks for the response, cheers. ShalomSir (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because the reason is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:C980:BB00:2D1E:80C2:3890:6F24 (talk) 07:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Dexit plus additional criticisms

Right now, only the "Dexit" response appears to be present as the main subject in the pre-release reception section; from what I've seen that was the original criticism when the announcement was made months ago, but others have popped up as information was leaked. Should those criticisms be added as well for a full breadth of the topic or should only Dexit stay since it was the most widely publicized? HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 00:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Worth noting the additional complaints are speculation based on...nothing. They shouldn't under any circumstances be included in an encyclopedia. 161.11.160.44 (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I think only the Dexit issue should stay. I'm concerned anything else could lend undue weight to fan criticism levelled at the games. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 00:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Best to give the most recent criticisms some time to flesh out and see if they're not just knee-jerk responses. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. If they continue to have an impact after release, I'll find some sources and expand on it then, but for right now it'll stay as is. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 02:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

should we even start the reception with this part? I know it is chronological, but realistically we care much more about critical response than fan responses. I suggest swapping the two subsections in the reception. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the prerelease section seems exceedingly long when the "controversy" could be dispensed with in a couple sentences; with that said I do feel it makes sense organizationally to have the article go Important Info, Reaction, Credentialed Reaction. Your mileage may vary, though! 161.11.160.44 (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Keeping Dexit Pre-release Section

Hello Pokéfans. There seems to be a whole lot of shenanigans regarding the pre-release section. While I'd like to keep the section as it is, others want to remove it. Please discuss on whether to keep it or not. Cheers. ShalomSir (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

What you might want is irrelevant. We need to follow other articles and MOS:VG. Critical reception is what is important. Info on sales and some controversy could be added after this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

That's not what I meant, but ok. ShalomSir (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The game's undergoing a massive review-bombing at Metacritic

Apparently there's a bug that can potentially delete game data, and you know how fanboys are... HalfShadow 19:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

If we're gonna add that, I suggest we wait a while and see what comes of it. And that could come after the "critical response" section. ShalomSir (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

We literally don't care about fan reviews on metacritic. What WP:SECONDARY sources comment on this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

And what does the glitch have to do with the review bombing?--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Because it's wiping the system's entire drives clean. Of everything. I don't give a wet fart about Metacritic either, but if an official source can be found for this info, I think it probably bears mentioning. HalfShadow 18:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

But you’re talking about two different things--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, polygon are reporting it's a fault with the OS, and not the games. [1] probably worth a sentence, but it's not a reception thing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I've checked over the article on Polygon, and from what I read it seems this is what they are stating within it:

1. Social media users are panicking greatly about the glitch, but confusing others over the facts surrounding it.
2. The problem is not widespread; chances of encountering the glitch are slim.
3. The problem seems to be a fault with the OS, and not these games in question.
4. The save data is not lost - it is stored on the system, not the SD cards. However, worst-case scenario is that game data may have to be re-downloaded if the glitch is encountered.

In my opinion, a section regarding this glitch and its impact with players is note-worthy, and certainly should not come under any other element of the article, other than, possibly, a "Bugs" section. GUtt01 (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

There's source here about the fan score: https://gamerant.com/pokemon-sword-and-shield-review-bombs-metacritic/ http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2019/11/of_course_pokemon_sword_and_shield_is_getting_review-bombed https://www.notebookcheck.net/Scathing-Metacritic-user-reviews-and-GameFreakLied-dull-the-shine-of-Pokemon-Sword-and-Pokemon-Shield-s-release.442857.0.html Muur (talk) 07:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

None are reliable--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

NintendoLife actually is but I don’t think it’s enough to warrant coverage.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Italic text

Models

Gamefreak actually said they were reusing older models for Sword and Shield, and all they were doing was touching them up. We should probably mention that

Give me a source for that and I'll add it somewhere in development. ShalomSir (talk) 13:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't really see how it's particularly relevant. Game studios use old assets all the time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

It's relevant because Game Freak initally said that the reason for the dex cut was because of recreating new models. ShalomSir (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

You just want your trashing of the game to be validated--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

"which is a rabbit/which is a chameleon"

"The starters are: Grookey, the grass-type starter, which is a simian Pokémon; Scorbunny, the fire-type starter, which is a rabbit; and Sobble, the water-type starter, which is a chameleon." the user wrote that Grookey is classified as a simian Pokémon, but Scorbunny and Sobble are classified as basic animals like "rabbit" and "chameleon". This should be changed to say something along the lines of "Scorbunny, the fire-type starter, which is a rabbit Pokémon;" and "Sobble, the water-type starter, which is a chameleon Pokémon." — Preceding unsigned comment added by FutureWigs (talk • contribs) 16:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

a simian pokémon which when it is fully evolves it has been inspired by drummers(british rick bands played a mild part in the game),a rabbit which when evolves resembles your common soccer player(pokémon inspired by british people’s love for soccer), and the lizards final evolution was inspired by James Bond(or that’s what i like to think. Me6481 (talk) 05:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Tree controversy

Should a few sentences on the tree controversy be added to the pre-release section? it seems like it is important enough to be added. Serperior 1245, a Star Wars nerd 00:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

huh? Me6481 (talk) 06:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Expansion Pack

Here we can figure out a way to add the expansion pack into this article. Me6481 (talk) 06:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Trading cards

Fro this generation of pokémon we have yet to see pokémon trading cards.Here you can place ideas about them! Me6481 (talk) 06:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussion about the Wikipedia page on Pokémon Sword and Shield, not just a place to talk about the game. Discussion about ideas of trading cards and the "What were they inspired by?" section above are not appropriate here. Stefvanschie (talk) 09:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

they keep getting rid of my rusted relics statement

i have added that the pictures are of the legendary's with the rusted sword and shield. they only look like they do in those pictures with them. my fact keeps getting taken off the article and I would like it to stop! it is a real fact and I do not like that is has been taken off over and over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Me6481 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

It may well be fact, but it is unnecessary detail for the caption. Read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Video_games. The caption is on of the first/few things people read when going on to the page, anyone who has no clue what the game is about will also have no clue how "rusted sword and shield" is relevant and what it means in this context. In fact, it isn't mentioned on the page at all, even people who have read through the page whole will have no clue what you're talking about. I don't even know if what you're talking about is real, lol. It's relatively WP:GAMECRUFTy for the beginning of the article. L ke (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

About the "Pre-release" Section

I think the heading for the "Pre-release" section should be seperated from the rest of the Reception section and changed to "Controversy", because it's not even pre-release reception, it's basically the whole controversy surrounding the game, and even the second paragraph says it's a controversy. - Inkster2 (talk) 06:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think controversy is specific. Pre-release at least details when this happened. Maybe "Pokémon exclusion" (or "Dexit")? Pikavoom (talk) 07:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

"Pokémon exclusion" and "Dexit" sound too specific to me for a header, I think "Pre-release" is fine. Stefvanschie (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

"Pre-release" isn't fitting for this kind of thing. Plus, it pretty much is a controversy. In fact, this "pre-release" controversy has been going on for a year. Inkster2 (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

If there are significant sources discussing the Dexit angle after the release and those are added, then we will have to think about the title. Pikavoom (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Pikavoom, Stefvanschie: I feel like the OP is a WP:SPA. All of their edits so far involve the subject of this article and pushing for their preferred version of the heading. WP:NOTHERE, perhaps? The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 22:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a bit harsh. Yes, this is a new account interested in a single issue. But they aren't disruptive so far. Pikavoom (talk) 06:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

What were they inspired by?

you answer that here Me6481 (talk) 05:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I am asking this because it is an important part of the game. The region was inspired by britian and we could add mor inspired statements in this article if we work together to find out! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Me6481 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

What is your question exactly, because there's so much in the game. UB Blacephalon (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Copyright Violation?

Well, when using Earwig’s Copyvio Detector, I found that this page has very serious copyright violations as it plagiarized from a ton of soruces (Especially these two: http://jonatabrignol.com.br/docs/pok%C3%A9mon-sword-%26-shield-online-tournaments-42abce And https://affordablemarketing.co.nz/site/battle-ready-pok%C3%A9mon-sword-and-shield-724c04 which have been 87.0% and 84.3% copied.) as copying and pasting it is considered plagiarism and Wikipedia doesn’t allow that. I feel the article ether should be rewritten or removed. I Feel it could possibly not be I feel the article is well written.--2600:1004:B06E:19A7:F4F7:1732:5952:6E0D (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Both sites have copy and pasted from Wikipedia, not the reverse. They are both fake bot built sites. -- ferret (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, Sorry.--2600:1004:B06E:19A7:F4F7:1732:5952:6E0D (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Upside down

Galar's shape is basically a upside down Britain, maybe we could add this? Blue Jay (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Onlinepokemonbattle.jpg
• Pokemontrade.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)