Talk:Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire

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)

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)

"CoroCoro leaks"

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policy that backs up your stance? WP:V seems to contradict what you are saying. Artichoker^[talk] 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 Wikipedia 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^[talk] 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 Wikipedia 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^[talk] 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 Wikipedia: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: [1]. 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^[talk] 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^[talk] 00:24, 9 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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^[talk] 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 Wikipedia 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^[talk] 00:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)