Wikipedia:Featured article review/MissingNo./archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC).

MissingNo.

 * Notified: Kung Fu Man, WikiProject Video Games, WikiProject Pokémon

I am nominating this featured article for review because the information that was contained on this page when it was submitted for featured article status was not substantially correct and was in part based on information that did not appear in cited sources, and attempts to improve it since in a way that adds content (as opposed to simply removing incorrect content) have failed due to a lack of reliable sources that could be used to correct it and a lack of any indication that new ones will appear in the future. That is, it is not comprehensive and cannot be. Blah2 (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Reading the talk page for MissingNo. this seems like content dispute issue, which has not been through standard dispute resolution channels; FAR should not be used for DR. --M asem (t) 20:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm misreading what means, I interpret it as they are saying the article cannot be made comprehensive due to a lack of reliable sources. So that would be a good reason for FAR. -- Laser brain   (talk)  20:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Between this and the talk page, the issue appears to be that there's "facts" about MissingNo that "gamers" know about, but not at all documented in any type of RS. We can't add information that's not from RS, even if its presumed its correct information. So thus the question is if the article remains comprehensive without these, and I'm not seeing major gaps for what I'd expect of a character article to contain, even for a character as unusual as this. --M asem (t) 20:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's exactly it: common 'gamer knowledge' is that the entries that spawn MissingNo. were taken up by actual Pokemon in the beta version of the game, but the sources that are often cited for that information are wikis like Bulbapedia or require WP:OR. The Yellow 'version' of this glitch is also at times brought up by other editors, but outside of the name and role as an error handler if the game tries to spawn a pokemon that isn't there requires a completely different method with completely different results and isn't covered in notable sources, making it fall somewhat outside of the scope of this article. Am I about right Blah2?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think part of it is more that the article used to go into more detail when it became featured, but I later discovered that wasn't actually in the sources that were supposed to contain it, and I am assuming the existence of that detail contributed to the article receiving featured status. Personally I don't believe that there is even original research to back up the idea that we can know what was in the MissingNo. slots and I am not concerned with that at all. Blah2 (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * But it actually hasn't shrunk in size Blah. Additional sources can be added to give more bulk (it went to FA almost ten years ago, and sources like the below mentioned Ars Technica article exist), but I'm not quite seeing why you seem to have a bias against it being FA on the current grounds.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * If this article is moved out of FA, then it can become a GAN. Still, article talk page says: "The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: The Mythos and Meaning Behind Pokemon's Most Famous Glitch"  A ya S yameimaru   文々. 新聞  23:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC) (modified 23:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC))

Be aware, I may claim participation credits towards the Wikicup. Or maybe not? Who knows.
 * Keep from Lee Vilenski

There's a few things here. I'd say there is a lack of inline citations in some key areas, there is a real lack of the lede on this item.


 * Specific issues
 * Citation 18 - "[PRE REVIEW]: Missingno: a missing data visualization suite". Journal of Open Source Software. January 26, 2018. Retrieved September 8, 2019. Though I don't see a citation necessary as the name was derived from a pokemon glitch" - was this a joke by someone? Is this item even something that we should be citing?
 * Quite a few of the refs use "staff" as an author - should we be using this in place of no known author?

Additional comments to come. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * See the FAR instructions; pages are not segmented, and Keep/Delist are not declared in the FAR phase. Perhaps you meant to suggest this FAR should be closed without a FARC. (And without a subhead).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

- conflict with Masem - I hadn't read the talk page for this one. I'd suggest there is at least some benefits to looking at specific issues (content dispute notwithstanding) on an FAR. However, quite happy to have this close if it's a consensus. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed Citation 18 and that whole line, looks like it got snuck in between edits and really has no relevance to anything. As for the others it was my understanding during the FAN that Staff was acceptable if the source website/publication was considered reliable but no writer was directly attributed to the article? As for the lead length I remember that was a point of recurring discussion during the FAN where just exactly what to include given the size of the article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Realistically, if we don't have an author, we should leave it blank. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's been my understanding through several FAC's that leaving it blank entirely is frowned upon, and in the cases of some templates will cause it to show an error instead.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "Encountering MissingNo. causes graphical errors and increases the sixth item in the player's item menu by 128" could we expand this? Something about "MissingNo. causes graphical and gameplay changes. When encountering MissingNo. in Red and Blue, graphical anomalies occur as well as an increase in the sixth item in the player's item menu by 128." Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 20:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Attempted to work some of that in, and expand some of the sentences out with information added through the years.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Any reasons for the citations in the lede? Surely we can put this information in the prose. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Done.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Outside of the lede, the actual games this appears in isn't mention at all! Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It was at one point, I think with subequent edits over the years it got accidentally removed when people kept trying to cite wikis as evidence of its presence in Pokemon Yellow, even though that glitch is related only by name and is non-notable in terms of sources.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * A little surprised there is no info on other glitches in the series, or even other glitched Pokémon etc., etc. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 20:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Because they don't fall into the scope of the article, and don't have a lot of notability in outside sources or even the same cultural examination/impact. It would be like an article on the Minus World talking about screenwarp glitches for Super Mario Bros.: they're related to one another, but one has cultural impact over the other.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the above fixes/comments are enough for me to support remaining at FA. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Could someone who knows what this is saying please disentangle it?

Latter= gameplay changes? Former = graphical anomalies? Even if the sentences are re-cast, I have no idea what the lead is saying, and the lead should be digestible to non-gamers. The promoted version was only slightly better. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, better, now what is a "sixth item"? It is mention in the lead but never defined.
 * Is this still true? (It needs an "as of" date.) "Despite Nintendo's statements on the glitch, it has not been removed from re-releases of the games, such as on their virtual console service.[6]"
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk)  03:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Attempted to address the issues mentioned, bear with me I'm dealing with a bit of a flu right now so not 100%.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Take your time, get better, there is no rush at FAR. I still need to understand in the lead what the glitch is— what a sixth item is, what it means for it to be increased.  The only part I get is 128 is a power of 2, so a likely programming error, but is that explained?  Maybe  can lend some clarity here.  That there is some very unusual, uncorrected glitch in this game is all I am getting as a non-gamer. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  12:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I see is back in the saddle.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

could others please evaluate the progress here? I still don't know what it means for an item value to increase, but I guess that's a non-gamer speaking. Can this be closed without FARC? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm just not sure how to word that effect any more directly: the quantity of the item in the sixth slot of their inventory is increased by 128.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am hoping someone else can make that understandable to non-gamers and we can close this FAR without a FARC. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe say that the item slots are like storage? GamerPro64  02:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the intrusion, but if there is confusion on the "item slot" phrasing, then maybe a link to Inventory (videogames) may be helpful to clear it up at least a little? Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That does help but we should be better than a link, and explain that to dummies like me, and also explain what it means for an item value to increase by 128. How does the "value" work in the playing of the game? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Worked that in (didn't even know we had that article) and value is now quantity. How's that?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Does that mean that whatever is the sixth item in their inventory, after the glitch, they have at least 129 of the same item ? That is, they get more good stuff to play with? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, exactly.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, now that's explained, and fixed, I think we can Close without FARC. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you concur? Any further issues? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * They haven't posted in over a month. Not sure if they will reply in a timely manner. GamerPro64  05:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.