| Revision as of 21:13, 27 June 2014 editRyulong (talk | contribs)218,132 edits →Hoenn Confirmed← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:23, 27 June 2014 edit undoArtichoker (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers11,994 edits →Hoenn Confirmed: replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
| Okay, what is the real objection to mentioning that "Hoenn Confirmed" was an Internet meme? It's covered in the source and relates to long-time speculation about the game. ] ain't gonna cut it. ] (]) 19:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | Okay, what is the real objection to mentioning that "Hoenn Confirmed" was an Internet meme? It's covered in the source and relates to long-time speculation about the game. ] ain't gonna cut it. ] (]) 19:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :I never accused you of violating 3RR. I just said you were edit warring. There is a difference. The meme isn't notable. End of story.—] (]) 21:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | :I never accused you of violating 3RR. I just said you were edit warring. There is a difference. The meme isn't notable. End of story.—] (]) 21:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::I'm having a hard time understanding why you are removing relevant, sourced material that covers commentary on this media. Just because you state it isn't notable, "end of story", doesn't mean it's the end of the story when there has not been adequate discussion before its removal. The status quo was having the information. Since both Tezero and I are disputing its removal it should stay until we can reach a consensus. So I'll start with this: why do you think it isn't notable? ''']'''<sup>]''']</sup> 23:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:23, 27 June 2014
 | Pokémon Start‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Merging
Not planning to merge this page anywhere; don't worry. I'm just mentioning that I too created a version of this page (titled "Pokémon OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire") before I knew about this one, and I merged that version into this page. I don't think I screwed anything up, but you might want to check the histories to see if anything got lost. Tezero (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Your version was not really any better, though. If anything, it's all full of unsourced speculation that these are actually to be full remakes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Not really. It might be a misinterpretation by the source, but it's not unsourced. Tezero (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- This is true. ALso, your gameplay section is really poor and shouldn't be on the page if it's just that one quoted statement.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Fair. I guess the main thing I added was the context about speculation, about which I'll look up more now. Tezero (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- This is true. ALso, your gameplay section is really poor and shouldn't be on the page if it's just that one quoted statement.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Not really. It might be a misinterpretation by the source, but it's not unsourced. Tezero (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Remakes
I would argue that referring to the games as "enhanced remakes" is currently original research. While logic would dictate that they are, the trailer and press release from Nintendo refer to them as "a new adventure in a new world," and releasing a sequel to a previous game has happened before. The fact that Ruby and Sapphire are already compatible with the current games suggests this may not be a straight remake of those games. I would suggest not using any terms like remake or sequel until more information is known. ShadowUltra (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Neutral on this count, but I'm removing a couple categories that are little but speculation. Tezero (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sure we can find a reliable source to call it a remake. There are also some scans out there right now if anyone can translate them. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- There are several sources calling them remakes, but they're all citing the Nintendo press release, which does not call them such. Perhaps the article should say "Media sources have described them as enhanced remakes of Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire," which would be more accurate. Also, the scans are fake. ShadowUltra (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've modified the article to say that they are "highly speculated" to be remakes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- The Nintendo press release does indeed explicitly call them a return to Hoenn, not a X and Y 2. I added it back in, but feel free to revert. KonveyorBelt 03:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've modified the article to say that they are "highly speculated" to be remakes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- There are several sources calling them remakes, but they're all citing the Nintendo press release, which does not call them such. Perhaps the article should say "Media sources have described them as enhanced remakes of Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire," which would be more accurate. Also, the scans are fake. ShadowUltra (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sure we can find a reliable source to call it a remake. There are also some scans out there right now if anyone can translate them. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
"CoroCoro leaks"
Misplaced Pages cannot post anything from what the fandom calls "CoroCoro leaks" because as "leaks" they are not considered reliable, even if other "reliable sources" post information acquired from the leaks. We should wait for the CoroCoro issue to be made available to the general public in Japan, which for the July 2014 issue where all the Mega Sceptile and Primordial Groudon stuff comes from is June 13. CoroCoro releases new issues the 15th of every month (unless that falls on a weekend as this month).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Ryulong, can you please post a link to Misplaced Pages policy that backs up your stance? WP:V seems to contradict what you are saying. Artichoker 20:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- WP:V covers this exactly. No one can independently verify this content as it has not been (officially) published yet. Just because you have a random GameSpot columnist reporting on stuff posted on Serebii and /vp/ does not mean that Misplaced Pages can use that information. Not to mention the content could possibly be fake, and the official release date of the issue will provide more accurate information.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm still not quite following you. Where in WP:V does it say this exactly? As per policy in WP:V, here we have a reliable source providing third-party coverage. This information is therefore verifiable and can be added to the article. Unless you have some part of policy to quote that I've missed, WP:V does not appear to corroborate any of your statements. You have that opinion, but it does not appear to be grounded in policy. Artichoker 23:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- You're right. It's not grounded in policy. However, I am completely within my right to contest the content that was added to the article based on the knowledge I have that the information should not be available. Leaks are not reliable sources for information in any context. That should just be common sense. Yes, this information is probably going to be proven to be true when the issue is released and people can see more than smartphone photos like this one. However that cannot be said for what's out there now. These "leaks" should not be used in any form until the actual issue of the magazine is released. I've been through this before when Keldeo, Meloetta, and Genesect were unreleased in any form but people knew they existed because someone went through the game data to find them. That wasn't a reliable source that could verify the content and neither are these crappy photos.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Well, what we have here is a reliable source that is providing verifiable information. You have an opinion otherwise, which I respect; but since you admit that you have no actual policy argument, I am going to go ahead and restore the content per WP:V. You are obviously entitled to your opinion, but an opinion alone that goes against established Misplaced Pages policy should not be used for making decisions with regards to article content and quality (unless you would like to open a discussion at an appropriate venue to establish consensus for a policy change). But until policy is changed, we should continue and follow the policy as it is now. Let me know if you have any other questions. Regards, Artichoker 23:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- GameSpot is normally considered a reliable source, but due to the nature of the information that is presented in the citation you wish to use that particular article is not a reliable source as it cannot be independently verified in other reliable sources. I am contesting its addition to the page and I will just remove it again if you do add it all back because now you certainly have no consensus to add the content. There's your policy based argument.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Also, per Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/Sources, GameSpot is listed under "Situational sources" because some of the content in its articles can be deemed unreliable as I am doing here. The fact that in this article they are citing Serebii.net, which is not a reliable source means that this particular article is not a reliable source either. Wait for Friday, or whenever they announce this at E3.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- I am still not seeing any references to existing policies, and am not sure where you are getting these rules from. However, this is still incorrect. The information can be independently verified in other reliable sources, such as this one here: . So I am a bit confused as to why you continue reverting. In addition, statements such as this one: "I will just remove it again if you do add it all back because now you certainly have no consensus to add the content" give me pause because it appears to attempt to use a WP:BATTLEGROUND context to leverage your argument, which is unacceptable. In any case, since I have demonstrated now that there are multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources to support the content's inclusion, I will restore it along with an additional source to the link I provided above. (Aside, in case there are any doubts: yes, Slashgear is a reliable source. See here and here.) Artichoker 23:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- In his case, because Slashgear is still citing Serebii, it is not a reliable source. The video games Wiki project has its own internal guidelines and GameSpot does not meet them and Slashgear is not even mentioned (you can also count out Siliconera too because it is also under the "situational sources" header). Do not add the information back onto the article. None of it is reliably sourced and you do not have consensus.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- The internal guidelines for sources clearly state that GameSpot is situational only if the author is not a staff member. However, the source that I cite is authored by a staff member, and is therefore correctly used as a reliable source per our internal guidelines. Artichoker 00:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- In his case, because Slashgear is still citing Serebii, it is not a reliable source. The video games Wiki project has its own internal guidelines and GameSpot does not meet them and Slashgear is not even mentioned (you can also count out Siliconera too because it is also under the "situational sources" header). Do not add the information back onto the article. None of it is reliably sourced and you do not have consensus.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- I am still not seeing any references to existing policies, and am not sure where you are getting these rules from. However, this is still incorrect. The information can be independently verified in other reliable sources, such as this one here: . So I am a bit confused as to why you continue reverting. In addition, statements such as this one: "I will just remove it again if you do add it all back because now you certainly have no consensus to add the content" give me pause because it appears to attempt to use a WP:BATTLEGROUND context to leverage your argument, which is unacceptable. In any case, since I have demonstrated now that there are multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources to support the content's inclusion, I will restore it along with an additional source to the link I provided above. (Aside, in case there are any doubts: yes, Slashgear is a reliable source. See here and here.) Artichoker 23:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Well, what we have here is a reliable source that is providing verifiable information. You have an opinion otherwise, which I respect; but since you admit that you have no actual policy argument, I am going to go ahead and restore the content per WP:V. You are obviously entitled to your opinion, but an opinion alone that goes against established Misplaced Pages policy should not be used for making decisions with regards to article content and quality (unless you would like to open a discussion at an appropriate venue to establish consensus for a policy change). But until policy is changed, we should continue and follow the policy as it is now. Let me know if you have any other questions. Regards, Artichoker 23:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- You're right. It's not grounded in policy. However, I am completely within my right to contest the content that was added to the article based on the knowledge I have that the information should not be available. Leaks are not reliable sources for information in any context. That should just be common sense. Yes, this information is probably going to be proven to be true when the issue is released and people can see more than smartphone photos like this one. However that cannot be said for what's out there now. These "leaks" should not be used in any form until the actual issue of the magazine is released. I've been through this before when Keldeo, Meloetta, and Genesect were unreleased in any form but people knew they existed because someone went through the game data to find them. That wasn't a reliable source that could verify the content and neither are these crappy photos.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm still not quite following you. Where in WP:V does it say this exactly? As per policy in WP:V, here we have a reliable source providing third-party coverage. This information is therefore verifiable and can be added to the article. Unless you have some part of policy to quote that I've missed, WP:V does not appear to corroborate any of your statements. You have that opinion, but it does not appear to be grounded in policy. Artichoker 23:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- WP:V covers this exactly. No one can independently verify this content as it has not been (officially) published yet. Just because you have a random GameSpot columnist reporting on stuff posted on Serebii and /vp/ does not mean that Misplaced Pages can use that information. Not to mention the content could possibly be fake, and the official release date of the issue will provide more accurate information.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- If Gamespot are OK with the source, we are. We're not here to question Gamespot's reliability, if they're saying that it's OK, it's OK. - hahnchen 00:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- The guidelines only say to check if it's by a staff member. Not that if it is by a staff member hat it automatically gets a pass. The website is citing a known website that has been discounted as a reliable source on Misplaced Pages. That unreliability is inherited in this case. Again, let's just wait for the Nintendo conference at E3. Serebii is not and has never been a reliable source regardless of the information being repeated on Gamespot. And we do question. Gamespot's reliability. That's why it's not considered to always be a reliable source.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- That's bullshit. You can't inherit unreliability. If a reliable source says that an otherwise unreliable source is correct, you go by the reliable source. That doesn't mean you can take anything you wish from the unreliable source, just the things that has been asserted reliable. Who are you to say that Gamespot's fact checking isn't good enough? We only question Gamespot's reliability in that its database is user submitted which is not relevant in this case. - hahnchen 00:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- (ec) So you continued pointing at our internal guidelines... until they stopped supporting your argument. Once again, everything you have said in your above comment appears to constitute your own opinion and is not grounded in any Misplaced Pages policy. My position is very clear and echoes Hahnchen: It's been shown to be a reliable source, and the information is verifiable. Therefore, why can't it be included? I believe my comment here sums up the crux of this dispute and why I believe Ryulong's argument is simply an opinion not based on any sort of policy. Artichoker 00:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Gamespot is not a reliable source under WP:VG's guidelines. It is "situational" and in this situation I am calling into question the editorial integrity of posting content from Serebii which we at Misplaced Pages have already determined multiple times before is not reliable. For all we know their translations are completely incorrect because of the nature of what they have reported that is being spread around the net. Serebii is not reliable. And anything based entirely on their reporting cannot be reliable either.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- You cite WP:VG's guidelines on sourcing (which I have linked to above). Once, again if you read the bit on GameSpot, it clearly states it is considered reliable source as long as it is written by a staff member. The reason the website is listed under "situational" is because some content on that site is user submitted. The article I have used is demonstrably written by a staff member and is therefore reliable. You don't get to abuse GameSpot's position under the "Situational sources" header to engineer a position that it is therefore unreliable for unrelated reasons besides what is said on the page. Artichoker 00:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Previously established consensus on a similar issue suggests otherwise.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Huh? I just read the linked discussion, and unless I missed something big, it appeared that the dispute was resolved in favor of included the information along with those reliable sources. I am genuinely confused? Did you just provide precedent that supports my position? Artichoker 01:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Previously established consensus on a similar issue suggests otherwise.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- You cite WP:VG's guidelines on sourcing (which I have linked to above). Once, again if you read the bit on GameSpot, it clearly states it is considered reliable source as long as it is written by a staff member. The reason the website is listed under "situational" is because some content on that site is user submitted. The article I have used is demonstrably written by a staff member and is therefore reliable. You don't get to abuse GameSpot's position under the "Situational sources" header to engineer a position that it is therefore unreliable for unrelated reasons besides what is said on the page. Artichoker 00:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Gamespot is not a reliable source under WP:VG's guidelines. It is "situational" and in this situation I am calling into question the editorial integrity of posting content from Serebii which we at Misplaced Pages have already determined multiple times before is not reliable. For all we know their translations are completely incorrect because of the nature of what they have reported that is being spread around the net. Serebii is not reliable. And anything based entirely on their reporting cannot be reliable either.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- The guidelines only say to check if it's by a staff member. Not that if it is by a staff member hat it automatically gets a pass. The website is citing a known website that has been discounted as a reliable source on Misplaced Pages. That unreliability is inherited in this case. Again, let's just wait for the Nintendo conference at E3. Serebii is not and has never been a reliable source regardless of the information being repeated on Gamespot. And we do question. Gamespot's reliability. That's why it's not considered to always be a reliable source.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Is it really that hard to wait a couple days though? Blake 04:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- It was not really solved in favor of the sources. The dispute ended when someone went ahead and added them anyway but treated them in a manner that did not have the information presented as fact. There is also nothing lost on our part by waiting for the E3 conference tomorrow or for Friday when this issue of CoroCoro is actually released to the general public.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, so then we have precedent for adding the content back in. Also, I don't see why we need to wait. Please remember that Misplaced Pages is a work in progress. The information can be added in now, and if it changes soon, that is perfectly fine and after that fact, the article should be further updated to reflect the changes. But there really isn't a basis I'm seeing for preventing the information from being added now. Artichoker 23:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- There is no precedent. It is clear at WT:VG that there is no consensus for adding this content. You cannot just ignore that just because you don't like mine or Masem's arguments.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Huh? There is explicitly is precedent by your own words: "The dispute ended when someone went ahead and added them anyway but treated them in a manner that did not have the information presented as fact." But furthermore, I'm not really seeing an argument from you. All I'm seeing is an assertion of your opinion without any policy to back it up, whereas I have both policy and "previously established consensus on a similar issue". Artichoker 23:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- I was clearly wrong about the old discussion's results. But people still argued throughout that one and at WT:VG right now that the content being posted by the reliable sources is inherently problematic due to the nature of their acquisition. That means that anything particularly about CoroCoro before it hits newsstands is not a reliable source because as per The Last Guardian bullshit on IGN over the weekend, it cannot be reliably confirmed. Do not add anything about the new Megas or the Primeval versions to this article until sources other than those referring to the "CoroCoro leaks" report on it. Which will happen in less than 17 hours from now because that's when Nintendo is having the E3 announcements. Besides, random announcements of new Mega Evolutions aren't important for this page and other information which was in CoroCoro that the original poster at 2chan never bothered to take photos of are probably more important to report on on Misplaced Pages.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- You admit you were wrong after your attempt to gather evidence failed, and then revert to making the same argument? You don't get to just assert things like "content being posted by the reliable sources is inherently problematic due to the nature of their acquisition" as pure, unadulterated fact when there isn't a single Misplaced Pages policy to back it up. Your entire comment above is just grasping at straws because there is no Misplaced Pages policy corroborated your stance. I am truly bewildered as to how and why you keep putting up such fierce opposition and refusing to let go. Even after needing to concede many points to me, you still stick to the same tired argument that has been dismissed again and again. Artichoker 23:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- I was clearly wrong about the old discussion's results. But people still argued throughout that one and at WT:VG right now that the content being posted by the reliable sources is inherently problematic due to the nature of their acquisition. That means that anything particularly about CoroCoro before it hits newsstands is not a reliable source because as per The Last Guardian bullshit on IGN over the weekend, it cannot be reliably confirmed. Do not add anything about the new Megas or the Primeval versions to this article until sources other than those referring to the "CoroCoro leaks" report on it. Which will happen in less than 17 hours from now because that's when Nintendo is having the E3 announcements. Besides, random announcements of new Mega Evolutions aren't important for this page and other information which was in CoroCoro that the original poster at 2chan never bothered to take photos of are probably more important to report on on Misplaced Pages.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Huh? There is explicitly is precedent by your own words: "The dispute ended when someone went ahead and added them anyway but treated them in a manner that did not have the information presented as fact." But furthermore, I'm not really seeing an argument from you. All I'm seeing is an assertion of your opinion without any policy to back it up, whereas I have both policy and "previously established consensus on a similar issue". Artichoker 23:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- There is no precedent. It is clear at WT:VG that there is no consensus for adding this content. You cannot just ignore that just because you don't like mine or Masem's arguments.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, so then we have precedent for adding the content back in. Also, I don't see why we need to wait. Please remember that Misplaced Pages is a work in progress. The information can be added in now, and if it changes soon, that is perfectly fine and after that fact, the article should be further updated to reflect the changes. But there really isn't a basis I'm seeing for preventing the information from being added now. Artichoker 23:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- It was not really solved in favor of the sources. The dispute ended when someone went ahead and added them anyway but treated them in a manner that did not have the information presented as fact. There is also nothing lost on our part by waiting for the E3 conference tomorrow or for Friday when this issue of CoroCoro is actually released to the general public.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Just because you dismiss my argument and Masem's arguments does not mean that you have any consensus to add the contested text to this article. Until this content is verified beyond people quoting Serebii.net then there's no need for this article to be updated.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- "Until this content is verified beyond people quoting Serebii.net then there's no need for this article to be updated." This is exactly what I'm talking about. This argument you are presenting in opposition has no Misplaced Pages policy backing it up. It's just you stating your opinion. I could try and derail numerous content disputes on Misplaced Pages using similar logic to yours, but it would be completely fruitless, disruptive, and wrong. Artichoker 23:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- No one at all can verify or corroborate Serebii.net's claims of what CoroCoro has published because the issue is not released to the public yet. That makes Serebii.net's claims unreliable, and anyone sourcing Serebii as an unreliable single source (including Siliconera and Gamespot for the purposes of this single issue on these games). That is the core issue. Being published in an RS does not "bless" the information as verifyable if it is being relayed through several other sources as the case here. --MASEM (t) 23:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- (ec) @Masem, Thanks for concisely writing it out. I believe this is where our core disagreement is. You state that "That makes Serebii.net's claims unreliable, and anyone sourcing Serebii as an unreliable single source". Can you back up this second part of your claim with any Misplaced Pages policy? I have read WP:V, but I am not seeing it there, unless I missed it. All I have read makes me believe that the information can still be added to the article, because that GameSpot article is reliable due to the normal means (editorial oversight, etc.) Artichoker 23:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- WP:SOURCE: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is 'made available to the public in some form'." As the July 2014 issue of CoroCoro Comic has not yet been "made available to the public in some form", anything reporting information from CoroCoro via Serebii is not a reliable source.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- WP:V's essence/intent states that if we give a source, someone should be able to go - without violating laws, tresspassing, etc. - to find that source and confirm the information in there. While I'm sure there are some writers of CoroCoro that have the issue, and a few people that work for them that likely snuck an issue out to scan pages, the release of that information right now can't be done by the public. I know the Serbii.net has scans of the page in question, but again, they are not an RS so that could also be bogus (I don't believe their intent is to deceive, mind you, just recognizing what the issue is). Given, within a few days, we will have access to CoroCoro and WP:V is met, then we'd be fine. Since WP does not need to be up-to-the-second proper, we can wait those few days. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- (ec) @Masem, Thanks for concisely writing it out. I believe this is where our core disagreement is. You state that "That makes Serebii.net's claims unreliable, and anyone sourcing Serebii as an unreliable single source". Can you back up this second part of your claim with any Misplaced Pages policy? I have read WP:V, but I am not seeing it there, unless I missed it. All I have read makes me believe that the information can still be added to the article, because that GameSpot article is reliable due to the normal means (editorial oversight, etc.) Artichoker 23:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- There are no reliable sources for this information yet. You have a GameSpot staff member reporting on Serebii.net reporting on an unreleased issue of a magazine. It cannot be independently verified by checking the magazine because it's not going to be available to the general public for another 3 days. It's only being repeated ad infinitum on websites which have slightly more clout on Misplaced Pages than Serebii.net. That does not make anything reporting on this information a reliable source in this situation. And, again, you lack consensus to add the information to the article based on the sources you are finding due to their problematic nature and the inability to independently verify the content. You can find as many websites as you want saying "Mega Swampert" and "CoroCoro" that you want that came out over the weekend. That's not going to change how they're not reliable in this situation. We have less than a day until all this stuff is going to be confirmed. Misplaced Pages does not need up to the minute reporting on these new Mega Evolutions. And thank you Masem. Perhaps after all is said and done here there should be something added to WP:VG's sources page on information from not-yet-released print sources.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- I know I have not been actively involved in this ongoing discussion, but I know that input is helpful and welcome. I just wanted to say that I completely agree with Masem's assessment above. Chambr (talk) 00:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with the fact that using the GameSpot source, the most you can say is "Leaks of CoroCoro had this information". Just because GameSpot trusts the leak doesn't make it not a leak. The real argument here can be solved with WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Blake 03:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I know I have not been actively involved in this ongoing discussion, but I know that input is helpful and welcome. I just wanted to say that I completely agree with Masem's assessment above. Chambr (talk) 00:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- No one at all can verify or corroborate Serebii.net's claims of what CoroCoro has published because the issue is not released to the public yet. That makes Serebii.net's claims unreliable, and anyone sourcing Serebii as an unreliable single source (including Siliconera and Gamespot for the purposes of this single issue on these games). That is the core issue. Being published in an RS does not "bless" the information as verifyable if it is being relayed through several other sources as the case here. --MASEM (t) 23:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Worldwide release?
This source says that the games will be released in Europe a week after everyone else, on November 28. http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2014/06/e3_2014_pokemon_omega_ruby_and_alpha_sapphire_confirmed_for_21st_november — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.2.58 (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- The official Nintendo Australia website does not have the game listed anywhere, so we don't even know what date it could be released on. EB Games Australia is not a reliable source when it comes to release dates, 'cause for all we know, they could've got the release dates from off Misplaced Pages. —Platinum Lucario (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Technically, folks like EB Games Australia could have gotten release dates from Misplaced Pages already, BUT when it comes to release dates for items from companies like Nintendo, EB Games and other retailers will be given a "You will not provide these items before this date" sort of date from the game distributor as the release date handed down-from-on-high and such dates will typically be confirmed during things like press releases. Sites like Nintendo Australia aren't always updated the instant a Nintendo product has been given the clear to be put up for pre-orders through EB Games et all. In fact (and I know that this can be counted as Original Research, but I'm not suggesting this to be added to the main article) a quick search for 3DS games through Nintendo Australia only shows "out now" games and little-to-no hints of any games to be pre-ordered, and checking the catalog of games for all (current) Nintendo systems the only game whose status isn't "out now" is Bayonetta 2 and that's TBC as it's probably still being classified under the ACB system. El Nero Diablo (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Discussion of the leak
It's still more or less under discussion at WT:VG about whether or not the discussion of the leak is considered a reliable source, but now I think we just don't need to have the leak mentioned. It happened, but the leak itself is not particularly important that it did in the context of the development or release of the game because this happens constantly but this was just the first time that there was a big to do about it on Misplaced Pages. The text in question was simply in the article to serve as a source for the new Mega Evolutions and Primal forms and now that we have official statements and reliable sources reporting on those official statements, the overabundance of citations about the "leak" are now not needed to support any statement other than the one on the "leak" itself. The content of the "leak" was notable to discuss here but the leak itself is not a notable event.
I am proposing that we remove this text from the article as it is not relevant to the article as a whole or the history of this particular video game. Not to mention that someone having a week's advance copy of a magazine that is now available to the general public is not really a "leak". The fandom just likes to think of it that way.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- I completely agree with you. I have not read the extent of the discussion, but taking just your proposal of the removal into account, I completely agree. And from what I have read at WT:VG, your argument is very sound. Chambr (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- (ec)I agree that discussion somewhat related to this matter is still ongoing at WT:VG. However, I think the leak is a perfectly valid topic for the article to cover because it was covered by these multiple sources and it does relate to the release of the game and could be valuable information to present to the reader in a "Development" or "Release" section because it covers some of the history of the release of the game. Although, if needed, we could certainly reduce the number of citations that are attributed to this text. I also think it satisfies the definition of a "leak", which is some information/content that was not intended to be released until a specific date, but for which the public learned of this information sooner. Artichoker 00:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm still not convinced that the nature of the "leak" itself is relevant to the release of the article because it was simply contained to fansites and then the drama that happened here. The actual promotion of the game at E3 and in CoroCoro is more relevant than photos posted on 2channel/Futaba Channel and then posted on Serebii.net.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, it was covered by fansites, but it was also covered by a multitude of reliable sources, which could make a notable event for coverage. Also I agree with you that the promotion of the game at E3 and in CoroCoro is very relevant and believe discussion of E3 and CoroCoro should be prominent in the article (which it is currently). However, I don't see anything against discussing the leaks in the article as a component of the games' release history. Artichoker 00:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- I just do not see that there was a leak as crucial to discussion of the game's release and promotion because this happens every month for all aspects of the Pokemon franchise. No one bothers to report on them except the fansites because there wasn't the E3 conference hype building up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- That would be my core argument as well. Chambr (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- (ec)I don't think it necessary needs to be "crucial", because I'm not sure how that's defined; but certainly I think its informative commentary covering an aspect of the game's release/promotion history. I think the key point to take away from this matter is that this particular event was covered by multiple reliable sources and influential news outlets (GameSpot, etc.) Artichoker 00:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- You have a low bar for whats "influential" then.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- I just do not see that there was a leak as crucial to discussion of the game's release and promotion because this happens every month for all aspects of the Pokemon franchise. No one bothers to report on them except the fansites because there wasn't the E3 conference hype building up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, it was covered by fansites, but it was also covered by a multitude of reliable sources, which could make a notable event for coverage. Also I agree with you that the promotion of the game at E3 and in CoroCoro is very relevant and believe discussion of E3 and CoroCoro should be prominent in the article (which it is currently). However, I don't see anything against discussing the leaks in the article as a component of the games' release history. Artichoker 00:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm still not convinced that the nature of the "leak" itself is relevant to the release of the article because it was simply contained to fansites and then the drama that happened here. The actual promotion of the game at E3 and in CoroCoro is more relevant than photos posted on 2channel/Futaba Channel and then posted on Serebii.net.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Hoenn Confirmed
First of all, I never violated 3RR.
Okay, what is the real objection to mentioning that "Hoenn Confirmed" was an Internet meme? It's covered in the source and relates to long-time speculation about the game. WP:IDONTLIKEIT ain't gonna cut it. Tezero (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- I never accused you of violating 3RR. I just said you were edit warring. There is a difference. The meme isn't notable. End of story.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm having a hard time understanding why you are removing relevant, sourced material that covers commentary on this media. Just because you state it isn't notable, "end of story", doesn't mean it's the end of the story when there has not been adequate discussion before its removal. The status quo was having the information. Since both Tezero and I are disputing its removal it should stay until we can reach a consensus. So I'll start with this: why do you think it isn't notable? Artichoker 23:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)