Talk:Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow/Archive 2

Merge from Pokémon Yellow & Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen
I propose that Pokémon Yellow & Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen be merged into this article. These games are NOT the same game, and the current setup does not make this clear. Readers should not need to wade through redundant story and game setup to read about the new versions. These new versions are updates of Pokémon Red and Blue. Keeping them in one article would cut redundancy so the differences can be expanded on. Repeating the same story three times is ridiculous. ~ JohnnyMrNinja  06:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * With Pokemon Yellow, I agree. It is the same game as Red and Blue, working with their engine but with slight graphical updates and some minor additional content to make it more like the anime (like a Pikachu that follows you around and Jessie and James from Team Rocket), but otherwise it is the same as those two games.  I ask, however, do the GBA remakes (because remakes they are, there is no denying that) contain enough content to merit a separate article?  I think they are quite different from the originals, even if they have the same story and characters, but I cannot find a good enough reason to keep them.


 * I really was about to propose that we don't merge at all, because I would want Yellow to have its own article, but, as much as it pains me to admit, it is in the same vein as Red and Blue.SuperChencho 07:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * For Fire Red and Leaf Green, the "story" section is the largest part, but is totally redundant. If the article were to say more about the game being identifiable in its own right, then maybe it should be separate. The "new features", "music" and "media reception" can be easily merged to make a smooth article. So I would advocate a merge. Ashnard  Talk  Contribs  07:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * One concern, what do you plan on calling the article?&mdash;Pokemon Red, Blue, Yellow, Green and every other colour in the rainbow? Or maybe you could go with First Generation of Pokemon games? But then you'd have to make it consistent with the other games. Ashnard  Talk  Contribs  07:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I oppose merging FireRed and LeafGreen, they are different games from red/blue, from different generation. And they have different graphics and features. So I oppose that. TheBlazikenMaster 09:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It probably would be better to wait until all three articles are actually in a decent state before bothering to weigh them against each other. That way, you can really see how they could be pieced together and all that stuff. If Yellow can get a full on development section dealing with the anime focus, it can probably stand on its own. And I doubt there will ever be any clean way to merge FR and LG, though. TTN 12:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Metroid Zero Mission has an article, while the GBA Link to the Past does not. Final fantasy III DS has an article, while Final Fantasy IV GBA does not. What is the difference in these? Fire Red and Leaf Green is not a direct port, it is a full upgrade. While the story remains the same, it goes above and behond what Red and Blue had, with some subtle map differences, fixed the infamous glitches, and added the Sevii islands, which I believe Nintendo stated was the answer to our want for a Gold and Silver remake or something like that Balladofwindfishes 14:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Metroid: Zero Mission - A complete remake - new areas, new mechanics, new levels, new bosses, new plot lines, etc. And may I remind you that there IS an article for LttP GBA?
 * 2) Final Fantasy III - Remade from the ground up, many tweaks to the gameplay and plot, wi-fi support, etc. Also, FFIV GBA is mostly a minor upgrade. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I think merging the articles would be a good idea, though I don't know what we could call the new article that would result. The games do all have the same basic storyline, although Yellow in my opinion has enough to stand on its own. It has somewhat of a diffrent plotline, specific anime similarities, and started the move trends. Ageofe 18:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You would call the article the same, but you would have a subheader that says "Pokemon Yellow." If you add the remakes, the header would probably be "Remakes," although I am opposed to merging these (in case that was not clear enough).SuperChencho 20:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I still think the merging is unwarranted and goes against the precedents set by other remakes. The games are vastly different from Red and Blue. For the story, just redirect the story section to the R/B article. And I'm sorry, when I searched Lttp, it just came up with the SNES version, and had a small section on the remake, which I assumed was the full or it. Remeber, FR/LG added Icons to items, the ability to move items via PC, the sevii islands, brought back move tutors, vs seeking, introduced Deoxys, and gave a way to get Lugia/Ho-oh on an island and not random. Most of those additions are now staples in Pokemon The whole Sevii island part is a sub plot, and parts of the game have been reworked. Because other remakes that have similar amounts of change (Zero Mission) I believe it is only right FR/LG have an article. If the only warrant to merge is the story section, take that out, and add some other things about developement, new features. I believe the article for FR/LG can be bulked up. If there is no policy as to why they should be merged, they shouldnt be merged Balladofwindfishes 19:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This is getting arbitrary. How much change does a game have to have? Tetris DX redirects to Tetris, for instance. Super Mario Advance 4 redirects into Super Mario Bros. 3; the e-Reader thing was the only significant difference and could be recited in a couple of paragraphs (the lists of the cards werer removed). If Yellow gets merged into R/B, then Crystal goes into G/S, and Emerald goes into R/S. I can see a better argument for FR/LG, as it is just a remake, but I am putting my foot down for Yellow (for now). hbdragon88 01:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I dunno about Emerald, it had a lot of new content and features. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing about Crystal. It is different from G/S in that there is a female trainer to choose from, some additions to plot (such as Suicune playing a larger role], and the Battle Tower, but other than that it is the same game as G/S, so if you merge Yellow to R/B, you should merge Crystal to G/S.  Probably you should merge Emerald to Ruby and Sapphire as well, for the same reasons (the major changes in Emerald are story elements and the Battle Frontier, but that's it.) I did not want, however, to encompass those games into this discussion, but we might as well.


 * We now have the choice to merge all Pokemon remakes into the appropriate sections or not. I say we do, except FireRed and LeafGreen.  I agree in that the games underwent a major overhaul from the originals, much like Metroid I and Metroid Zero Missions.SuperChencho 05:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * How so? The addition of the Sevii Islands is arguably as notable as the Battle Tower in Crystal or the expansion of the Battle Frontier in Emerald.  Most areas are virtually unchanged from their R/B counterparts.  Yes, you have the hold items, natures, abilities, etc. but that is expected for a game released in the third generation. hbdragon88 06:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In reference to FR/LG, if we look past the other Pokemon articles, we have articles for other graphical remakes, with arguably the same amount of changes. I'm fine with merging Yellow with R/B (only added... nothing to the series), Crystal with G/S and Emerald with R/S (Possible exception since the Battle Frontier is such a huge leap from Ruby and Sapphire and the story was changed greatly to now reflect both Kyogre and Groudon) I agree with Yellow, I disagree with FR/LG. Balladofwindfishes 13:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay (trying to stick to this merger for now), lets be honest. If FireRed and LeafGreen were left in their own Main article from the main games, and all redundant story info was removed, what would be left? Granted, there was a completely different graphics engine, new gameplay features, ability to use new Pokemon, new locations, etc. How much encyclopedic material could actually be squeezed out of this without turning into a gamefaqs.com entry? Would this material ever get the article up to FA status? I did not propose a merger because I don't think the games deserve their own articles, nor do I argue that the games are not notable. I proposed it because I feel this is the best way to present the information. I think that it'd be really nice if this article that has Top importance in three WikiProjects be brought past B status, and I don't think that'll happen with the information scattered around Wikipedia. The best way to contrast differences between two versions of a game is within one article, not two (or three). ~ JohnnyMrNinja  18:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sidenote - I've just stumbled across a Pokemon merger here. Thought you might be interested. ~ JohnnyMrNinja  18:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I feel that before we move on, we need to make certain terminology clear. Take these as my reasons for keeping FR/GL:
 * Yellow, Crystal, and Emerald are considered as the third versions of their respective generations. They are not even remakes.  There is a Red version, Blue version, Green version, and Yellow versions.  They should be together.  There is a Gold version, Silver version, and a Crystal version.  They should be together.
 * According to the Wikipedia entry of Video Game Remakes, "In video games, an enhanced remake (also called updated classics) is an updated version of a game that was originally developed for a less advanced system...The basic features of an enhanced remake are graphical and audio enhancements (or "facelifts")." FR/GL definitely falls in this category.  Of course, that is not being contested right now.
 * Citing Super Mario Advance 4 and A Link to the Past as remakes is erroneous because they are not remakes, but ports. WP's article on Porting:  "Porting is also the term used when a computer game designed to run on one platform, be it a personal computer or a video game console, is converted to run on a different platform."  The above games, aside from extra options, hardly had any significant enhancement on graphics and sound, or "a facelift."  They are the same as their original counterparts in almost everything.
 * Historically, remakes have their own articles (remakes as defined above).
 * Does a repetitive storyline merit a merger? I think the best solution would be to reduce the size of the game plot section and add to the difference section.SuperChencho 01:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with point 4 from above. Precendent notes that enhanced remakes get an article. I believe this argument needs to be split into "Merging Yellow" and "Mergining FR/LG" becuase there is such a huge contrast between reasons, likewise I agree with Yellow, I do not with FR/LG Balladofwindfishes 20:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But is there a need for a separate article on the remakes? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Pokémon Yellow
I'm separating out the two mergers. Please read all of the above discussion before commenting here. ~ JohnnyMrNinja  06:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I really see no reason not to merge. If Red Blue and Green are here, so should be Yellow. Same gen, same graphics, new perspective, new notability, not much new encyclopedic material. ~ JohnnyMrNinja  06:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Merge away, my friend. ~ SuperChencho 07:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Merging is fine by me, have we thought about Emerald and Crystal yet? Balladofwindfishes 17:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Crystal is probably a more obvious merge target than Yellow, but Emerald should have its own discussion separate from these. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We should probably save all other merge discussions until this one has been completed... I'd hate to see people nix this one simply because they didn't want to merge Emerald. So is a Yellow merge all-go? ~ JohnnyMrNinja  15:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As one of the few editors who has been trying to clean up Yellow, I oppose the merge. Naming confusions aside, there is no serious plot duplication issues that can't be worked out; make the article smaller, sure, but that's never been an issue. Besides, as detailed in the article currently, it holds a spot in the Guiness Book of Records- something Red and Blue can't touch. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 00:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I forgot that Yellow set a record, a pretty major record. I still think it should be merged, but you do bring up a good point Balladofwindfishes 14:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, it is a very notable game, and there is no question of that. The question is how is this information best presented? How will readers that have never played the game learn the most about it, in a way that will be interesting. And why were people that excited about buying Yellow? Was it the cool box? Did they get a free pen or can of SPAM? Or was it the two games that all those people who bought Yellow already owned that made them want to buy another game? That's how addictive Red and Blue's gameplay was, that people would fork out for another game when they had already bought two of the same game. I know there were some significant plot differences with Yellow, but it's not like people were buying Tetris and Halo, they were buying Pokemon and Pokemon... and Pokemon. The code was so similar I used to switch SAVs on the emulator to "Catch 'em all". And by "I" I mean my cousin...'s friend. Of course, you lose Pikachu that way, but he got annoying anyway. ~ JohnnyMrNinja  08:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no evidence to suggest people bought Yellow just because it came after Red or Blue. Much more likely, based on their advertising that I remember watching on the WB, is that it featured Pikachu, the de facto symbol of the franchise. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 19:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen
I'm separating out the two mergers. Please read all of the above discussion before commenting here. ~ JohnnyMrNinja  06:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is a hamfisted quick-edit of what the article would look like without redundant material. Honestly, how far could it be expanded? I just don't see this as ever getting past B at a stretch. ~  JohnnyMrNinja  06:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that, if we removed the plot section, anybody who wants an overview of the plot would have to go to Red and Blue to find out. That seems rather unnecesary.  At least a paragraph should be in this article (I realize that most people already know what the plot is anyway, but if we did things under the assumption that everybody knows what things are, why bother with an encyclopedia to begin with).  If I am not mistaken, one of the reasons we merged the Pokemon articles is to appeal to the casual observer.  Is it a good idea to redirect him to another article just because we didn't want to repeat the plot in two articles?  I always imagine someone, a parent perhaps, who maybe goes to Wikipedia to look up just what the heck these Pokemon are anyways (and why wouldn't he?  Does not Wikipedia strive to be a reliable source of information?).  Maybe he wants some info on the popular Pokemon FireRed (or GreenLeaf), but he ends up at the Pokemon Red and Blue article, so he has to scroll down to the subheader.  Does he care about Red and Blue, or that the other two are remakes?  Not really.  He was looking for FireRed and/or GreenLeaf.  Maybe this scenario is a little far-fetched, but I hope it can be taken into consideration. ~ SuperChencho 07:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think FR/LG need their own article because they are completely seperate games from different generations of Pokemon on a different system with new graphics, a new area (which can be fully explained with the new story and in detail) the many other changes made, and some more notable things in the critism section. You can bulk up the crit section with quotes from reviews, and what people found fault with, and what they didn't. Also notable is that FRLG are GBA Player's Choice. Balladofwindfishes 18:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

FireRed and LeafGreen expand much greatly on the original and have more content that is divulged on it's own page. Do not merge them.--ChibiMrBubbles 21:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * FR/LG's additional gameplay features is pretty much just updating the game to the level of Emerald's mechanics, so the gameplay section could just be a paragraph or two, and a main template to the Pokémon gameplay mechanics article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

These games are different versions of the same game, so repetition of story and gameplay is unnecessary, just as there is no need for Hamlet (2000 film) to repeat the story of Hamlet. It is impossible to describe the original games without giving a mostly-accurate description of the newer games. Any story section on the new games should focus on differences. ~ JohnnyMrNinja  15:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Except that the storyline, as well as gameplay are different. While the storyline for the most part stays the same, it was edited in regards to the new islands, which you are forced to go IIRC before entering the 7th gym.

Magnemite is no longer just an Electric type in FR/LG, as opposed to the original one in R/B. They also added within the game berries which were not part of the original. The Elite Four does not stay true to the original if you're going to rebattle them. These changes, however minor you may call them, would not fit under one simple article.--ChibiMrBubbles 14:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The changes would weigh down the RB article too much. They just need a reqritten article. Balladofwindfishes 12:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, ChibiMrBubbles, I'm not quite sure if that's for or against the merge... But A) you seemed to fit a lot of the changes in one paragraph, B) at what point does it start being game guide material ("Magnemite is no longer just an Electric type in FR/LG"... And what impact did that actually have on the game, let alone the outside world?), but most of all C) how many "Special Edition, Director's cut, extended/unrated version"s of movies are there, and how many have their own article? Brazil (film) a High and B article, talks about it's very different releases right on the page. Added content, removed content, remastered (i.e. new graphics). Should every movie be best described by having a separate article for every DVD release, or is it better to talk about the versions on one page?. ~ JohnnyMrNinja  08:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the remakes are sufficiently different, especially for such a big selling franchise, that they can stand alone. It'd be more appropriate to trim down the duplicate sections.  But then again, things like gameplay and plot are pretty much the same for all Pokemon games, but just transcribed to another location. - hahnch e n 10:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * However, FireRed and GreenLeaf are not a 'director's cut' in the same sense as a movie. A director's cut of a movie is the same movie but with added scenes.  It is not a totally new movie with new effects and the like.  You cannot just call FR/GL a director's cut because it is not the original games with a few tweaks (in fact, I think that description fits Yellow a whole lot better than these two), but they were completely redone graphically, even if it is the same story.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperChencho (talk • contribs) 05:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. FireRed/LeafGreen are to the original Red/Blue in the same way as Tomb Raider: Anniversary is to the original Tomb Raider.  Same story, same setting, but the gameplay differs quite a bit.  --Stratadrake 21:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

FireRed and LeafGreen
Should it be noted that FR and LG are like the original Japanese R and G version? C. Pineda 07:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the previous discussions on a proposed merger. --Stratadrake 13:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Banned in Saudi Arabia?
I read that this game was banned either in Saudi or somewhere near it for "Zionism". It also said it on Cinematech. Anything to back it up? ja ja ja 19:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's an article on it here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1243307.stm

It claims it's being investigated but the article is very old so I'm unsure.71.72.82.183 (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

change NA release date.
According to the links to nintendo.com red and blue came out on 9/1/98 not 9/30/98 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.137.50 (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture
The Raichu -vs- Golbat image is from Pokemon Yellow, not Red. If it was from Red, the pokemon would both be shades of Red, not in color. Tyler Warren (talk/contribs) 05:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It uses Red's sprite. See Golbat's sprite hereBalladofwindfishes 00:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The pictures from Red/Blue can be played in color, except I don't know how. And I recognize the Golbat from Pokémon Blue. --Putrid76 22:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The images were taken playing on a Super Game Boy, which displays all Pokémon games, as well as many other GB titles, in color.216.229.65.134 (talk) 07:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Pokemon Blue Japan should be merged into this article
I came across it recently, and it doesn't differ in content much. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

it should'nt because it's own game either that or put the Pokemon Blue JP Page with the U.S versions like you did with green —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digiron (talk • contribs) 00:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed people will get the English and Japanese version mixed up as they were released at different times and they have some major differences. User:Agent008 —Preceding comment was added at 23:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Glitch City
I had the Glitch City page bookmarked. Now I've come back to find it redirected to the Pokemon Red and Blue page, which doesn't mention Glitch City at all.

Where has the Glitch City article gone? It was very interesting, and I say that as someone who doesn't play Pokemon.

Written by Jared. 220.235.32.109 (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Glitch city was information of limited interest, and was deleted because it did not belong on Wikipedia. The Glitch city article is gone and will not be coming back. It may have been interesting to some, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and cannot contain cruft like Glitch City. I'm sorry, I too enjoyed that article. If you would like to find more information on Glitch City, I am sure there are plenty of fansites that contain some. Artichoker (Discussion) 13:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

__________________________________

"Glitch city was information of limited interest, and was deleted because it did not belong on Wikipedia."

How is Glitch City of more limited interest than a million other articles in Wikipedia, like Musean hypernumbers or Abarema cochliocarpos? As an article it has far more general interest than either of those.

"The Glitch city article is gone and will not be coming back."

I'm quite aware it is gone. But why do you say it isn't coming back? I'd like to talk to the people in charge of that decision if you might direct me to them.

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and cannot contain cruft like Glitch City."

No, Wikipedia is not just some other encyclopedia. Wikipedia is the ultimate encylopedia based on input from whoever wants to contribute. If you prefer something dry, dull and academically rigid, why don't you go write for Nupedia instead.

"If you would like to find more information on Glitch City, I am sure there are plenty of fansites that contain some."

You obviously don't understand the value of Wikipedia. I'm not a Pokemon fan, so I'd never have stumbled over the fascinating Glitch City article outside of a fascinatingly broad encyclopedia like Wikipedia.

So I'd like to bring back the Glitch City article. Is it stored somewhere in an archive, and if so, how do I restore it?

220.235.57.202 (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Articles like Musean hypernumber are informative about that topic, where as Glitch city is simply some useless fancruft about a nonnotable glitch in a game.


 * I say it is not coming back because information like that is not needed on Wikipedia. The people in charge of that decision would be me, and any other member who edits this article (and other Pokémon articles) frequently.


 * I agree that Wikipedia is the ultimate encyclopedia, and it is based on the input of anyone who wants to contribute, but we still need to have rules about what goes into Wikipedia or else it just becomes a useless collection of indiscriminate information.


 * Glitch city is most likely stored in a archive on this page's history. However, any attempt to bring it back will most likely be revert. It was removed for being cruft the first time, so it will likely be removed again for the same reason. Artichoker (Discussion) 14:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________________ I respectfully disagree. You are not in charge of what is and isn't deleted. And the fact that you edit Pokemon articles doesn't make you the best judge of what is interesting about this article. I don't play pokemon at all, but as a programmer, game player and person with interest in philosophy and virtual reality, the idea of bugs creating maps in games that shouldn't be there is quite fascinating.
 * "The people in charge of that decision would be me."

"It was removed for being cruft the first time, so it will likely be removed again for the same reason."

You are incorrect about it being cruft. I arrived on the article while researching computer bugs, such as Therac-25. Glitch City, seen from a software security angle, and virtual reality angle, has far broader ramifications than, say, how to catch some standard pokemon monster or similar "fan" stuff.

In fact, I notice that Missingno has been removed too.

Actually, this is a kind of covert deletion. I checked on the deletion board, and you seem to be deleting articles by stealth, by merging them and then removing the content. That really doesn't strike me as within the spirit of Wikipedia. 220.235.60.139 (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, I would like to clear something up before going any further. I was NOT responsible for the deletion of Glitch City, Missingno, or any other article that has to do with Pokemon glitches. Proof. Those articles had already been deleted before I even joined the Pokémon WikiProject. I don't know why you are pointing an accusatory finger at me. I simply chose to post here to inform you of some of Wikipedia's policies, and automatically I get accused of something I didn't do. It is cruft, for it fails WP:Notability, and I know I am not in charge of what is and isn't deleted, but I am party of the community and I have a say in the matter, this is how Glitch city was deleted, there was consensus. Artichoker (Discussion) 17:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, you did give the impression that you were responsible or at least part of the group that deleted it, since you claimed to know the article was "cruft" and also said yourself and a few others were responsible for deciding what was and wasn't suitable, when you said "I say it is not coming back because information like that is not needed on Wikipedia. The people in charge of that decision would be me, and any other member who edits this article (and other Pokémon articles) frequently."
 * "Excuse me, I would like to clear something up before going any further. I was NOT responsible for the deletion of Glitch City, Missingno, or any other article that has to do with Pokemon glitches."

As it happens, I've checked with the deletion board. Nobody every officially deleted Glitch City, instead the page was redirected here where there is no mention at all of Glitch City. I'm just curious whether there was a section on Glitch City that inadvertantly got removed down the track from the redirect, or whether this was used as a kind of deletion. Perhaps you can help me in that regard, could you direct me to a previous revision of this page that did have a section on Glitch City?

If there is no such prior revision, then I think it would really be better not to redirect Glitch City to an article that doesn't mention it. Better to revive the original article rather than have this pseudo deletion. I don't mean to step on your toes, I just think Glitch City and Missingno are quite notable from a general POV about software, bugs and virtual reality. If you are a big fan of the game you might miss that.

Don't you agree that it's a bit silly to have Glitch City redirect to a page that doesn't mention Glitch City at all? 220.235.60.139 (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, first Glitch City was redirected to Notable glitches of the Pokémon video games, which was then deleted, then it was redirected to Pokémon Red and Blue, and the Glitches section of that article was later removed. The last revision of this article with a section on Glitch city can be found here although I would suggest you do not re-add it, for you can see it was tagged that it did not meet the notability guideline for fiction. I think it makes some sense to redirect Glitch city to this article, for Glitch city occurred in this game, and the article does mention glitches, although not glitch city specifically. Artichoker (Discussion) 17:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

____________


 * Thanks for the link to the page, Artichoker.


 * I'm afraid I disagree though. Having looked over it, I think that entire glitches section should be re-added.  The reason given for deletion, "notability guideline for fiction," doesn't apply, since the glitches are real, not fictional.


 * As an Pokemon outsider, these glitches are the only reasons I ended up reading about Pokemon in wikipedia in the first place. I don't think fans are well placed to judge this kind of thing.  I see from above that the section on Rom Hacks was removed too, but that's perfectly valid and interesting information about the Pokemon computer games.


 * So I would like to see the sections on glitches reinstated. It adds colour and factual detail to the article that carries interest to people beyond the Pokemon fans.

220.235.60.139 (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood WP:FICTION, the glitch was from a Pokémon game which was fictional, therefore the glitch is part of the fiction. Also, the glitches do not demonstrate real-world notability from reliable sources. Artichoker (Discussion) 18:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

_______________________________


 * "You misunderstood WP:FICTION, the glitch was from a Pokémon game which was fictional, therefore the glitch is part of the fiction."


 * No, the bugs are not works of fiction. That would only apply to the normal levels and monsters, not the bugs.


 * Plus, Notability only applies to entire articles. Even if you insist the glitches aren't notable, the page you linked to regarding notability reads


 * "Non-notable elements should preferably be concisely covered within articles on the main work or on notable elements."


 * Which is exactly what the section on glitches did.

220.235.60.139 (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC) _________________________________
 * Bugs are not fiction, but they would be part of the fictious article, and therefore would need to follow the guideline. And your quote means it should only be covered if it even warrants mention in the article in the first place. Artichoker (Discussion) 19:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

_____

"Bugs are not fiction, but they would be part of the fictious article, and therefore would need to follow the guideline."

What does "part of the fictious" article mean? I'm afraid you aren't making sense. Fact is, fiction is something deliberately created, and bugs aren't deliberately created.

"And your quote means it should only be covered if it even warrants mention in the article in the first place."

Hehe, no, actually it says the exact opposite of that. It says non-notable elements should be covered within the articles on the main work. Re-read it.

220.235.60.139 (talk) 01:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They are bugs from a fiction game, so they would still need to follow WP:FICTION. Also please read this. The glitches were non-notable and were removed because nobility could not be demonstrated on them (for instance, there were no sources.) Artichoker (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd added back Glitch City yesterday, but someone removed it so I've put it back again. And as far as notability goes, a quick google shows that Glitch City is a very widely noted phenomenon.

Artichoker, I'm afraid you don't seem to be following guidelines, possibly because you don't understand them. MKULTRA333 (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am talking about actual, verifiable sources, not how many google hits something has. Also, accusing me of not follow guidelines and that I don't understand them seems a little silly, considering you have made a total of 1 edit. Please be more respectful.


 * Also, please do not continue to add back the Glitch city content, it was deleted for a reason. Artichoker (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

___________________________

The pokemon bugs need to be mentioned for both NPOV and the fact that they are a notable part of the console phenomenon. I am restoring the Glitch City article as an interim solution. Please stop redirecting it to a page that doesn't mention Glitch City at all. Please do not refer to my constructive contributions as vandalism on the history page.

Best Regards, MKULTRA333 MKULTRA333 (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This has absolutely nothing to do with NPOV, it has everything to do with notability and they just aren't, unless you can find some verifiable sources. You are not allowed to restore the glitch city article without consensus. I will revert and warn you if you do. And your edits are vandalism. Now stop this foolishness. Artichoker (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

_______________________________

I see there is little point including any discussion on the Glitch City page itself, since you continually give it the false redirect to here. For the record, here is what was said.

Artichoker, please stop the covert deletion of this article by redirecting it to another article that doesn't mention Glitch City at all. MKULTRA333 (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Let us reach a consensus about this before you go blatantly adding back crufty content. Artichoker (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have tried discussing this with you, Artichoker, on the Pokemon Red and Blue page. But you simply ignore everything and revert to cries of "cruft". Glitch city and other such bugs are at least notable enough to warrant the old section on Pokemon glitches, at the very least to maintain NPOV. Until then I'll be keeping the old Glitch City article from pointing into oblivion, since you redirect it to a place that doesn't mention Glitch City at all. MKULTRA333 (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean by "ignore everything" for I have read all of your responses and responded to them with my best ability. However your behavior has been inexcusable, and if you continue to add the content back, you will be blocked from editing. Glitch City is not notable, where are the verifiable sources?? And no, you must not understand WP:NPOV, please read it thoroughly. Artichoker (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

______________________________________________________

Please stop the threats and accusations of vandalism.

MKULTRA333 (talk) 01:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You can discuss it with me here, but do not go changing it in the mean time. I have notified an administrator for a third opinion when he gets back on. You are performing vandalism so I will accuse you of it if you continue. I have warned you on your talk page four times, and the next time I am reporting you.


 * Try to find some verifiable sources for glitch city before you go about vandalizing. Artichoker (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, vandalism is coverting deleting a page by redirecting to a place that doesn't mention it. I certainly don't mind getting administrators involved.  In the mean time, we should leave the Glitch City article available... better safe than sorry, don't you think?

MKULTRA333 (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No this was already discussed by many editors, and they decided to make Glitch City a redirect. Also, Wikipedia does not work that way; while discussing something, we leave it in its original form (i.e. as the redirect.) And you have been reported. Artichoker (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Please direct me to the page where you have reported me, so that I might point out the true facts of the matter. MKULTRA333 (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Restored

 * On my quick review it looks like you are both guilty of breaking the 3 revert rule. My suggestion is to restore Glitch City and take it to WP:AFD to get community consensus  for deletion and redirect. If you have questions leave a note on my talk page. Jeepday (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There are different types of vandalism. You have been reported to administrators for violating the 3 reverts rule (Artichoker was correcting, so he is not under the scope of such rule) and for editing even after being final warned. All this actions are not intended to prevent you from editing. They are intended to make you stop your disruptive edits, to discuss it in the talk page, and to make you understand that you need reliable sources to make the edits you were trying to push. And no, we shouldn't leave the article, as it violates at least two of the main Wikipedia policies (no original research and verifiability) by not having reliable sources. Thank you and I hope you understand. --Legion fi (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I didn't saw Jeepday's comment before posting. I still think Artichoker is not to be held responsible. But try what the admin says.--Legion fi (talk) 02:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if I broke the WP:3RR, I thought this was obvious vandalism, which would not be counted towards the three reverts. Artichoker (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you all beleive you are doing the right thing. I have restored the article.  Artichoker, if you don't know how to do an an AfD let me know I can help you with it, it that is what you want to do. Jeepday (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see my diff. Artichoker (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It only takes one person to contest a deletion, if you think it should be deleted then take it to WP:AFD. Jeepday (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have nominated Glitch City for deletion. The entry can be found here. Artichoker (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you all, I will be waiting to see what the community decides about the article. You did well in that you asked for intervention when things got hot, then you followed the policy and let community solve your problem.  Good editing to you all :) Jeepday (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you not going to participate in the AfD? You are completely neutral about the subject? And thank you too for sorting this out. Artichoker (talk) 03:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your welcome - I am neutral, both sides have good arguments. I could not even guess how it will turn out, could go either way.  Jeepday (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Artichoker, what do you mean by 'sources'? There is proof of the bugs' existence, if that's what you mean. I enjoyed reading the Missingno and glitch city articles as well. I think if they aren't going to be mentioned, then they shouldn't be redirected to this page. Amamamp (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What do I mean by sources? Please read this page WP:V. Artichokertalk 19:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Would a video count as a reliable source? Amamamp (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Most likely not, especially if it is from YouTube. Artichokertalk 01:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it would..... if it was from some one here:

http://forums.glitchcity.info/index.php As...... they are very respectable glitch research forum. Anyway, as the glitch city article was deleted(and not merged), I made it a redirect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fivexthethird (talk • contribs) 18:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That is simply an internet forum that anyone can post on, and therefore cannot be a reliable source. Artichokertalk 18:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * http://glitchcity.info then? And no, it's not a pokemon fansite, it's a pokemon glitch site, going(sorta) universal.(Man I didn't think this argument would contenu after the AfD was decided)(Also, this talk page has alot of mispelled words.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fivexthethird (talk • contribs) 19:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A fan site is "a website created and maintained by a fan(s) or devotee(s) interested in a celebrity, thing, or a particular cultural phenomenon." I, a fan (or devotee) of the subject of Pokémon glitches, own the site, and is is maintained by fans of Pokémon, therefore it is a fan site. I realize that I'm calling myself unreliable, but I can certainly understand why WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS exist to limit information to that which can be sourced to known experts (as opposed to fans who write pseudonymously or anonymously and can't assert their reliability)


 * The information on that site, for example, can be attributed to a group of pseudonymous writers led by someone calling himself Abwayax. Who is Abwayax? How do we know he's reliable? How do we know he's not making stuff up? Know that casual readers of Wikipedia articles (who aren't always die-hard fans of the subject of said articles) aren't always willing (or able) to follow directions outlined on a fan site to "prove" that the site is telling the truth. You said here that User:Artichoker "might not even play Pokémon". Although this is probably not the case (he is an active participant of WikiProject Pokémon, which implies some familiarity with the franchise), his comments would be just as valid if he didn't. We participate in discussions on Wikipedia as Wikipedians, not Pokémon fans, and Pokémon articles are written for the general public, not solely for Pokémon fans. A mention of the Glitch City phenomenon is appropriate for the article, and I've seen at least one source that isn't a fansite or YouTube video, but the OR belongs on the various fan sites, which are aimed generally at Pokémon fans.  Abwayax  (c :: t) 19:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well said, Abwayax. I checked the link to the forums you provided on the AfDs for Kanto, Johto, and Hoenn, and I noticed you were an administrator on the site. And as for Fivexthethird's comment that I "might not even play Pokemon"; this is in fact, false. I have played through all four generations of the games (i.e. Yellow, Silver, Ruby, Leaf Green, and Diamond.)


 * Anyways, a mention of Glitch City in this article may be appropriate if it can be sourced (i.e. by the link you provided), however, it should probably be kept around a sentence or two, probably looking something like this:

Pokémon Red and Blue contained a number of glitches and bugs, such as Glitch City, .


 * Artichokertalk 19:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * For now, let's put the original glitch section back and then work on that. I think there are good reasons to have a glitch section.  Within the topic of Pokemon Red and Blue, glitches figure much larger than they do in other Pokemon games, from what I've read.  It's a noteworthy aspect of the red/blue systems.  If you mention a glitch or bug, it makes sense to briefly mention under what cirumstances it arises, what happens, and why a person would or wouldn't want to avoid this.  Pokemon glitches are interesting for that fact that many players deliberately activate them both to cheat and as a sort of unoffical extension to the game itself:  More monsters to catch (Missingno) and new areas to explore (Glitch City).  That's quite unusual.


 * Also, a section on glitches means other wikipedia articles can link to it, such as articles on game glitches and computer bugs. It was links to bugs that got me here in the first place.


 * I won't make any changes for now, I'll try and get some concensus. But I suggest a Glitches subsection roughly like the old one, with a line or two extra for Missingno and Glitch City.  MKULTRA333 (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ideally if we had a glitch section for this article it should really just mention some of the more notable glitches, and give a short description about it. I do not believe we need to say how it arises or how to perform it, as that would be game guide material. If we were to add the section back, it probably should not be in list form, but rather a small paragraph, something like the example sentence I provided above, maybe with a few more details. Thank you, Artichokertalk 14:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah ok, a few sentances on each. It might need to be expanded a little beyond that to explain the fact that these bugs are exploited, or deliberately activated, by players.  Otherwise the point get's kind of lost.  The paragraph needn't be so threadbare that it isn't interesting, since these bugs and the way players use them are quite interesting.MKULTRA333 (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The glitch section should really only be one paragraph in total, listing some of the more famous glitches (i.e. Glitch City, Missingno.) I think that's all that's really needed, and yeah, it will say that the glitches are exploited. Thank you, Artichokertalk 18:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That'd be good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fivexthethird (talk • contribs) 21:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've added a small Glitches section, just to get things underway since I've been busy and it's been weeks since they decided a Glitches section was appropriate. I'm not married to it or anything, just wanted to get something on the table since otherwise we'll never get anywhere. I've included it as a section because I intend to link it to other appropriate wikipedia articles, such as computer bugs, glitches, etc.

Its a pretty stripped down section, if anything it should be expanded a little (check out how long the section on bugs in Pacman is, and no one ever even sees them!) If people want to do any fixes, be my guest, just please don't gut it down to irrelevance or make cross-referencing it to other wiki bug related articles difficult.MKULTRA333 (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, looks pretty good. I trimmed and fixed it up a little bit. I think its fit for the article now. Artichoker[talk] 14:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)