Talk:MissingNo.

MissingoNo.'s inclusion in the 3DS Ports

The glitch was retained in the official 3DS ports of the Red and Blue versions of Pokémon. This speaks to the importance of the glitch itself, that it was included in the modern day port of the game. This would be good to add into this article, I'm just not sure where exactly would be the best place to add it. MordeKyle (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It might be difficult to phrase without a comment from Nintendo. If you have find new details that expand on the glitch's lasting appeal, try starting from there. More generally lack of sources meeting Wikipedia criteria has limited the article. That's why so little is said about the original Japanese form and properties of Missingno, vital background detail for a subject owing its recognition to changes made by the game's translators. Theclaw1 (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I will see what I can find. Why would a Nintendo source not be sufficient? This is not necessarily a controversial issue, and when trying to explain why someone did something, I don't see why you wouldn't have Nintendo describe why Nintendo did something. Input? MordeKyle (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Apologies if I was unclear. I meant to say that Nintendo has not yet commented on this. Anything said by them could be very important for inclusion.Theclaw1 (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Thanks. I will see what I can dig up. I haven't had the time lately, but will be sure to do some research soon. MordeKyle (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

This is an exceedingly late reply, but as far as I'm concerned the main reason they did retain Missingno was more passive than active, that is, they did as little as required to allow the games to have working link play, and otherwise did not change the games at all. I do not believe they fixed a single one of the many, many bugs present in the games. Blah2 (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

QTY increased by 128

With regard to this edit summary - "same as before, while I agree an exact amount would be better, FAC resulted in otherwise :\" - I can't find any reference to this requirement in any of the edit summaries (apart from reference to the FAC itself, but not a link) talk page or talk page archives. Where was this decided, and how? All comments seem to date from around 2011, so surely in the intervening 5 years another discussion could be brought up - especially if there are at least two editors (myself and Kung Fu Man) who think that stating the quantity is better?

It just seems that "a large amount" is too vague for an encyclopedia - especially when the amount is not only a known quantity, but also very rigidly defined in the way it happens.

If it was randomly increased, then ok, leave out a specific number, but at the very least - the term "very large" is too ambiguous. I consider "very large" to be in the thousands, another editor may consider it to be the hundred billion mark, whereas my son - who plays Pokemon and is 6 years old - thinks that the number 17 is very large. Why are we purposely insisting on vagueness and ambiguity when the exact details are known? Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

If memory serves the matter came up during copyeditting, that the sources in question were saying "large amount" instead of an exact number, and we had to use the wording the sources gave. It's the same reason MissingNo.'s 'appearance' in Yellow is also not covered here as no reliable sources mention it, though that's also a case of it being a separate less-notable glitch entirely that just happens to share the same name.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, if that's all it is, here's a few sources that took me 30 seconds to find confirming the "large amount" is 128, just by googling "missingno pokemon 128":

• http://www.lazygamer.net/gaming-news/you-can-still-catch-missingno-in-pokmon-red-and-blue-3ds/
• http://kotaku.com/how-to-do-the-missingno-glitch-in-pokemon-red-and-blue-1761583087
• http://www.smogon.com/ingame/misc/rby_tips#old
• https://keithmaggio.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/game-glitch-analysis-missingno/

Also, an already existing source in the article - "Pokemon Report: OMG Hacks" (http://ds.ign.com/articles/933/933126p1.html or the archive at http://www.webcitation.org/5nLO9lXyk) specifically states that the quantity is 128. I accept that whenever this FAC was done (which seems as hard to find as missingno itself!) it may have been unclear, but there are now reliable sources (one already in the article) that confirm and clarify that the qty is 128. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

To be fair the only one of those that is reliable is Kotaku. And even then it's both situational and not actually stating the info itself by stating according to Bulbapedia, which isn't reliable. In other words we really need a better source especially given this is a featured article and under a lot more scrutiny.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

To be fair the article already contains a reliable source as I pointed out, ("Pokemon Report: OMG Hacks") so it shouldn't be necessary for me to find any more at all. I'm pretty sure that lazygamer at the very least is reliable too.

If this article is under a lot more scrutiny then it's even more important to be specific and state the quantity rather than be vague - how about helping out and also looking for supporting evidence, rather than standing your ground and holding back improvements?

At the very least, please tell me where this FAC is, so I know what the original decision was, and how it came about. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I get the feeling you're taking this unnecessarily personal, when it isn't. Sources have to back up what the article states, even if it's a commonly known thing you still need a source. The IGN source you mentioned only states "raised to 128", which we both know isn't the case either. Also Lazygamer actually isn't since it uses a lot of user-generated content (see the discussion here. Finding a source to satisfy this isn't on me, it's on you because you feel the article is lacking without it. At most the only thing anyone else needs to do is make sure it's put in properly and properly sourced.

So ease up a little, reading up on wikipedia's sourcing and manual of style guidelines may help too. :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not taking it personally, I'm just failing to understand why you're fighting hard to perpetuate inaccuracy in the article. You also feel that "the article is lacking without it" - "I agree an exact amount would be better" and yet you're doing damn all to help fix it. You're absolutely correct to say that it isn't up you to find a source, but given the circumstances you could be a little more helpful - I still haven't seen hide nor hair of this FAC for example.

A problem with featured and good articles is that frequent contributors get paranoid and tend to think that the article should be frozen in that state and any changes will impinge on its GA status. That's not the case. We should always be looking to improve articles, and this is - or should be - an easy fix, but you are not helping. You're correct to point out unreliable sources that I'm not aware of, but as I repeat myself - you could also perhaps be a little more collaborative and help look for those that are, instead of just sitting there going "nope, nope, nope." Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Error handler wording

Hi. Though what I say is original research I'd like to stress that although MissingNo. is an error handler in a small sense (you're accessing invalid Pokémon and the game says "MISSINGNO.") the article may give the impression that the game is trying to convert all glitch Pokémon into a MissingNo. when in actuality (although I can't back it up with a reliable source) only 39 become MissingNo. with other glitch Pokémon not coming up as MissingNo. like 'M (number 000).

Do you know which reliable source referred to it as an error handler and on what page please? Did it directly call it an error handler? I just feel that it would be change the line to something like "MissingNo. in the game appear for particular nonexistent Pokémon species." instead of "Standing for "Missing Number", MissingNo. are used as error handlers by game developer Game Freak; they appear when the game attempts to access data for a nonexistent Pokémon species". Perhaps there may be a reliable source that references "'M", which would be useful in publishing the distinction that not all nonexistent Pokémon species are MissingNo.

Kung Fu Man, would you approve of this edit? Thanks. Torchickens (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

May 1999 issue of Nintendo Power

The article says:

Nintendo of America first documented the events that cause MissingNo. to appear in the May 1999 issue of Nintendo Power, with a warning that "any contact with it (even if you don't catch it) could easily erase your game file or disrupt your graphics".[6].

I went twice through the said issue of Nintendo power and cannot find this. On which page is it supposed to be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.14.52.120 (talk • contribs)

* Page 101. Just checked. It's there. --The1337gamer (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

* Thanks! Found it, I had looked in the wrong issue :( SORRY! --77.176.32.165 (talk) 06:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect information in the article

There's basically no motive for any reliable source to publish correct information on MissingNo. these days, but that doesn't change the fact that this article is straight-up factually incorrect and will probably remain so for the indefinite future. There isn't exactly anything I can do about this, but I am extremely frustrated by it. Blah2 (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, you could start by listing or discussing what you consider to be "straight-up factually incorrect"? You might get support from other editors that way? Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Characterizing it as an "exception handler", for one, when it isn't by any useful definition of the term (as it happens more by the game failing to detect an error condition rather than handling one), also the sentence stating something along the lines of "triggering a subroutine" which causes MissingNo. to appear, which also doesn't happen. I don't have sources for these, but what I've found is that those statements don't appear in any of the sources I have checked so far, so the incorrect statements could just be removed. (I've checked all the web-based sources linked as well as the Casey Loe strategy guide, the Pokemon Future book, and the cited Nintendo Power issue.) Blah2 (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, they did detect it - that's why it's called "MissingNo." and not a bunch of garbage text. casualdejekyll 21:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Following up on that, I'm searching for reliable sources with something to say regarding this. Currently I've found exactly zero: reliable sources don't seem to go very deep into the technical details. I did find a couple published things, but the only one to go into much detail directly cites TRSRockin, which doesn't seem too good. Blah2 (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I feel your pain - you'll note in the QTY increased by 128 section above that I had similar problems a year or so back when I tried to make changes to the article as well - I was constantly reverted for (what I felt) were poor reasons. When I get some time, I'll have another look as well. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure. I'd like to find some reliable sources that go into the technical details at all. The ones that supposedly did in this article certainly didn't, which is strange to me. Blah2 (talk) 03:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• En-MissingNo.ogg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

Under the characteristics section, please can we add something like this.

During the development of Pokémon as Capsule Monsters, as evident by officially released concept art, illustrations in the official Satoshi Tajiri educational manga and leaked prototype assets, various unused Pokémon species shared the internal index numbers (not to be confused with the Pokemon index number or Pokedex number) of what would become the 39 MissingNo. in the final games, suggesting that MissingNo. had overwritten them.

Satoshi Tajiri official manga ISBN Secondary source http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2018/05/see_the_origins_of_the_pokemon_you_know_and_some_you_dont_in_a_new_manga

Relevant NHK Japan broadcast (Helix Chamber discusses this but seems not a reliable source here) https://helixchamber.com/2018/12/24/how-the-capumon-stole-christmas

Leaks

https://techraptor.net/content/gen-1-pokemon-prototype-monsters-maps-more https://gaminghistoria.com/new-leaks-show-a-different-pokemon-red-and-blue/ https://www.polygon.com/2019/2/18/18229267/pokemon-beta-designs-prototype-gen-1

Thanks 95.144.133.248 (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Creation of Missingno.

Should we put in the article about the fact that missingno. was created because of Generation 2 pokemon being taken out? Porygon-Z (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

A study of the mechanics and process used to follow how missingno. is created shows that it's a programming effect, not due to removal of any pokemon. So, no? Unless I misunderstand your question? Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The analysis regarding the mechanics was actually years ago (publicly at least), you can find lots of analysis supporting they are linked with placeholder or even deleted Pokémon data; but the thing is the pattern is they are usually not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. Those in the speedrunning, datamining and glitch communities (e.g. speedrun.com editors, The Cutting Room Floor, Helix Chamber, Unseen64, Glitch City Laboratories to name a few), (I'm part of one too; so I'm subject to bias that this is not featured in the 'more trustworthy' context) will likely tell you this article is quite outdated; and its not just speculation but they have analysed the game code itself to assembly level, and the "Pokémon Red Disassembly project". The trouble is; the medium in which they are posted and the lack of peer-review from a person in academia disqualifies them (for English Wikipedia) as 'reliable' sources (I've also seen a similar situation with the wiki Kyoto Report which has been cited even though it's a wiki/blog); because a lot of these can be edited by anyone, or just a few people who claim to have knowledge. I think GameFAQs used to be used on Wikipedia; until it was said because it can be user edited with no source, it was removed.

Another issue is; there is the argument that MissingNo. outside of Japan and MissingNo. in North America/UK/etc. are inherently different; so even if there were sources, the article could revert back to being about how MissingNo. appears in the English version. If another article was deemed incomplete it could be unfeatured. Also too, I argue personally though this article claims reliability, it is not actually accurate. A reliable source and accurate source could have been the Pokémon Red disassembly project; as they actually have access to the code (revealing more on how though MissingNo. may be considered unofficial Pokémon; it's not actually a Pokémon at all/or exception handler - it's just loaded as a Pokémon from a list of 39 placeholders; and half the data is the result of glitch - note garbage through the Wikipedia article definition is actually misleading too;- the sprite goes through an encoding algorithm, but the disassemblers found half of the data were found from Biker roster data as the values/parameters) [and in the alleged leak from Helix Chamber the 39 placeholders were originally filled with unreleased Pokémon]); but as for the annotations and analysis; this can be edited by other people too (an exception I argue though, is that there are 39 unused MissingNo. entries (it's not just "one Pokémon" though they are very similar, and nine have different cries) when you disassemble the code regardless of asserting anything more about it) - the other trouble is; reverse engineering is a legal grey area, and some may argue it shouldn't be here.

There are also videos on what MissingNo. actually is on YouTube; again YouTube is user generated and there is no clear way to check whether the research is reviewed by someone in academia. The content could be explained in 'laymans terms', but it would point back to there being no "reliable" sources to have check it. I personally feel "reliable source" is ultimately subjective (the argument here related with "fake news" - you ultimately cannot tell the accuracy/veracity of a source, even if you have evidence that the journalist is trustworthy/that the public trust them; this and they likely do not actually work for Game Freak/Nintendo, they are just a reporter - reporters can get it wrong more badly than the fans; and the game sites may be seen as "unreliable", yet occasionally cite (either overtly or covertly the game itself)). (Just because someone may be part of academia (it sounds counterintuitive) doesn't necessarily mean their article is more trustworthy).

If Game Freak themselves did release a book explaining the history of MissingNo. (in the context of its name and why it appears) maybe that could be used (as apparently obscure sources but reliable/verifiable ones have been welcome on Wikipedia too - e.g. on Chikyū Kaihō Gun ZAS); and in fact may exist in one of the books like 新ゲームデザイン/New Game Design (a serious book about the video game industry written by Game Freak themselves) or maybe "Game Freak Asobi no Sekai Hyoujun o Nurikaeru Creative Shuudan" (Japanese: ゲームフリーク遊びの世界標準を塗り替えるクリエイティブ集団). The official 2018 Satoshi Tajiri: A Man Who Created Pokémon (Japanese: ポケモンをつくった男 田尻智) educational manga (and its predecessor book) may also be of use here; but unfortunately there may be no direct confirmation; only signs of it, such as the scrapped Pokémon sharing the index numbers where the MissingNo. were.

About the removal of Pokémon/placeholder ideas (note: the evidence actually doesn't argue they were Generation 2 Pokémon; just Pokémon taken out, though for some leaked Pokémon like "Raitora"; it's confirmed if both leaks are real that Game Freak tried them again) that is a mix of original research (from my own original research, which is not welcome here: its from a misconception based on how a MissingNo. becomes another real Pokémon when traded to Gold/Silver and although they are tabled; there is no evidence of the significance and it doesn't support that they became these), an alleged assets leak for Gold/Silver (see also: this news article) and analysis from a NHK Japan broadcast, Game Center CX (featuring Satoshi Tajiri, the creator of Pokémon), the previously mentioned educational manga. Another trouble and division with this article I feel; as someone mentioned earlier too, is that "the article stays in a largely unmodified state"; except for the rare point/analysis deemed as a reliable source.

However, on the other hand people may feel it deserves to stay as it is; simply because of the lack of "reliable sources". (Nintendo Life is actually a proponent of the "these unused Pokémon became MissingNo. theory) (there is a complication here that may be linked with the "inclusionist" vs "deletionist" debate), but it's again like; they (without evidence) do not work for Game Freak/Nintendo, so unfortunately cannot have a trustworthy say. 95.144.133.173 (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The other thing is that, less those books, all I have ever seen says that the table contains 190 entries, which is the number of Pokémon they planned for Gen 2 according to some other things. We don't know if these would have been in Gen 2; my own personal guess is that a decent number of them were scrapped. re: your points about reliable sources, in general Wikipedia's criteria for "reliable sources" is insufficient if consistently applied and not very consistently applied at all. Honestly the best thing would be to just delete this article but there's no legitimate way to argue that it should be deleted. I don't think you can request a Wikipedia page be deleted because Wikipedia's inclusion criteria/the way they are handled on this page does the topic a disservice. There's also my own personal belief that a lot of the so-called reliable sources used in this article were probably based off people reading TRSRockin back in the day and my frustration that a lot of incorrect information (from the reasonably incorrect turn-of-the-millenium fan consensus around MissingNo no less) ended up in this article despite it not actually being in the sources because somebody cited it and nobody checked the damn sources for a decade. You could probably just find some random book nobody can find and say it's in there but I don't want to do that just because other people did. Blah2 (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. It feels like journalism websites (even back then before the popularity of Twitter and YouTube) become 'reliable' when they may have either plagiarised work of original research from an 'unreliable' source or referenced original research to begin with. It's a fundamental flaw of the Wikipedia editorial system. 2A00:23C4:41A:9601:5434:A757:6C1F:78F5 (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Source

"This causes the game to access the hexadecimal values of the player's name for Pokémon encounters at Cinnabar and Seafoam Island". I don't see the text "Seafoam" in this source: https://www.webcitation.org/5nLO9lXyk?url=http://ds.ign.com/articles/933/933126p1.html Đư'c (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Although it's true (you can do it in the Seafoam Islands) if it's not in the citation it may be removed per wikipedia:original research. Strictly it's anywhere with specific shore tiles with water encounters but not grass encounters (but only Kanto Route 20 works; which contains the shore tiles next to Cinnabar Island and Seafoam Islands). Additionally if the grass encounters are overwritten by visiting a place that has them, you can do a slightly different glitch like the "Fight Safari Zone Pokémon trick". 95.144.128.99 (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Pokedex entry

I found its pokedex entry but its in Japanese. Can someone translate it? UB Blacephalon (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It's コメント　さくせいちゅう ("Comment to be written"), but unfortunately it probably can't be added because of the rules on verifiability here; as it has to come from a "reliable source" not original research (even if it's from the game itself). This and the article focuses on the English version of MissingNo. which appears differently and has a Pokédex entry without the Japanese text instead (and the coast glitch doesn't work in the Japanese versions). 95.144.128.99 (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh okay, thanks!UB Blacephalon (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Fictional Birds

As MissingNo is a Bird type Pokémon, should it be added onto the fictional birds category?(Oinkers42) (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I see the reasoning, but I don't think so. Although it's classified as a "Bird-type" Pokemon, it's really a glitch, not a bird. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 09:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Game freak realized there are more things that fly than just birds, so the typing was scrapped for the flying type. UB Blacephalon (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

If it hadn't been scrapped, then the "bird" type would probably also be attributed to Pokémon like Rayquaza, Gyarados, Aerodactyl, Tropius, Yanmega, Emolga, and the Iron Jugulis. That would have been a mess. cogsan (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Dragon type. casualdejekyll 22:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

of those, only rayquaza is a dragon type, so i don't think it counts cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 10:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's easy to imagine - Gyarados is literally a dragon, full stop, despite not being a Dragon type. Pretty much the only pokémon that gets left out that you listed is Emolga - all of the others would either fit right in Dragon Type, or really have no problems being just Bug-type (Yanmega).
You can also infer how the lack of a general flying type might influence pokémon design, anyway. casualdejekyll 12:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

trying to argue about pokémon types is generally considered a headcanon, which i try to avoid

that aside, aerodactyl is more rock than lizard, tropius is more banana weird yellow nanab berry tree than lizard and the iron jugulis is "like if a german dragon banged a robot", so i'm not actually sure why the dragon typing had to go

either way, not sure what this has to do with missingno cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 13:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Dead link

I've found an archived version of the Nintendo Support link in the infobox on this page, however, I am not super experienced with editing and can't find out how to say that it was archived from the original link. If anybody knows how, here is the link to the archive of the page. Tophattedd (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I've fixed the dead link for you. Thanks for giving a link to the archive :) Jurta talk 21:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Baby kangashan

Aren't you going to include the original lore? 31.94.25.184 (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

What lore? Isn't that just another part of the glitch? cogsan (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a rumour which is part of popular culture (it's wrong; the Pokémon that evolves into the Pokémon Kangaskhan is 'M (00) at Level 1 by the way it also evolves into the Pokémon Clefairy at Level 128. This is a coincidence based on how the evolution data structures are stored in the game; and the evolutions pointers following a pointer table - meaning anything extrapolated past the table is a misinterpretation of another part of the code) but it can't be included because of the reliable source policy (where user generated sources can't be cited and there are other parts of the policy, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources even if the cited articles pass the test but are incorrect). Wikipedia although user edited is strict about this and the subject must also be judged as "verifiable" and "notable". 2A00:23C4:41A:9601:6D44:1258:E215:3156 (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Pokémon Yellow

it exists in Pokémon Yellow as well. Why isn't it mentioned? Xdtp (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Because the yellow version of the glitch behaves different and requires a different method to access, and lacks reliable third party sources covering it.-- Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

(With my own original research): It's true MissingNo. exists in Pokémon Yellow if you try the Trainer-Fly glitch yourself or one of the many other glitches. Additionally the article is wrong again, it actually is the sixth item in the bag is "increased by 128" (unless the player already owns a stack of 128); not "to 128". If you play the game and try it yourself by tossing all the items one at a time if you don't trust the glitchy digits past 9 (otherwise watch players who speedrun any% glitched Pokémon Red/Blue/Yellow) you can observe this if they use the item duplication glitch from MissingNo.

I feel Wikipedia is too strict on featured articles and is stubborn/outdated with its policies. This is typically left longer in unfeatured ones. It's understandable because Wikipedia is so big, so of course they have to do this and they forbid original research, certain topics regarded as "unverifiable/"unnotable as well.

This is a systematic flaw of Wikipedia which has persisted for a very long time, because not only does it cause the omission of data, but the inclusion of wrong data. I honestly think rather than wasting time reverting things like this over and over again we should be thinking of ways to solve/restructure the policies to avoid these errors, but it seems like the admins in charge don't know how or don't want to change it. Additionally, hypothetically if two "reliable sources" cite different things pertaining to facts rather than opinions, which one can we trust? because given the same criteria (non-user generated, respected qualified author, etc.) it becomes subjective.

Though it's a natural human thing to do to trust authority (after all we trust scientific research on medicine but also many experiments are subject to the replication crisis), especially if the outside observer does not have experience but "not user-generated"/"independent"/"respected" does not mean that they are always correct. People in authority (such as journalism) may have also cited user-generated content anyway (such as Twitter), and this can lead to circular reporting. I think this is also a nature of journalism; the person can rely on accounts; not exclusively their own gameplay.

In this case the contrary "by 128" rather than "to 128" is a well replicated empirical result. (If a source says "to 128", it might be that they were deceived, or like the "Berenstain Bears effect" on the reporter's side). It's sad video games themselves cannot be cited, only journalist accounts of them. As a player things like gaming wikis are often correct just as much as reporters (but I feel people will see this as "bias" or "illusion" while ignoring the other points above). It may seem counterintuitive for an 'authoritarian' perspective, but gaming wikis are usually written and edited by people interested in them and vigorously reverted if empirically incorrect. Gaming wikis also commonly use sources for things they can't prove empirically, or refer to the source code. 2A00:23C4:41A:9601:6D44:1258:E215:3156 (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Additionally the article is wrong again, it actually is the sixth item in the bag is "increased by 128" (unless the player already owns a stack of 128); not "to 128". To be as precise as possible, the first digit of the quantity in binary is set to 1 when MissingNo. is seen.

"(...) There are two reasons why everybody wanted a MissingNo. back then. (...) the second is that it allowed you to have infinite Master Balls and Rare Candies. Nobody knew exactly why, but that didn't matter. The explanation is actually very simple, though. The game keeps track of the species of Pokémon the player has encountered in an array of flags so that the Pokédex can be displayed accordingly (i.e. only displays the Pokémon you've seen). But there are only 152 flags, which are for Pokémon with Pokédex numbers between 1 and 152 (the reason why there is space for 152 flags and not 151 is because they are grouped eight by eight, i.e. in bytes). When the game attempts to set MissingNo.'s seen flag, it will overflow into the memory area where the items in your bag are stored. A flag is just a bit, and setting it is nothing but writing 1 into that bit if it was 0. In particular, MissingNo.'s seen flag happens to fall into the memory address that stores the quantity of the item in the sixth position of the bag, affecting the highest bit of said 8-bit memory address. Now, it's just about converting the binary number 10000000 (each digit represents a bit, with the first digit being the highest bit) to decimal and noticing how it outputs 128. It doesn't make sense to have 128 stacks of an item because the limit is 99, so it essentially means that the sixth item quantity will get increased by 128. (...)"

Problem is, we don't have a reliable source that says that, so we can't really add it in to the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Replaceability of current Fair Use image

The current primary image of this article (File:Missingno.png) is a Fair Use image. As is required for all Fair Use images, the Fair Use rationale template argues that the image is not replaceable, as it needs to depict a game sprite. However, this disregards the fact that the only important part of the image—the image of MissingNo. itself—is not a copyrightable work, as it was created by a computer program rather than a human. The replacement Public Domain image already exists on the Commons (also as an SVG), and has templates that explain why it is not a copyrightable work. The unnecessary inclusion of other sprites and UI elements in the current image is what makes it a Fair Use image.

I had previously nominated the current image for deletion for this reason, but @Kung Fu Man disagreed, and the closing administrator @Explicit suggested that the Commons image be nominated for deletion first. I personally think it would be disingenuous for me to nominate an image for deletion if I do not believe it should be deleted (the Commons image is clearly public domain) just so that I can say that it survived a deletion discussion, so I don't really know how to resolve this issue, unless someone else who disagrees wants to nominate it. SnorlaxMonster 17:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Well a big argument would be presenting just the sprite by itself, with zero context, may not sufficiently illustrate to readers how that sprite appears, given that's the *only* context it appears. Reducing it to just the sprite itself may confuse some readers. Honestly too I have some reservations about how any image taken from a game can be used in this manner, as it's still using the screenshot as a base. See several arguments in the past here regarding the mushroom logo for Nintendo wikiprojects or similar cases.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@SnorlaxMonster: I believe that you are looking for WP:MCQ, which handles questions regarding copyright and might be able to resolve this. Based on the history, I think the reason the Common issue was deemed to need to be nominated first was the line, The image on commons is a crop of this existing image, making it a derivative from a copywritten source still. when it was disputed. Far as I can tell, Commons:File:MissingNo.png was made independently from File:Missingno.png. (At add, the current Commons version of the png has a few flaws in the image, though Commons:File:MissingNo.svg seems to have corrected them.) --Super Goku V (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The computer-generated sprite in context would be a copyrighted work (as it is fair use here). I think the fair use rationale fits and wouldn't recommend replacing it with the public domain standalone image, as it would lack necessary context for understanding the topic. czar 18:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Will reply both here and there as image file pages are often lost..
SnorlaxMonster, I'm unsure how the sprite of MissingNo is formed. MissingNo represents some data, and while it's not copyrightable in sprite-form, it may or may not consist of copyrightable data. Take for example this clearly non-artistic garbage:

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

Just like the MissingNo sprite, this random tetrasexagesimal rubble wouldn't be copyrightable. But if you decode it, you'll find it's a copyright infringement!
Even if MissingNo consists of non-copyrightable or undecodable data, I find the argument from Kung Fu Man very convincing: out of context it's unclear for readers how this Pokémon appears in-game. For projects without fair use (like Wikidata and Dutch Wikipedia) the bare sprite is better than nothing, but I wouldn't consider it a sufficient alternative. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

With more time to think about it, I think the argument that the context is important is convincing. I think I had taken for granted that the context would be obvious; however, if you just see the garbage-data sprite on its own, it's not obvious where that sprite actually displays in-game. --SnorlaxMonster 07:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit reversion discussion

I have had an edit mentioning that MissingNo is a placeholder for Pokémons cut early in development reverted because "we know it's a placeholder, that doesn't add any new info...?". I find it an odd reason for reversion given that nothing of the sort is mentioned in the article. This used to be an obscure theory until the late 2010s, when we had a series of leak confirming it, so it was hardly public knowledge from the start. MissingNo's nature is different to other glitch Pokemon, which all have garbled names made of junk data, and this seems like an important thing to explain why. (also, the article does not mention that other glitch Pokemon exist, apart from a translated quote in a footnote, this seems quite a relevant information to the topic, and something that people not familiar with Pokemon glitches are unlikely to know)

Even Wilma Bainbridge's explanation of MissingNo in February 2019(likely part of an interview made just before the prototype leak, since the article doesn't mention it), present in a source quoted in the article makes no mention of the possibility of it being a placeholder for something else, just that she used to believe it was a "test" Pokemon.

And yeah, I am aware of the elephant in the room. The Wiki-friendly sources on the topic are really bad, and it is holding the article back very badly, and we have to work with what we have. SunflowerYuri (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

It pops up in the event the game tries to access Pokemon data that isn't there. The Gamer article adds nothing new to that context: we know there are gaps in the Pokemon data, the why doesn't change MissingNo. purpose or shed more light on it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

It pops up in the event the game tries to access Pokemon data that isn't there. Can you clarify this? I am not following. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

From my perspective, MissingNo. is not really a placeholder, but the reversion does claim that it is one, so that doesn't make sense to revert. MissingNo. has some defined data, but it also is using "junk data" for a variety of purposes and reasons. The fact that English RB MissingNo. increases the sixth item by a quantity of 128 when seen due to a mistaken process is a sign that it isn't purely a placeholder nor as a test Pokémon.

In any case, it is clear enough from the article that MissingNo. replaced the data in the slots that held Pokemon that didn't make it into the final game. The fact that this isn't mentioned in the article does mean that it isn't mentioned at all now. (If fact, there is only one mention of cut Pokémon at all and that is just to debunk something.) So, I would support restoration. Personally, I don't like the exact wording, but that ties into the elephant in the room. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Knowing that Pokemon data was removed does not change that or add anything in the context of this article or discussing this subject, that's the problem. MissingNo. pops up when the game encounters invalid pokemon data: that by default is going to include removed Pokemon. Additionally, The Gamer article in question isn't saying what was in that edit: it's only saying it was used as a placeholder (which, again, we've covered), and even Helix Chamber says there are a few "MissingNo" values that aren't attributed to a deleted pokemon. So there's some WP:OR going on with SunflowerYuri's edit (no offense).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

it's only saying it was used as a placeholder (which, again, we've covered) The Wikipedia article does not cover this to my knowledge. Which was what I meant by The fact that this isn't mentioned in the article does mean that it isn't mentioned at all now. I was saying that the information is not in the current Wikipedia article.

MissingNo. pops up when the game encounters invalid pokemon data MissingNo. only pops up if the player encounters one of its 39 slots via a glitch. If invalid Pokémon data was able to trigger it, then it would be some sort of error handler that would trigger for other glitch Pokémon. Instead, it is just the game trying to call the data for the Pokémon in index number 000, which doesn't exist. Since all of the MissingNo. are set to reference index number 000, it pops up with the exact data each time. (Excluding cry data.)

In any case, is the only really issue the "39 species" part of the edit? If so, restore the text without that part. [I]t was found that MissingNo. was a placeholder for Pokémon that were cut during development. If that is too absolute, then we could add the word "some" in place of the "39 species" part. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

No, again, the issue is it's redundant and not saying what you're citing it for. To boot it's also repeating *some* information from Helix Chamber, which also isn't recognized as a reliable source. I wouldn't add it to this article let alone a featured one.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Where is it redundant to what is in the article, what is the full problem with the wording, and why is it a problem when a reliable source mentions information from something we cannot use directly as a source? --Super Goku V (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kung Fu Man: It has been almost a week. Do you have a response to my question above? --Super Goku V (talk) 05:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I've already given my thoughts on this matter, and Cogsan agreed. I don't know why you're insisting on this, but I'm not going to sit here and argue semantics on it. It's a source that's citing another (unreliable by WP:VG/S standards) source, and not even saying most of what you cited it for. The rest was already redundant and doesn't add anything to the understanding of this subject.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I am insisting to see if there was a possible compromise, partly because of the unclear edit summary and partly because that is the goal in a discussion. I still fail to see this redundant portion that you keep claiming is there in the article as there is no mention of anything about a placeholder in the article, which was the only claim in the sentence as far as I can tell. If you don't want to suggest an alternative, then fine. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

from my somewhat limited knowledge of the mess that is rby's code, the name is the literal only aspect of missingno that is a placeholder for something, and even then i think it's pretty obvious that whatever that thing is is not what missingno is

so it's a bunch of garbage data compiled into a pokémon, a bunch of which happens to look the same for reasons only explained in like 2 youtube videos, of which the name is the only part that isn't garbage data (no such luck for ██3TRAINERPOKé█₽ or PkMnaPkMnゥ█♂█fPkMnk), and since it's the one of the easiest to find via the old man glitch (hell, COGSAN can result in a missingno), it's pretty much guaranteed to be the most popular one cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

so for clarity's sake, i oppose the statement because missingno is pretty much anything except a placeholder for pokémon that would eventually get into gen 2 cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the name is the literal only aspect of missingno that is a placeholder for something, but MissingNo. doesn't have anything to do with Gen II. Most of the known cut Pokémon didn't make it into a future game and the rest are just speculation that they maybe did get reworked. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

What's the deal with a simple grammar fix?

My small grammar fix on this article was reverted in less than half an hour from being published because of "terminology is long agreed upon to help the reader best understand the subject" but looking through this talk page I could find no evidence whatsoever of the related terminology having a consensus agreed exact wording.

The change in the summary from "encountered via a glitch" to "encountered via one of several possible glitches" was done because

1) it is the truth

2) the Characteristcs section implies that there are multiple ways with "this method" clearly indicating that other ways exist

3) it is better for readability, the sentence in question feels stunted upon read when just ending it with "a glitch".

Since looking at other discussions it seems that Kung Fu Man is a constant hardliner whenever someone tries to change anything about this article, especially about 'original research', here is a secondary source (not a game wiki) implying that the Cinnabar method is not the only way to get MissingNo:

https://screenrant.com/pokemon-games-missingno-glitch-explained/

Note that it says "the most common way" when starting the explanation on doing the glitch.

Featured Article =/= the article text is 100% perfect and there is no possible reason that changes may be considered. The fact that there are several other discussions here about missing information regarding this glitch is more than enough evidence for such. G5bestcfb (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)