Talk:Kanto (Pokémon)/archive 2

S.S. Anne Port Easter Egg
{| class="collapsed collapsible prettytable" ! S.S. Anne Port Easter Egg
 * though extremely hard to pull off, if you go trough the game without obtaining cut, you can explore the port around the SS anne before it takes off. This can only be done by trading for a Pokemon that knows cut, or teaching a Pokemon cut in Pokemon stadium 1 and/or 2 with another game. Another way is to just white out form the S.S. Anne
 * though extremely hard to pull off, if you go trough the game without obtaining cut, you can explore the port around the SS anne before it takes off. This can only be done by trading for a Pokemon that knows cut, or teaching a Pokemon cut in Pokemon stadium 1 and/or 2 with another game. Another way is to just white out form the S.S. Anne

The port contains the only automobile I have seen in all the games until Sapphire, Rub, and Emerald.

its a pickup truck. I know about the area because i was told you could get a mew from that area, but the rumor was false, but the area is for real as is the truck.Yami (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

i found it on the web, its a little off but its still proof http://www.eeggs.com/items/50225.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yami Takashi (talk • contribs) 04:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I keep having the information taken down saying it is only "speculation" but its real. There are pleny of references that shows the Truck. Also like i said the mew thing was false.

Artichoker keeps changing the article back. I think the info i added is a nice addition to this article, and if it doesn't belong there then neither does the info on the pokrmon fanclub. The Truck is real, the mew isn't, and the info is not speculationYami (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I added a picture, i'm new still when it comes to adding pictures to this site buy here it is Image:Ssanneporttruck.gif

If someone could upload a image and fill out the info the way wiki wants that would be a good help because i keep getting orphaned image messages Yami (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that a truck is located in this game is real. However, this does not belong on Wikipedia as it is not notable. "A truck appears in a game; so what?" Is basically what it comes down to. I have reverted your edit again, and please do not add this information back until you get consensus on this talk page. Artichoker[talk] 17:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Who put you in charge of what is or is not notable for a article on a game many spent long hours on exploring and seeing all it had to offer. If you think the truck doesn't belong then the pokemon fanclub doesn't belong either. explain how that is notableYami (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Pokémon Fanclub is where you obtain the bike voucher in order to get a bike from the shop in Cerulean City. It is certainly more notable than a stationary truck that the player can in no way interact with. Artichoker[talk] 18:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

A truck that is one of the only vehicles I know of in the Pokemon games except for the moving van in Sapphire, Rubby, and Emerald. The truck is where a rumor of a mew was located, so the fact the fanclub has the bike voucher makes it more notable then a truck that is a nice little easter egg in a game where all you do is walk through most of the game. The truck adds to the article, you shouldn't just delete it without thinking. wikipedia even states so in the Dispute resolution article.Yami (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you are being hostile to me or the info I am trying to contribute. I am only trying to contribute to this article to make it better. If i was a new users to wikipedia the info on the truck would interest me if i never new about it. wikipedia already received harsh criticism because people can add and change what ever they want. Schools are even banning the use and blocking Wikipedia because it can often be unreliable. At least i'm trying to add and contribute to a article and not adding nonsense. Yami (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see my reply, and please refrain from adding back this information until consensus is reached. Artichoker[talk] 19:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I second including it, since it's properly cited. Are there any others opposing? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would just like to say that two of the three sources cannot be used to verifiablity;, , as the first is a personal website, and the other is a fansite. Artichoker[talk] 20:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

the same argument could be used for this whole site. wiki articles use other wiki articles for references all the time. Most of the internet is fan or personal sites Yami (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are not supposed to use other Wikipedia articles for reference. If you see that on another article, then you should fix it. Most of the internet may be fan or personal sites, but that is completely irrelevant, for we do not use those sites as sources on Wikipedia. Artichoker[talk] 20:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

a reference is a reference. I've seen the truck with my own two eyes doing it that hardest way possible by gong through the game without HM 01, and the phantom PC is just as real as the pokemon center pcs or the one in the Pokemon leagues. You also say your not attacking me on a personal level or non bias but your edit summaries say different.

"evising this paragraph for now, as the other edit was careless enough to simply revert my edit without viewing the changes"

"Removing speculation, gamecruft, and nonnotable information. Please do not add this back until consensus is reached on the talk page"

"the fact that there is a truck in this game is completely nonnotable"

"emoving speculation (and as a matter of fact it does NOT hold a mew."

Each time i provided citations/references which proves its not speculation. I have repeatedly said that the mew thing was not only a rumor but false as well. Yami (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, a reference is NOT a reference; they must all be verifiable. I am not saying that the truck does not exist; only that it is nonnotable. In response to your quotes of my edit summaries:


 * 1) You were careless enough to not check the revision, and see that I had made a grammatical and prose edit during my revision (I added a period, and moved a sentence.)
 * 2) Once again, challenging your edit is NOT an attack. Please read WP:ATTACK in order to gain a better understanding of what a personal attack actually is.
 * 3) See number 2.
 * 4) See number 2.


 * Artichoker[talk] 20:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

you are clearly making an attack against me and even JeremyMcCracken thinks so. Just leave the information on there, if it doesn't belong then time will tell but stop acting like your the police. Yami (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again you fail to provide evidence of your frivolous claim that I am attacking you. I have consulted an administrator about this, so we shall see what he thinks on this matter. In the mean time, I will allow the information to stay, until we get a third opinion, however, this is not the way Wikipedia works. Artichoker[talk] 20:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Your response on my talk page proves that you are being bias and attacking me personaly. If you weren;t then you would have let it go and not kept editing my contribution. I also contacted someone about this and they're a third option editor that defuses these situations. Yami (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See my reply here. Artichoker[talk] 20:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Artichoker, you said that two out of the three sources couldn't be used as they didn't meet the standards for a reliable source. I have investigated the two sources you linked to, and this has proven to be correct. However, could you please post the usable source here for me please? Sometimes one source is enough for inclusion, but at other times it isn't, depending on the nature of the source. Cheers,  The Hybrid   21:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. I assumed this one was reliable, however I am not completely sure. Artichoker[talk] 21:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Posted my side like Useight asked at the bottom since this section was getting crowded Yami (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
Okay, this is getting heated. First, both of you need to heed WP:DTTR. No more warnings; you're both well aware of the dispute. If the reverts continue I'll post at WP:RFPP so it can't be changed, until something can be worked out. About the sources- I didn't look carefully enough at the source I kept. It's wetpaint, which is a wiki site so it isn't reliable. eeggs.com is not reliable either, as it accepts user content. I'd support including this material, but only if a better source can be found. I would recommend Yami Takashi look for one. Don't forget google books- a printed game guide may have included this. If there's still disagreement on inclusion, I'd recommend a Requests for Comment to get outside opinions. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not agree that this discussion is getting "heated." I know that I, for one, am calmly stating my opinion as Yami and I debate this matter. Artichoker[talk] 23:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I found a gamespot link but Artichoke keeps saying that even with that the truck shouldn't be added. I don't see why the truck can't be added if i have it properly cited with a creditable source, but somehow this is switching to so many different arguments i can't keep track of what i have to do to get the truck added.

The truck was called speculation and then the notablity was called into question then somehow the pictures i found and the fact they were non-free was used agaisnt me even though all the pictures on the article are non-free Yami (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * }

Invisible Walls
if i remember right there are slight borders/markers that shows the wall's layout. Its been a long time so i can't be 100% sure but i seem to strongly remember this in Gold and silver as well Yami (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

can someone verify this for me? I can't remember 100% why i asked but for it though Yami (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are small, white, dotted borders in Koga/Jasmine's Gym showing the exact locations of the "invisible walls." However, this is purely gamecruft and does not warrant inclusion in the article. Artichoker[talk] 16:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember if i was going add it, most likely i wasn't and was only asking. Yami (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Any ideas
Does anyone know if gamespot is a reliable source? or any game sites that would be deemed reliable? Yami (talk) 05:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, GameSpot is a reliable source. Pretty much any "popular" gaming website (IGN, etc) is reliable. As long as it's not self-published, such as a blog, it's fine. — Fatal Error 05:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't tell if this http://www.cheathappens.com/show_cheat.asp?ID=10613 would be counted as reliable. They have the informations but they call Vermilion Viridian which i could understand someone gettign them mixed up.

Yami (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, because you can look at the bottom of each "cheat" it will say in gray lettering (supplied by: batusai_the_slasher2002), etc. So no, that is not a reliable source. Artichoker[talk] 21:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well i found another source

Consensus has been made and The information is going in with two references cited. You said that you would have no problem if two references were cited and that is what i am going to add. Yami (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, for all your talk and eagerness to add the info, you haven't really worded it well...
 * I mean, I'm reading it, and it doesn't seem all that "important". TheChrisD Rants • Edits 22:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me if its a little dry after i spent 2.5 days debating. My ability to properly word it without someone calling it this or that has been dulled. I can rewrite it when i have a fresher mind set. Yami (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a little better. Yami (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Also a picture would help but people want to be just as difficult about that. Yami (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I added a picture. It ties in well with the text, and I think we needed at least one in game picture since all the others are not from the game(s), but the game(s) is discussed in the article. Yami (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you misunderstand. This is an invalid source. As all the information is submitted by different individuals and not checked, so it is not reliable at all. Artichoker[talk] 01:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Artichoker is right; you cannot add the information.  The Hybrid   01:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The second one was valid, and the picture goes with the article. Also if i have one reference that is good enough, stop being difficult Yami (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We are not being difficult. The second one is not because, as has been stated multiple times, all the information is submitted by different individuals and not checked, so it is not reliable at all. You are the one who is being difficult by not accepting that your source is invalid. Also the image explicitly violates WP:FUC, so therefore it doesn't matter if it "goes with the article." It cannot be added. Artichoker[talk] 02:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Then the info and first refrence/citation alone will do. take the image out but leave the info alone.Yami (talk) 02:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You will need at least two references in order to really prove that your information is actually notable. <span style="padding-top:3px;padding-left:2px;padding-right:2px;background-color:#f5faff;border:#cedff2 1px solid">Artichoker[talk] 02:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That is what you say, all the other items have one. Yami (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Because this little bit of information is very controversial, as evidence by this talk page. Therefore, in order to establish notability, you will need at least two reliable sources. Until then, please refrain from editing the actual article, I don't want this to escalate into an edit war. Please wait until consensus is reached on this talk page. All you need to do is provide one more reliable source, and I shall let your information be added. <span style="padding-top:3px;padding-left:2px;padding-right:2px;background-color:#f5faff;border:#cedff2 1px solid">Artichoker[talk] 02:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You do not get to decide how many is needed, and multiple admins have been alerted to this. You are vandalizing this article Yami (talk) 02:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not vandalizing this article. There is a large difference between a content dispute and vandalizing. Your information is controversial and therefore requires more sourcing in order to be considered notable. <span style="padding-top:3px;padding-left:2px;padding-right:2px;background-color:#f5faff;border:#cedff2 1px solid">Artichoker[talk] 02:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

How is the second reference/citation unreliable/verifiable?

And you are the one that made it controversial because you didn't want it on the article. I have noticified multiple admins about your actions and this entire case. Yami (talk) 02:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As I have stated before, all of the information on that page is submitted by different individuals and not checked, so it is not reliable at all. Yes, exactly correct, that is what made it controversial. And yes I am already aware that you have notified admins, however if you reason for notifying them is to try and get me "punished," I don't think that will be the case. <span style="padding-top:3px;padding-left:2px;padding-right:2px;background-color:#f5faff;border:#cedff2 1px solid">Artichoker[talk] 02:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Neither me or Ueseight can see where that site has user submitted content. The source is valid Yami (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe Useight said anything about your source, but as I stated before look at the bottom of each "cheat" it will say in gray lettering (supplied by: batusai_the_slasher2002), etc. which means it has submitted content, and is therefore unreliable. <span style="padding-top:3px;padding-left:2px;padding-right:2px;background-color:#f5faff;border:#cedff2 1px solid">Artichoker[talk] 14:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

he said it in a e-mail between us, and I do not see any grey letters on this site http://www.xtreme-cheats.com/tlyour_cheats.php?15597 are we talking about the same site. Yami (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I was talking about the previous site you provided: http://www.cheathappens.com/show_cheat.asp?ID=10613 This new site I have never seen before, but it looks reliable enough. Okay I no longer have any qualms about you adding back the information with the two reliable sources. However no image should be added. Agreed? <span style="padding-top:3px;padding-left:2px;padding-right:2px;background-color:#f5faff;border:#cedff2 1px solid">Artichoker[talk] 15:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That was the second reference that you removed yesterday check the history. The article got locked because you didn't check the reference/citations. Yami (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, you should have informed me that you had found another verifiable source. Then this edit war wouldn't have happened and the dispute would have been resolved sooner. So anyways, I'll go inform Useight that the content dispute has ended and he can unprotect the article. Then you are free to add the information along with both of the reliable sources. <span style="padding-top:3px;padding-left:2px;padding-right:2px;background-color:#f5faff;border:#cedff2 1px solid">Artichoker[talk] 15:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I did say i had two reliable sources.

Now there the question of the image. Now i believe that the article should have 1 in game image, and it helps the Vermilion section. Also the kanto images are non-free art but the image i want to use would be a non-free screenshot. The image allows people to see the harbor or loading dock depending on what terminology is acceptable. If i understand the non-free policy. because we can't find a free version, and because it helps show what the text alone can't relay i believe it would be acceptable. Yami (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But the text CAN relay it perfectly well. Your information is just about a truck. The picture shows just a truck, so there is no need for the picture. Please just go with the text, and do not include the picture. Let's not get into another content dispute. <span style="padding-top:3px;padding-left:2px;padding-right:2px;background-color:#f5faff;border:#cedff2 1px solid">Artichoker[talk] 16:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes but talking about the general harbor would help the truck and info on vermilion port as a whole. And if we talk about it as a whole i think a picture, not necessarily one showing the truck would be nice. now as i have said if i remember right there is a zoom out version of the whole area so maybe if i remember right and that is the case i can take a screenshot and the whole area can be shown?

if you still think its not needed i won't press it anymore because i'm in the mood to play PKMN Yellow. Yami (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The picture is non-free and not gravely need, that's all the reasons needed for exclusion. <span style="padding-top:3px;padding-left:2px;padding-right:2px;background-color:#f5faff;border:#cedff2 1px solid">Artichoker[talk] 16:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Why did you revert it? You wrote the info to dry and when i tried to add a little you revert it?

when i first wrote it, it had more body because i mentioned the rumor built around the truck, but just saying there is a pickup truck with no back or side story is too dry and not what i had in mind for the article. I wanted at least to mention the area, what is in the area and/or the rumors built on the area. I think talking about the area more like a real dock and still mentioning the item in the area, but not explicitly saying what the item is would make it less dry sounding. Yami (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)