Talk:Pokémon Gold and Silver

Pokémon Gold and Silver has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 6, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

Video games: Nintendo High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the Nintendo task force.

A request for a screenshot has been made to help better illustrate the article. (VG images department)

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Merger proposal

Clear agreement to merge Pokémon Crystal into Pokémon Gold and Silver. Editors might want to consider if a title change will be needed, following the same scheme as Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose merging Pokémon Crystal into Pokémon Gold and Silver. As is the case with Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow, I think the content in Pokémon Crystal can easily be explained in the context of Pokémon Gold and Silver, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Pokémon Gold and Silver.~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 13:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think Crystal is distinct enough to have its own article. I also believe there are hidden resources that cover Crystal's development. It'll be a challenge to uncover, but I believe it is out there.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Blue Pumpkin Pie. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Basanaja (talk) 07:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Are we reading the same article? I'll quote: "The gameplay of Pokémon Crystal is largely the same as in Gold and Silver", "The setting and story remains largely the same as Pokémon Gold and Silver", "many commented that there were just not enough new additions and features to significantly set it apart from Pokémon Gold and Silver". Both reliable sources and our own article are telling us that it's an existing flavor. It can be handled within the parent article's Release section with no loss of fidelity, which makes it a perfect candidate for merger. Right now there is no sourcing to warrant its separate treatment. "Sources must exist" is not a defensible position, given the evidence that already exists in the article. czar 08:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per proposal and Czar. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is a clear WP:OVERLAP and I see no significant differences that merit a separate article. Most of the gameplay and plot is the same. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Czar. Sergecross73 msg me 13:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge per above, though without prejudice to future splitting for a more fleshed-out article, as I think there are probably enough differences to satisfy separate articles; they just aren't present yet (and I'm too busy to try and take them on at the moment). DecafPotato (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DecafPotato and Czar. The article is exceptionally short. I, too, believe in the potential for sources to exist to expand this article, but they are not found as of right now, and no participant in this discussion has volunteered to do a deep dive to find them. Thus, it is best for the article and for the reader's understanding to merge as of now. If someone ever decides to revisit this, please incubate in draftspace and open a discussion before splitting. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Czar and DecafPotato as well. Czar's reasoning is extremely persuasive and it makes sense that these should be put together. Nomader (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge– nothing of value is lost by merging the Crystal article in its present state and it won't bloat the Gold and Silver article. No issues with it being split back into a separate article in the future if sufficient content is added. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Splitting proposal for Pokémon Crystal and Pokémon Gold and Silver

The discussion arrived at consensus to split.

There is a clear numerical advantage for splitting. From a policy perspective, notability appears to be presumed for the split subject, as such most of the discussion revolved around content. With the existence of the well-received draft, arguments to split based on content were backed with solid evidence. The arguments in opposition, which were sometimes in the vein of WP:PAGEDECIDE (which was not explicitly referenced), were not overwhelming enough to override the numerical advantage.

There was some discussion of size. The discussion did not arrive at consensus as to whether the size was a major factor in the decision here, as most of the discussion revolved around content. Given that, it would be inappropriate to consider a minority argument of TOOBIG and SIZESPLIT to override the numerical advantage.

Lastly, this discussion followed a merge discussion. A couple editors changed their opinions between the two discussions, and the initiator of this discussion worked to address concerns raised in the merge discussion. As such, in closing, I find the aforementioned consensus in alignment with Pillar 3.

(non-admin closure)—siro χ o 01:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose the splitting of this article into Pokémon Crystal and Pokémon Gold and Silver. The basis for this is the drafting of Draft:Pokémon Crystal. Following the discussion of a recent merge proposal that merged the discussed articles, a consensus was reached that Crystal needed to be merged as it was duplicative of Gold and Silver, but the article could be split again in future if more sources and content was found specific to Crystal. The draft (Draft:Pokémon Crystal) now has significant additions to the development, reception and legacy specific to this game and not its counterparts, and may warrant the return to a separate article, as with Pokémon Emerald. I'd appreciate your help in reviewing this article and confirming that it is in a state to separate from Pokémon Gold, Silver, and Crystal, and am happy to then work to split the articles. Thanks in advance for your help. Vrxces (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think there is good content here, but it can be condensed a little more. Overall, it's still significant enough to stand on its own in my opinion. I personally would love more content regarding the development. I remember there was an interview talking about the choice to add a female option.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 07:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nothing in the draft strikes me as WP:UNDUE to add to the current article, especially if things in the Legacy section were made a bit more concise. Mentioning the changes Crystal added would also add more context to Gold and Silver. Let's actually work on expanding THIS article, and only split if it becomes massively unwieldy, which it isn't nearly there yet. It is 7,500 words right now, below the point it "may need to be divided" according to WP:TOOBIG and far below the point it definitely should be divided. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - should the consensus be that no split is needed, I'll definitely merge the content in the draft into the article. Vrxces (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is not an urgent split, but I think there is enough to warrant a separate article. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looking over the draft, I'd say its individual notability is well-established, especially in terms of its legacy. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support distinct enough Yeungkahchun (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per previous comments Spilia4 (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Basanaja, Czar, Vestigium Leonis, Sergecross73, DecafPotato, Axem Titanium, Nomader, and Cyclonebiskit: Pinging participants in previous discussion that have not yet expressed views on the draft presented with the splitting proposal. Felix QW (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll revise my prior stance up to neutral. Still not sure it warrants a split with it being so similar to the others, but the amount of Crystal-specific sourcing and prose is impressive at least. I won't stand in your way. Sergecross73 msg me 15:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it’s better to split.It’s iconic and deserves it’s own attention. Basanaja (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective, meaningless claims of being "iconic" and "deserving" have no weight in discussions like this. You have to make arguments related to Wikipedia policy and guidelines for them to be considered. Stuff like this is ignored. Anyone could say that about anything. Sergecross73 msg me 17:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per ZXC. There's new stuff in the draft, but it mostly hangs on the Legacy section, which was simply not yet written in the current live article. Some of the stuff in there is not specific to Crystal either, but refers to Gold/Silver/Crystal as a whole. Every other section is still largely some variation of "it's basically like Gold/Silver". The new stuff should be integrated into this article and there's no WP:SIZESPLIT worry to contend with. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Zxcvbnm and Axem here. Czar's original comment that the game is basically the same is still true, and the prose in this draft generally reflects it. The development section in particular basically says "They wanted to release it with the Mobile System GB", and a summary style approach to the content would fit well in the original. Nomader (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support – Although it's a bit on the thinner side, I think there's sufficient content in the proposed draft and notability of Crystal itself to let this be a standalone article. That being said, since it's not that heavy of an article, it staying merged with Gold and Silver isn't especially problematic. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll update my stance here to a weak support. The article seems to have a decent amount of Crystal-exclusive content, likely enough to support a standalone article, though Zxcvbnm's comment makes good points and is keeping me from anything more than a 'weak' support. DecafPotato (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Isabelle Belato: Discussion seems to have ended. Since you closed the last discussion, mind closing this one? QuicoleJR (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I'm really impressed at the Crystal draft I'm seeing here, and though neither of these two articles are particularly long, I do believe the distinction is helpful. I will note that the Development and Reception sections are completely unique, and I very much appreciate that the Gameplay and Plot sections don't repeat any content from the Gold and Silver article either (though maybe it actually should give a bit more background on the gameplay and plot of Pokémon games). This is very nice work! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The draft consists of copy that should be covered within the main article (once the trivia is removed) for the main article to have GA breadth. There is little distinguishing this version of the game from its others, as the sources abundantly cover and as we discussed just four months ago. czar 11:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Third versions don't have their own separate articles for the same reasons a lot of expansions/DLCs don't have their own separate articles. Third versions are almost identical to the main two games. The former is like DLC while the latter is like the base game. What is different about Crystal? One can't even count with five fingers what's different from Gold/Silver. Once you answer the question about what's different, one no longer has a case for a separate article. You just end up with a list and content that's superfluous to the content in the Gold/Silver article. This is like if every version of Windows 10 had their own separate article. It's just more work that needs to be done (for editors and readers alike). Trimming the fat is sometimes the way to go rather than adding filler to the encyclopedia. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In regards to the opposition because there are insignificant changes or differences. I do not agree that should be a factor in opposing a split. If there is enough development and reception based on the changes/revisions whether they are praising or criticizing it, then that should be the only thing that matters when questioning notability or a split, In my humble opinion. Pokemon Crystal may not have had a strong reaction during its initial release, but in retrospect, has gained a lot of appreciation over the years that is unique to Crystal and not Gold/Silver verifiable. What I will admit is that there is barely a Development section.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.