Talk:Pokémon Sage

This line is entirely wrong: "It features a conflict between two villainous teams based on real-life inhabitants of these areas throughout history, such as the Aztec Empire and the Spanish conquistadors." There is no truth to it whatsoever. There is one villainous team not based on either of those sources. This line is wrong in a different way: "The development team has sought out help from outside sources, allowing submissions for concept art and in-game sprites." There is no cohesive development team and the game is made by a participant community of anonymous posters like most things on 4chan. However it's also wrong in a second way, in that within that paradigm, the group actually does not welcome contributions from outsiders - if someone isn't able to fit in, their contributions are scorned. Finally, it's wrong in a wikipedia-specific way: The cited source does not actually make this assertion.--Cruxador (talk) 07:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Lungsirwin (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Almost none of the information in this article, that probably shouldn't exist anyway, is correct at all. This a stain on wikipedia.
 * Well, feel free to dig up some reliable sources - like those found at WP:VG/S - and improve it. Sergecross73   msg me  20:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If there aren't adequate sources available, that doesn't mean you should tell someone else to find them, it means that this isn't noteworthy and doesn't belong on wikipedia.--Cruxador (talk) 07:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But there are adequate sources. Already in the article. I'm saying find more sources if they want to add or revise content. Sergecross73   msg me  11:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources are inadequate, here's the correct information on an official, locked post on the official Sage forum: http://z13.invisionfree[DOT]com/Pokemon_Gen_VP/index.php?showtopic=159&st=0&#entry22133575 I hope you fix this trainwreck of an article as fast as you willingly made it as nonsensical as possible when you kept "correcting" it. Gallardomartinez (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Just Completely Wrong

 * "Pokémon Sage is an upcoming role-playing video game developed by members of the 4chan board /vp/."

Not developed on the 4chan board /vp/ anymore.
 * "Like many official regions in the Pokémon series, Urobos is based on a real-life region: Central and South America."

The geographical basis for Urobos is unlike all official regions in the Pokemon Series, disregarding any actual real world area for its geography and simply taking a massive continent and a half to inspire themes. Not a 1-1 transport of Kanto region, Kansai, Tokai, Kyushu, Hokkaido, New York City and Northern France.
 * "It features a conflict between two villainous teams based on real-life inhabitants of these areas throughout history, such as the Aztec Empire and the Spanish conquistadors."

Nope. Just completely made up. That is and never was the case. As far as has ever been true there is only one villainous team and this supposed conflict is not the case.
 * "Despite the general warmth of these areas, the town the player starts in is covered in snow."

Alpine villages deep within mountains above the frost line aren't generally warm. And much more of the region than the town the player starts in is covered in snow.
 * "The game's development began in 2011,"

Nope. October 2012. At least one of the sources reports this correctly.
 * "when a group of Pokémon fans from /vp/, a board on the website 4chan dedicated to Pokémon discussion"

Nothing to say that they were Pokemon fans, in fact the people who contributed to the project not being fans of Pokemon was a common trope. 4chan is an imageboard website, discussion is not the sole focus of any of its boards, including /vp/.
 * "decided to collaborate on a fangame."

They decided organically to make fan made Pokemon and the concept of making an entire game evolved out of it later.
 * "The development team has sought out help from outside sources,"

There is no development team per se, and people associated it have not sought out help from other sources. In fact seeking outside help was always a toxic thing to suggest, as it was made by /vp/.
 * "allowing submissions for concept art and in-game sprites."

As a complete game the suggestion only concept art and sprites are being "allowed for submission" is just completely misleading, bordering false.
 * " The working title was CAPX,"

The working title was not CAPX. CAPX is an abbreviation of some of the earlier thread titles, "Create a Pokedex X". If anything was a working title (nothing was), it would be /vpmagg/. This means "/vp/ makes a game general" and was the title of the threads on 4chan where it was developed. Regardless, the working title of a project is hardly relevant, and a detail not often reported on.
 * "The game's development has been lengthy and marked by internal disagreements; by June 2014, even the villainous team had not yet been chosen from a list of candidates."

The creation of an entirely new video game usually takes a year or more for large publishing companies and their dedicated professional development studios. The characterization that this game is taking an abnormal amount of time is a projection of expectation that has no bearing on the topic at hand, more so on the individual who wrote this sentence. Furthermore, saying that the villainous team had not yet been chosen implies that it was a direct area of focus for a prolonged period of time, without success. And this is not the case. Neither is the fact that at any point the villainous team was being chosen from a list of candidates.
 * "it lasts for around two hours of gameplay and includes three towns and two caves, with a limited Pokédex of ten Pokémon."

The amount of gameplay a videogame provides is restricted by the investment a player desires to put into it, not necessarily anything coming from the game itself. As it stands, 2 hours is a very rough estimate and may be being presented as overly true here. Furthermore, the pokedex has 32 pokemon in it in the demo, as one of this article's sources display.

This article is plagued with awful sources that are on the most part doing no original research of their own, taking content from other previous articles written poorly on this subject. And in the few instances where the articles are correct the page's authors ignore it and make something wrong up. It seems as though this is a fact that has been evident to all parties that have been associated with this article, judging by past talk page discussions and the series of edits and counter-edits found here. I would question the motivations of the users Tezero and Sergecross73 who knowingly (this is an assumption, as it would be surprising to me personally if they were not aware of what they were doing) made the effort to make an article of questionable notability (Tezero's user page itself stating he takes purpose in making pages of notability among the very lowest end used on Wikipedia) with questionable sources then defended it against continued assaults on the credibility of it, instead of fixing it themselves when it became evident there was an issue, if it wasn't already.
 * Not sure why/what exactly your doubts about my motivations would be. I have no relation, interest, or feelings one way or another towards Pokemon, 4chan, or anything else this article relates to. Nor have I written a word of the article. I merely intervened after arguing ensued at the video game hub at Wikipedia. My stance is merely to follow the rules - largely WP:V - and write articles according to reliable sources. Nothing more, nothing less. Please assume good faith. Thanks. Sergecross73   msg me  17:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I created the page because it looked like an interesting game; I initially knew nothing about it but from the articles. Perhaps the world would have kept on turning if I had not, but since it's demonstrated notability, it can't be deleted now, and more people will be able to find it and enjoy it. And yes, the pages I create do tend to be on the very low end of the notability scale, but that's probably true for everyone nowadays because if something's highly notable, it probably already has an article. Regarding the provenance of incorrect information, that's unfortunate, but there's nothing we can do about it unless sources with the correct information are found. Tezero (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * They do exist. In fact, the article would be much more accurate if you didn't make personal judgement as to what information to present (against wikipedia guidelines) when contradictions occurred and made further addition through your own authorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piingonly (talk • contribs) 03:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Tezero did nothing wrong policy-wise in writing the article, and if he misinterpreted what the sources say, I imagine it was by accident. So, instead of attempting to bluff your way through all these accusations of breaking policy, your time would better be spent providing sources that support your change, because that's what we write Wikipedia according to. See WP:RS for what Wikipedia considers a reliable source, and see WP:VG/S for commonly used or avoided websites. Thanks. Sergecross73   msg me  11:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would argue Tezero did break policy, or at least guidelines, while writing the page. However, at this point that's neither here nor there. Furthermore, reading all relevant pages of policies and guidelines as well as all past discussions of this topic on and off Wikipedia, I cannot see how the indefinite locking of all edits at your discretion was or still is the right course of action. I fail to see how an unpleasant conversation on a talk page and 2 editors making a few edits you find unseemly constitutes vandalism that must be protected from now until the end of time. At no point has it been apparent to me that the quality of the article or the enforcement of Wikipedia policies has been under prolonged threat which would justify it. I already requested you to unlock the page in accordance with the instructions regarding this. I think it is already clear there are a variety of issues with the page that you're already aware of, and that even a cursory interest in the topic could show that there are a variety of ways that the article can be improved upon. Sources exist including primary archived 4chan threads, to secondary source articles from a variety of new places resulting from recent publicity. Unless you still believe that the article is still under a substantial threat of vandalism I frankly don't see the purpose of anything you or I say here. The onus is on you to decide whether or not the page should remain locked, and that's all I sought to rectify (well that and the awful article). You've said yourself that you have no interest in writing the page, stop disallowing others from doing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piingonly (talk • contribs) 05:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The page was semi-protected because there were multiple, policy-breaking edits within a short period of time, including removing sourced info, a non-policy based deletion proposal, followed by a second proposed deletion, which was again, not in accordance to policy both in concept (there are 4-5 sources present) or procedure (per WP:PROD, articles may only be proposed for deletion once, and once contested, cannot be proposed again.) Normally, yes, I would unprotect a page by now, but virtually every suggestion on this talk page since protection has been in complete disregard for policy, which makes me feel the protection is still warranted. You can keep trying to formulate these weird theories and accusations all you want, but my very simple explanation above is all there is to it. As I said before, your energy would be better spent looking for new sources. (Or asking the old sources to correct their supposedly false material, I assume you have the authority to do that, as your combination of passion for the subject without any real knowledge of Wikipedia policy makes me think you probably have ties to the project.) Sergecross73   msg me  12:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As I've said again and again, the sources exist and I have them at hand. Other than an assumption of bad faith toward yourself and Tezero (something that is not necessarily against wikipedia policy, made ignorantly or significant enough to warrant your complete disregard for the issue or an attempt at a normal discourse), I have not proven myself to be ignorant of any Wikipedia policy. I've not propagated any odd theories. I've not shown intention to deface or vandalize this or any article. I've not demonstrated any behaviour that would imply I do not intend to follow Wikipedia policy. What I have done is demonstrated that nobody that wants to deal with this issue wants to deal with, or deal through you (including myself). I have observed that your behaviour warrants it to any rationally thinking individual. Honestly, if you can't get your head into a place of thought and your actions out of a place of distrust then nothing can or ever will happen here. You're a barrier to the principles and objectives of Wikipedia, but that seems to be a common criticism of your handling of this case. Unlock the page. You know why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piingonly (talk • contribs) 18:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've asked several times now for you to present these sources, and I haven't seen you do this yet. I've seen you vaguely allude to policy, but never cite it in any of your arguments, or even say anything that would especially show that you're knowledgeable about it. All I've seen is you carrying on about how you're going to "right great wrongs" around here. Some proof would go a long ways. Please provide some sources, and the respective changes that they would be used to make. Sergecross73   msg me  19:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like you didn't bother to read the link I posted on January, so I guess I have to repost it; "The sources are inadequate, here's the correct information on an official, locked post on the official Sage forum: http://z13.invisionfree[DOT]com/Pokemon_Gen_VP/index.php?showtopic=159&st=0&#entry22133575 I hope you fix this trainwreck of an article as fast as you willingly made it as nonsensical as possible when you kept "correcting" it."Gallardomartinez (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm a new user and needing help.
Wikipedia don't like new users like me to replace huge texts. So can anyone help me to replace the text below for me ok?

Under section "setting and plot"

Where the line says:

Change to:

Under section "Development"

Where the line says this:

Replace with this:

Yuliang99 (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)