Talk:Pokémon Diamond and Pearl

Archives

---

1. June 2005 – October 2006
2. October 2006 –– February 2007
3. February 2007 –– September 2007

A third archive made

Old page got stuffed again, so moved it. Maybe now we can focus on a major issue I think needs further addressing. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 09:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Page move. Again.

The page move was not discussed. Why was it done? What can be done to move it back? It wasn't discussed either. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 09:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)confusion on my part

Fair use rationale for Image:Diamond and Pearl Japanese PokéDex View.gif

Image:Diamond and Pearl Japanese PokéDex View.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Third Game?

There's a rumor floating around that an interview with a dev team member revealed a third game in the 4th gen trilogy: allegedly named Jade. Should we address this? ProjectPlatinum 16:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No, because it's a rumor. Rumors do not belong here. -Sukecchi 16:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's never gonna happen. 67.182.178.220 02:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Jade is a hacked game and is not official. Its Pokemon are weird too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willythechilly5 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if this rumor (if it exists) originated from the fact that there were two bootleg GBC games, Diamond and Jade (has nothing to do with Diamond/Pearl for the DS...the fact there are two games named Diamond is a mere coincidence). These bootleg games are hacks of the Power and Speed versions of Keitai Denjuu Telefang (which is a completely different series), respectively. TanookiMario257 23:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Pokedex?

This page could be more useful with an accurate pokedex for viewers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.22.196 (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 00:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Number of species

Do we REALLY need to mention how many species their are when you count all UNown forms, Shellos and Gastrodon, forms, Deoxys, Arceus ect...? It seems rather trivial. The Placebo Effect 01:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It is trivial, and completely unneeded. If all of the different forms are going to be included in the numbers then it may as well just be doubled when shinies are taken into account. MelicansMatkin 04:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, you don't count the different breeds of domestic dogs when counting all the mammal species.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 05:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Suke, or w/e the hell your name is, we should be able to list that part as I do not see wtf the problem in doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by V-Dash (talk • contribs) 22:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because you don't see a problem, it doesn't justify that you should start an edit war on it. There are numerous policies and guidelines, a few summarised in WP:NOT, that allow us, the editors, to seem what you keep adding back in as "unnecessary". - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 22:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

My name is Sukecchi, buku. The problem is: there are 493 species of Pokemon. Not 526. Unown is one species, Arceus is one species, Gastrodon is one species. Get it now? They are variations. Not separate. The Pokedex shows you their variations. -Sukecchi 23:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break. If you're going to whine about it, then fine. But don't get mad at me for showing your hypocrisy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by V-Dash (talk • contribs) 22:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC) This is getting rather bothersome and it needs to stop. I am no longer reverting it to avoid 3RR. V-Host, an IP, and another user insist on adding this. Me thinks some trickery is going on, buku. -Sukecchi 15:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This game is an RPG

Console RPG? BS. It's either an RPG or it's not.V-Dash 04:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, here's the difference. A role-playing game happens in the real world. A simple description would be "acting with a system," since it's acting out your part with a more often than not completely original story, documentation, written-down stats, etc. A console role-playing game, on the other hand, is a video game, which does all the stats and storylines and everything for you automatically. It's a video game with statistical systems derived from "pen and paper" (the "traditional") RPGs. Now, in the context of video games, which your websites will always be in the context of, "RPG" is a nice blanket term that will cover every derivative of pen-and-paper RPGs (console RPGs, computer RPGs, tactics RPG, action RPGs, what have you). Now, the thing is, we actually have to differentiate between all of that and assign a game the most accurate RPG genre. Now, Pokémon can't be called a real life RPG where the players actually act everything out, but it's definitely a video game that includes game mechanics and, frequently, settings derived from those of traditional role-playing games; the Pokémon series is even presented as the best-selling CRPG series worldwide. So could you please not see in black-and-white and raise a stink over us including one more word for the sake of accuracy?—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 05:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you quit making this so damn complicated. Every mainstream site has Pokemon D/P listed as RPGs. Hell, even Nintendo called them RPGs. Face it, it matters not what kind of RPG it is, an RPG is still an RPG.

And going by your logic, RPGs can't be called RPGs either because they're associating with the weapon used in the military.V-Dash 05:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Can i ask what the problem is with being specific? The Placebo Effect 05:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Because, it's silly. The article reads it as an RPG, so the table should do the same. V-Dash 14:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you not read? A role-playing game takes place in the real world. It's people that are actually role-playing. A console role-playing game is a video game with those elements. Or is it just that everyone is wrong but you?—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 14:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Do I have to use logic again? An RPG is still an RPG. RPGs started out as tabletop games, but they evolved into the RPGs you see today. Calling Pokemon a console RPG is just plain out stupid. V-Dash 14:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No, we are using logic. You are starting a revert war over ONE WORD that has been decided on inthe past and now as a better word to use because it is more descriptive. And BTW, the reason other sites just call it an RPG is because a) it easier to call it an RPG than a console RPG, and b)They aren't encyclopedias, we are. And did you even read the other arguments? Because your arguments read like you didn't or are ignorant of them. The Placebo Effect 15:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No, if you were using logic, you would have a more thought out reason why Pokemon isn't an RPG. No, what you guys are using is called strawmen. And before you get your pants in a bunch, a strawman is an illogical statement for a simple description. I am not calling you guys strawmen. I am referring to your statements. Thought I'd explain myself before you get all bent out of shape. Anyhow, major sites list Pokemon as an RPG because IT IS A FUCKING RPG. Even Nintendo says so.

Pokémon Diamond Category: RPG, System: Nintendo DS, ESRB: E, Release Date Apr 22, 2007

Screenshots | Artwork Accessories | Download Manual

Taken from: http://www.nintendo.com/search?query=pokemon+diamond&category=all

According to you lot's statements concerning Nintendo and Zelda, if Nintendo says what their games are, then that's the official genre. Well Nintendo says it's an RPG. Looks like you lost this argument.20:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with using the appropriate sub-genre? Do you just like engaging in edit wars? And we aren't saying "Pokemon isn't an RPG"< we are merly describing what type of RPG it is. The Placebo Effect 20:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't this violated WP:3RR yet? I would be honestly shocked if it hasn't by this point. MelicansMatkin 20:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, V-Dash has, if you want to report it, go to WP:AN/3RR/ The Placebo Effect 20:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I double-checked; he still has two more revision to go before he violates 3RR. 3RR doesn't include the first revision made. MelicansMatkin 20:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he has. See this 3RR report I compiled. The Placebo Effect 20:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, my mistake. Looks like I missed an edit in my scouring. Thanks for the correction, Placebo! MelicansMatkin 21:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was wrong, it was one edit and three reverts. The Placebo Effect 21:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Give it up Placebo. This argument has turned against you. Nintendo calls it an RPG, NOT a console RPG. Of course, you'd accuse me of MP w/e the hell that stands for just because my link had more evidence than any of your words. What's wrong, going to get Wikipedia to block me because I just gave supporting evidence, or are you trying to call Nintendo wrong on their own franchise?V-Dash 20:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, NIntendo calls Phantom Hourglass an Adventure, not an RPG. You can not use an argument once and then ignore it some where else The Placebo Effect 20:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

And a cop out won't help. You just don't want to admit that Nintendo has proven you wrong. V-Dash 21:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That's some real faulty logic. As should be stated for this entire edit war you've started, editors have frequently disagreed with your edit. This basically outnumbers you, and the argument that "Nintendo is proving us wrong" is none of our concern. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 21:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Faulty logic? Compared to the self contradicting statements here, that's more of a plus. It's not my fault if Nintendo proved you all wrong. V-Dash 23:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What part of "Conole RPGs are still RPGs" don't you understand? The Placebo Effect 23:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

More sources point to calling it an RPG. Unless a source arises saying it's a "Console RPG" which I've personally never heard of, than it can be added, but at this point, it seems that the way it is officially labeled, it is an RPG, plain and simple Balladofwindfishes 01:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. If Wikipedia is all about sources, then why isn't Pokemon D/P called an RPG? ALL sources label it as an RPG. It's the same as Dragon Quest Monsters. They are RPGs. If you guys aren't going to pay attention to the sources, then why in blue hell are they on the page? Deny it all you want, but you lot, Suke and Placebo, have lost this time. Nintendo themselves label it as an RPG evident by the link I provided. V-Dash 01:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Gamespot calls it a Console RPG, never use the word "all". The Placebo Effect 01:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Gamespot =/= Nintendo. V-Dash 03:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Nintendo only calls it an RPG because the main subject matter of their site is video games. Therefore, for Nintendo to say "Console RPG" is redundant because what other kind of RPG does Nintendo make? However, Wikipedia is by anyone, for anyone, is supposed to be written so that anyone and everyone will understand. So here, we need to get more specific with "Console RPG" whether or not Nintendo does. Ya dig? -- POWERSLAVE 04:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the brass tacks - both "RPG" and "CRPG" are correct, since the former term is used to describe both video and paper-and-pen role-playing games, more often the former than the latter. In fact, in a similar discussion over at Talk:Dungeons & Dragons, someone brought up that it's more confusing to use just "RPG" when referring to P&PRPGs because the video game industry has coopted the term. If you were to go up to a layperson and ask them to describe "RPG", nine times out of ten you'll get "Final Fantasy" or "Pokémon" in response. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling that this is going to end up on WP:LAME. Marlith ^T/C 05:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I applaud your omniscience. east.718 at 06:40, 11/6/2007

ITs not lame, its just one disruptive user. The Placebo Effect 06:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's an infobox dispute, isn't it? We should use more specific terms for the infobox. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 08:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

!vote

opening up a !vote to see where consesnus stands.

Console RPG

1. The Placebo Effect 07:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
2. This seems ludicrous, but what the hell. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 08:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
3. This wouldn't be necessary if a certain someone would have discussed this here rather than going on a wild revert war. -Sukecchi 10:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Way to blow something out of proportion. I don't see how the word "Console" could offend someone so much. -- POWERSLAVE 12:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
5. This is probably the most ridiculous edit war I have ever seen. V-Dash, I suggest that you read WP:Consensus. MelicansMatkin 18:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Other

<Carlin>The whole thing is fuckin' pointless!</Carlin> To the layperson, "RPG" means the likes of Pokemon and Final Fantasy and Breath of Fire, et al. Say "Console RPG", and you'll more likely than not get the response "You mean there's more than one kind?" While P&PRPGs are popular, they're relatively unknown to the layperson, and thus the term "RPG" has been more-or-less taken over by the video game industry. That's the truth of the matter; Urutapu's assessment at the top is misguided at best and uninformed at worst. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 08:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This is stupid. Ok, first of all, Nintendo called it an RPG. That's it, it's Nintendo's word against yours. If Nintendo said Pikachu was a rodent, then it is a rodent. Nintendo owns Pokemon, not you. Nintendo funds Pokemon, not you. Nintendo license Pokemon, not you. It's just like you were saying about Zelda PH. Nintendo said it was an Action Adventure game. Ok. Nintendo said Pokemon is an RPG, but yet you want to argue it down that it isn't. This vote thing is just plain out stupid and ridiculous. You guys are contradicting your words big time. It's a load of bs. V-Dash 17:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again, we ARE saying it's an RPG. The reason Nintendo doesn't call it a Console RPG is because that would be redundant. And Console RPG is more specific. If you don't like it, you don't have to edit this pge, but as the fact stands, consensus is against you. And we are not contridicting are words. BTW, look at Final Fantasy articles and other Portable Pokemon Game articles. Every Video game that is an RPG is called a Console RPG. So unless you are going to change all those articles, leave this one alone. The Placebo Effect 17:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Nintendo doesn't call it a Console RPG because it is an RPG. You just hate to admit that Nintendo handed your ass to you. Remember Place, Nintendo's word > your word when it comes to THEIR own franchises. Simply put, Nintendo knows what the hell to call their games...as yo lot have stated countless times on the PH talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by V-Dash (talk • contribs) 01:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be against you. WP:Consensus. -Sukecchi 01:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Like you would know what that word means...V-Dash 03:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

General agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision making and follow-up action. We've discussed this, and you alone don't overturn everyone else and ...well, rationality.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 03:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Be careful...none of you would want to violate WP:POINT either. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 09:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Too bad Nintendo shot your pathetic ideas down on Pokemon D/P being console RPGs. V-Dash 18:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

V-Dash, did you even read what A. Exeunt posted? It applies to you too. Just accept that consensus is against you. Stop attacking other editors. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, the first step is in treating other editors politely. I suggest that you read WP:Etiquette, WP:POINT, WP:Civility, WP:Consensus, WP:NPA, and WP:DR. You have gone against every single one of these policies, and if you expect anyone to respect your opinions you need to follow them first. MelicansMatkin 20:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I think you're just ticked that Nintendo disproved your "Console RPG" point.V-Dash 01:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I honestly have no real opinion on whether to keep it as "Console RPG" or change it to "RPG". My concern is with your conduct towards other editors. MelicansMatkin 01:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved?

I would like to know if this issue on whether it should be listed as a Console RPG or just plain RPG has been resolved yet so that unprotection can be requested. Are we agreed that it remains as Console RPG (as consensus seems to currently suggest), or do we need to take this a step further and request for mediation? MelicansMatkin 02:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say request unprotection and if V-Dash continues to change it, he can be Blokced for disruptive editing. The Placebo Effect 02:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

...we don't have to resort to taking off every 'ArbCom' here, do we? -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 05:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This should not need to go to Arbcom.The Placebo Effect 05:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Since there seems to be a healthy discussion with a consensus reached, I've unprotected the page. east.718 at 05:31, 11/9/2007

Continued Edit Warring Warning

I would like to quote this from the 3RR warning that is placed on a user's talk page: Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. This is a warning to all who are involved in the current edit warring, and who are not technically violating 3RR. MelicansMatkin 01:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Please report me at WP:AN/3RR as I broke 3RR The Placebo Effect 01:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I am blocking both V-Dash (1 week) and Placebo (24 hrs) for 3RR. V's blcok is much longer given as he has a history of edit-warring. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This should be nominated for the lamest edit wars. The entire point of this site is to be descriptive and hell even a fanboy such as myself can see the difference between real role playing and console role playing games.--MrBubbles 22:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it qualifys because it was started by one consistantly disruptive user. The Placebo Effect 22:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you are all wrong. Dash is right. Pokemon D/P are RPGs, not console RPGs. DOTEmerzon 22:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong; it's either/or. Both are acceptable. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: DOTEmerzon's edits link with V-Dash's. I've filed a checkuser request; if it's him, he's evading his block. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

CU came back Possible that V-Dash = DOTEmerzon. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any doubt. DOTEmerzon has been editing in the same style as V-dash. It's definitely a puppet. RegalStar 00:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that V-Dash is ri-- Wait ... what am I saying? He's wrong as hell about it. :D Action (05:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Action22579 (talk • contribs)

An IP seems to want to restart the Console RPG bull crap. -Sukecchi (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

AND the number of species line too. The Placebo Effect (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, V-Dash is 48 hours away from the end of his block (lengthened once for puppetry as DOTEmerzon (I lengthened it again, but reversed that)). During his block, there have been no less than four accounts trying to impersonate him so his block will be extended; treat him with kid gloves and keep an eye on his userpage and any pages or posts involving a "Dash Jr.". -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Pokemon could be accepted as both RPG and console-RPG. In my opinion, the term RPG applies to those such as Dungeons and Dragons, as well as those like Final Fantasy because they both have the same type of stucture. --Darkdemon90 14:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkdemon90

Japanese cover artwork

Whatever happened to the Japanese cover artwork?

I think we should also include Japanese cover artwork on Pokémon video game pages. Is there any way we could do this?

(Just because they were made in Japan and sold in Japan, it seems to be...original unlike the US cover artwork.)

76.233.81.56 (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason, since there's only one difference between any US and Japanese artwork – whether the logo is in Japanese or English. And did you have to post this on every single game article?—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 00:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Remember, anything that seems cool and unique is not allowed. Hence why they still think Pokemon is a Console RPG despite Nintendo proving them wrong. V-Dash (talk) 05:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Either/or, V-Dash. Explain Dungeons & Dragons, more specifically all its video game adaptations. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 07:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

(What do genres have to do with being cool and unique?)—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 14:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not genre. Something is only cool and unique if it goes against consensus. RegalStar (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Reason enough to discuss info on the 3rd title

If Serebii found out info about a third D/P title, how can we handle that?V-Dash (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

We ignore it. Serebii.net is a fansite, and is not a reliable source. Information will be added when (and only when) there is an official announcement from Nintendo, The Pokemon Company, or another reliable source such as CoroCoro, regarding the release of a companion game to Diamond and Pearl. MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

One could have merely asked WP:PCP - they (and I) have had enough experience with Serebii to know that they aren't always right (legendary Blaziken, legendary Lucario, etc.) and that even hardcore fans take a dose of Serebii with a pinch of salt. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

True, but Melican, Coronis is a documented and official source. Of course, no one is perfect and Serebii is far from being the best Pokemon site. But you have to remember that Wikipedia isn't official, but more official than Serebii.V-Dash (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia IS official cause we get our info from official sources only. The Placebo Effect (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Not necessary. True, you get your info. from official sources, but does that make Wikipedia any more official than Serebii? To some extent maybe, but not enough for Wikipedia to be 100% official. Why? Free editing. A properly done research paper with documented sources isn't official despite getting info and documenting it from official sources.V-Dash (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a big difference between Serebii and Wikipedia, V-Dash. Serebii.net is a fansite, while Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. They are two very different things. When new information is added to Wikipedia, sources are cited in text. That is not the case with Serebii, or other fansites. Two people does not a reliable source make. This has been discussed to death many, many times before. If you want further answers, take it to WP:PCP and they will explain it better than I can. MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

One more thing...the use of Serebii.net in citations may violate WP:SPS, so bear that in mind. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 07:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is the article smaller in size?

It used to be a lot bigger than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by V-Dash (talk • contribs) 15:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, not really. The article has been within 1K of 29K throughout its history. If anything, it's grown larger. Check the history of the article. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It still feels a bit smaller.V-Dash (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

And...what are we supposed to do about that? Do you suggest quantity is quality?—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 01:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is an encyclopedia right? Albeit, a biased one, but still an encyclopedia right?V-Dash (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can expand the article with meaningful content and source it properly, please do so. Don';t complain that it seems short when you are perfectly capable of expanding it. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I was attacked when I expanded the article.V-Dash (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You didn't expand the article; you blew the bugle and led the 7th Cavalry. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Your last edit to the article was November 11th, and all you had done to the article in the entire week before that was change it from CRPG to RPG. That is hardly an expansion. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is he still following me? Anyhow, I also added some tidbits about the species. And btw, this game is an RPG as stated by Nintendo. If DQM Joker is an RPG, stated by its article, then Pokemon D/P are RPGs. But don't even think about messing up the Joker article.V-Dash (talk) 08:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is following you, the page happens to be on both of our watchlists. Stop being paranoid. And don't even think about trying to start that CRPG/RPG debate. MelicansMatkin (talk) 11:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not. It seems like everywhere I turn, Jeske is right there behind me.V-Dash (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That's because this page and Dungeons and Dragons are on my watchlist, as is your TP, AN/I, etc. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

So? Women's restroom is in the same bldg as a men's restroom, but does that mean for you to waltz right on in?V-Dash (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Please take disputes between users to user talk. This page is for discussing the article. Friday (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Lengthening the intro a bit

It's… a little short. Last time I put effort into it, it still had a bit of a summary of the rest of the article - in its current revision, it lacks this. Allow me to stress that the guidelines have stressed that it'd be a summary. What could we do to lengthen it again? (And subsequently allow it to apply for FAC.) - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 08:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibility of a 3rd game

Shouldn't there be a discussion on the possibility of D/P's enhancement?V-Dash (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can find sources that mention it that are from a reputable source, then yes, we can. The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are you so stubborn that you keep bringing this up? -Sukecchi (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Well it could be a very relevant thing to add the this page. I think there will be another classic Pokemon game on the DS, as Nintendo has stated that they want it to last. But, I'm not a source and Wikipedia isn't for speculation. -Anthony- (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

True, but even Wikipedia's contradictory state can tell that Nintendo will plan a 3rd title of D/P. Suke, I am not being stubborn.V-Dash (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are. This has been discussed and removed over and over again, Why do you keep bringing it up? Nothing is going to change until there is physical evidence of a third game. -Sukecchi (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.--DarkFierceDeityLink 02:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You poor guys, facing fact over fiction. Too bad past evidence proves to be the latter.V-Dash (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS. Learn about it, V-Dash. I will revert any more resurrection of the JRPG vs. RPG debate as disruption to make a point. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

WE agree that there will most likly be a third game. However, we need an offical source to add this to the article. The Placebo Effect (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought he was referring to the debate. I also agree there will likely be a third game. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can't make a point if an Admin's breaking the 3RR rule.V-Dash (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Your point has been brought forth, debated, and it has been decided that until information on such a release is announced, there is no need to include it here. What Nintendo has done in the past will not necessarily affect the present. Lets not forget that Gen I originally had four games, Gen II had three, and Gen III had five. If you glorify the past, the future dries up. MelicansMatkin (talk) 10:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Daily events

Okay, I always do the daily events in the game. Why aren't they listed in the article? Slapmeorelse (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Listing every single one would be really crufty. It's one thing to mention different things happen one day and mention one or two as examples, but listing all of them is too much.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 02:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh?

Would someone please explain what the hell the difference between the two games is? Scanning over the article I have no idea. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 07:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That's something for Gamefaqs. Any information like that would turn the article into a game guide. -Sukecchi (talk) 11:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, because as an encyclopaedia we shouldn't distinguish between different games! I know, let's merge Tetris with Halo 3. I think this is a pretty bloody fundamental thing, just like Samneric these games are treated as 'Diamond and Pearl'. Why are there two games? What's the difference? This article treats them basically as a single entity. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 13:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

For our intents and puposes, the diffrences between the two games it trivial. Both games are the same except for a few pokemon you don't find, and we don't mention that kind of stuff The Placebo Effect (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps THAT should be mentioned? A nice "The differences between the games are trivial" sentence? It's (probably) not going to kill anyone. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 14:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

it is and try to be more civil Blue-EyesGold Dragon 16:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I am civil. I am also forceful, and you may have misperceived that as incivility. The deteriorating levels on Wikipedia are shocking, and I am doing my best not to murder the other editors. Scanning over my posts I don't see anything offensive or contrary to policy, although if you feel offended you have an apology, but I don't believe myself to be at fault here. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 14:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC) PS: Where is it mentioned? That should be fairly prominent, most likely something for the introduction. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 14:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It may just be me, but I don't think he was acting uncivil...but the point still stands that that kind of information is trivial. -Sukecchi (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think it needs to be mentioned why two games exisist that are almost perfectly the same. I would support a statement in the article that mentioned this fact, without naming all the pokemon. The Placebo Effect (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what my edit was doing, though I don't think my citation was the best one in the world. While the difference is very small, I really don't see why it hurts to at least summarise it in one sentence. I know that Wikipedia is not a guidebook, but an one-sentence summary is not going to count as a guidebook to anybody, and there's no other counter-argument to it so far on this page. I'm interested in knowing exactly why it's "going to kill anyone". RegalStar (talk) 07:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It could easily confuse a casual gamer who has little knowledge on Pokemon. Well, purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide accurate information, and that my friends is very accurate information to be told.67.33.234.248 (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You guys need to stop being one sided and stuck up about this article and make it more indepth for people who do NOT know much about Pokemon. Just because you know the differences doesn't mean someone else will.V-Dash (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia. All we'd need to do is state that there is variance in the two games and that would satisfy the concerns. I'll add it in right now. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

People seem to have misinterpreted what I want, I don't want a massive comparison section, I want one or two bloody sentences that tell us why there are two games, instead of treating the subject as Diamondandpearl. And all I am greeted with is obnoxious users shoving irrelevant policy in my face, assuming worst faith possible. Good god, what happened to WP:IAR and friendly good-faith editors? It's irrelevant what the policy says, if it fits in the article, is topical and causes no harm, why the hell not? For the record we're not all Pokémon fanatics and I've never played a Pokémon game, could we bloody well get a simple explanatory introduction? I am warmly expecting your responses and references to policy 44.2 §4a sub§§k-x. The only people left on Wikipedia are bureaucrats. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 14:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Such is what many unfamiliar with Wikipedia think it is; I only added a short one-or-two sentence paragraph under the "Connectivity to other games" section. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wha? You're assuming I know what you're assuming I'm assuming. Please clarify. And I am not unfamiliar with Wikipedia, I came, I saw, I left. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm actually referring to the general attitude of anons who want to improve any article related to video games en generale. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 11:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"And all I am greeted with is obnoxious users shoving irrelevant policy in my face, assuming worst faith possible." your not talking about me are you O_o --Blue-EyesGold Dragon 00:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I actually didn't mean you. But please don't mistake other things for incivility, although if you're offended I again extend an apology, I see no need to make enemies but don't hide my views in order to make friends either. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont remember posting that here, and i dont see any reason that it should of been posted, sorry ^_^ --Blue-EyesGold Dragon 21:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Um. Last time I checked all they did was saying something that counters your suggestion, and you responded with a large paragraph filled with sarcastic comments. You got your wish - a sentence was added to signify the difference between the games. Can you please stop attacking now? RegalStar (talk) 07:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not attacking, sarcasm, you may have forgotten, is a form of humour. The sentence is by far insufficient, I find our little break-down in communication ridiculous, let me provide an analogy with what my problem with this article is. Imagine the clock and watch article were merged into "Clock and watch". The intro would just say a 'Clock and watch' is a time-telling device, and would treat them as a single entity all the way through. Then someone posts on the talk, but what's the difference between the two? And he gets yelled down for trying to turn Wikipedia into a watch-making website. Get it? I know next to nothing about Pokémon, and as such am bewildered by why this article treats two, wholly separate, if similar, games as a single entity. I don't mind a single article, but can we at least acknowledge they exist separately? A nice "The games are distinguished by the presence of blah in Diamond, and with limited connectivity to blah in Pearl" (as an example) sentence in the intro would be great for a start and perhaps a bit on the twin games phenomenon in the history section, but if many here struggle with the concept of a single sentence I am loathe to suggest a whole new subtopic for the history section, lest I be eaten alive. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 13:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Diamond_and_Pearl&diff=181280889&oldid=181070573 Why are you still on this, then? RegalStar (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone even read what I post anymore? I should highlight key-words for some people. Notably, introduction, read the analogy, and possibly, history section. I am on this because I just made a last attempt to explain I did not come here in bad faith, I came here bearing daisies and dancing in the meadows (kind of, anyway), and was dismissed as a crackpot from the start. (You can't be crazy if they really are after you... *shifty eyes*) I am, however, appalled if this is the standard on Wikipedia these days. Then again, I'm on a Pokémon article, so what do I expect... If you want, I'll go away, but think about what you've done, unless you're preoccupied by your Pokémon's latest mutations and have lost the ability to think (perhaps in exchange for fire-breathing or something). Your collective lack in social skills is sad, this all arose from an extremely simple breakdown in communication. I don't think what I've said constitutes a personal attack but if you feel it does you have an apology. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 05:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not just add a section detailing the differences between the two games? You guys can not assume that everyone will already know, and you can't go off saying there's sites like GameFAQs and such... If you don't like it, then don't read it, but the article is for everyone's benefit...not just yours.V-Dash (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what is called cruft and is disallowed. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Again you speak in a tongue different from the masses...V-Dash (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

With what word? Disallowed? He gave a link to the defention of "Cruft". And V-Dash, all you do is complain about things on talk pages. Why do you still come here if nothing we do will make you happy? The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because you are all trying to speak for everyone. Not everyone knows the difference between D/P. Not everyone can go through GameFAQs and find the answer. Some people dislike GameFAQs. If this encyclopedia is too damn uppity to at least state the differences between D/P, then there's really no use to suggest people to come here because it is really a load of contradiction.V-Dash (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There are short summaries of the game's differences in two separate places on the page. This is a nil issue now.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 05:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

With that small sentence, I know EXACTLY what the difference between diamond and pearl is - Different Pokemons are available in different versions. I don't think that can be made plainer. If you're looking for an exact list, then too bad - like it or not, Wikipedia isn't a place for that. Sorry if we're not your idealized version. Go create your own or something. RegalStar (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Or he can just go to Bulbapedia, which has that sort of info. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Bulbapedia is a good Wiki, but it is still not a good tool for people who aren't familiar with areas like Bulbapedia. It'd be much easier to give them a general idea of the differences.V-Dash (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Which we have already done. Stop pressing the matter, V-Dash. The one sentence I added is enough. Too much detail is a violation of NOT. Further, aren't *we* a wiki and thus not a good toop for people who aren't familiar with them? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 15:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

A sentence doesn't do much justice Jeske. And yes, I am aware this is a Wiki. BUT, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia that *claims* to use official sources.V-Dash (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources have absolutely no bearing on whether something sourced deserves more than one sentence on Wikipedia, V-Dash. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 17:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

And you can't send everyone to Bulbapedia regardless if it's a Wiki or not. This article's sole purpose is to give general information about D/P. Well guess what, the differences is general information Jeske.V-Dash (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

And thus the sentence there stating that there are differences suffices. Going any further into it is game guide, which is explicitly disallowed. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, V-Dash, the point is the article does explain the difference between the two games. Putting lists of what Pokémon are in what games is nothing but a game guide, which Wikipedia is not.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 19:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok... Then going by that logic, the Pokedex entries should be removed to. Remember, this isn't a game guide.. But seriously, you guys aren't helping much in improving the article.V-Dash (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No, by that logic we're fine. All we said is that trading between languages will give you that Pokédex entry.

How are you helping, anyway? All you do is instigate conflict.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 20:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is a pisspoor explanation detailing the differences between Diamond and Pearl.V-Dash (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There are few differences, V-Dash, and the difference are all listed. Instead of trying to instigate conflict, why not try editing the articles without trying to engage in an edit war? MelicansMatkin (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fine. I will add in a differences section that will only be general info. But don't come giving me any toss about Wiki this and Wiki that.V-Dash (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

Just a reminder to everone currently involved in removing or restoring allegedly unrelated comments from this talk page: Be mindful of the 3 revert rule. These comments don't look like they fall under any exceptions to the 3RR like "obvious vandalism", so be careful because you might find yourself blocked even if you think your edits are constructive — TheBilly^(Talk) 06:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The Glitches section is irrelevant to the article

It talks about the Jpn versions, so is that really any relevancy to keep the section there?DeathMark (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Nintendo had to make an announcement and distribute a patch to rectify its mistake, so it's important to the history of the games.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 19:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That's all been taken care of. It has no revelancy to the US versions.DeathMark (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the game's history, development, and background in its entirety.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 09:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

So the Japanese version doesn't matter anymore just because the English version is out? Yeah, that's a silly way of thinking. -Sukecchi (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The Japanese versions were the first-ones released. Nintendo caught the glitch and issued patches to fix it. If that hadn't happened, the English-language games would have the glitch too. Yeah, I think it's pretty relevent to the article. What does the language matter? It's the same game. MelicansMatkin (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so the games had glitches in them. But that's all been said and done. There's no need to have the section there anymore. Game's history? That's still sort of irrelevant to add to the article.DeathMark (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on Wikipedia we care more about the game's background (development history, etc.) more than things like the plot.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 19:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you understand it's relevant to the game's history? It's important because it existed. End of story. -Sukecchi (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, so if it's not about the US, it shouldn't be on wikipedia? The history and development of games, no matter where they are from, is important!  Doktor  Wilhelm  19:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the D/P article is to give people general information regarding to the games. The glitches section is best left in either a small subsection of the Pokemon games in general or on fan sites and gaming sites like GameFAQs or IGN. On Wikipedia, the information is very irrelevant and kind of pointless.DeathMark (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

How can three sentences be made any smaller? You're fighting a losing battle. Nothing you're going to say is going to convince us the section isn't necessary. -Sukecchi (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not irrelevent or pointless because it details the development of the game. Should Missingno be removed? I'm afraid that consensus is against you, DeathMark. MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, so are we going to detail how Gamefreak came up with the Pokemon names then? You can not nit and pick on what details go in and what details don't go in. I'm afraid that consensus is well within my side. The glitches section is pretty much useless information on the D/P page. But on the Pokemon glitches page, you know, the actual page dedicated to game glitches for Pokemon, that would be well within grounds of being useful. But here, it is not.DeathMark (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Consensus" is an overall general opinion of the involved editors. It's not on your side so far as numerous editors have already expressed the use of the section you're arguing about. The fact that the glitches happened is a rather significant thing that was worth a press release (and it has citations). Your argument about documenting on Pokémon names? That could go into the development section… if it had sources. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 20:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)