Talk:Pokémon Black and White/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

db-histmerge

I was just wondering why the db-histmerge template appears on this page. I couldn't find a talk page entry explaining it.JHobbs103 (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

From what I can gather, two versions were created: Pokémon Black and White and Pokémon White and Black. The White and Black page was then shifted into this one, meaning that the edit history of both needs to be incorporated. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 13:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not putting an explanatory note on the talk page. I had been waiting for 20 minutes or so for the site to stop being "read only", so I finally got the edit to go through and was done with it. The main issue is that, when Pokémon White and Black was redirected to this page, its content was copy-and-pasted here, so the original author must be attributed. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Game card capacity

Right now, the article indicates that the games are going to be released on 512-megabit cards. How do we know for sure that the 512-megabit cards are going to be used instead of higher-capacity cards such as the 1024-megabit cards that are used for some of the other DS games? --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I imagine that it was just an infobox copy/paste from one of the other games; HGSS if I remember from the edit summaries. More then likely they either forgot to remove it when pasting, or they just didn't even consider that it might be different. I'll remove it now until we have confirmation about the card size. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 17:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there any word yet on what the actual game card size is? I'd like that to be clarified in the infobox so it doesn't remain commented out. Melicans (talk, contributions) 16:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Fall 2010

I feel this isn't very clear, is it Aus autumn, US fall, or Japan's fall/autumn. I assume it's the latter. But my point is that months are the same time all around the world, seasons are not.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No exact month has yet been given. "Fall 2010" is as clear as we can be at the moment I am afraid. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 05:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Japanese website says the game is to be released in the "Fall of 2010". You should assume it's Japan's fall because that's where the game is being released.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Japan's fall = the United States' fall. Theleftorium 09:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That too.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with IAmTheCoinMan as per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Longer_periods. -- ianiceboy (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

But no date is given. We can't give anything more specific because it does not exist.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Reception

The reception section in this article was entirely unnecessary. The author of the piece is complaining about the titles of the games being uninspiring and also how it's not coming out on a system that won't be out for a year from now when the games are at least to be released in 2010. I've removed it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if you think his complaints aren't valid, the piece comes from a reliable source. Reception is listed as an "essential" section at WP:VG/GL, and at the moment this is all there is. Once again, even if his complaints seem silly, it is perfectly good reception. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

But the game is not out yet. Why would there be a reception section at all? Right now, all he's discussing are the titles and the fact that it's not on the 3DS which we have in the article anyway. One opinion piece posted on a website should not be used as a source. If it were an actual review, then there wouldn't be a problem. But all he's reviewing are the basic things that we have in the page already: "Black", "White", and "Nintendo DS".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Even some reception is better than nothing at all. The article states his opinion over the naming scheme, and what this could entail. Stop being a butcher. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 13:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Reception doesn't have to be a review written after playing the game. If somebody doesn't like something about it, and posts it as a reliable source, then it is reception. It doesn't matter if it is now, or a year from now. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

But is this particular opinion piece on GamesRadar.com even a reliable source? It's just someone whinging about a game that's six months from release. Is he a regular contributor for the British site? Or is he just someone who occasionally writes things? Editorials are not reliable sources as far as I am aware.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes! It is perfect! Reception doesn't have to be "IGN gave this game a 6/10 because it had horrible graphics". Reception is how people feel about the game, and how they react to it. What they think was wrong with it, or what was amazing, and really made the game. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

But all the reaction is to the fact that the games are going to be titled "Black" and "White" and that they're not going to be on the 3DS. That's not a review of anything. He's saying what he think is going to be wrong with the games because he thinks Black and White are sucky titles. The "review" is not necessary for the article. The news piece is not what he thinks about the game. It's what he thinks about the title and about it not being on a system that won't be out by release date.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

And why isn't that valid reception? You are looking at it all wrong. He thinks Black and White are bad names, because it makes the game look like it will have Black and White graphics. He thinks it is a bad move not waiting to release the game until the 3DS is out. Those are completely valid points. You don't have to agree with what he is saying. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, I reverted a removal earlier by an IP thinking it was vandalism, but after reading this discussion I find myself agreeing with Ryulong. This isn't really reception; it' more of a knee-jerk reaction to the announcement. Reception is a full and thoughtful review of the material at hand. This is just a guy saying that he doesn't like the names. Not quite the same thing. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

@Blake: Exactly what Melicans is saying. This isn't reception or a review. It's a guy saying "Black and White are horrible titles; it makes me think of the black and white graphics in the Game Boy. Here is what I would have called it if they put it on a system that comes out six months after the planned release date of these two games." This says nothing about the games or what he thinks about them and it provides nothing to the reader.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Reception is bluntly "a receation". You shouldnt just pick and choose what that reaction is on. The title is a key part of the game. Salavat (talk) 09:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is just him saying he doesn't like how it's Pokemon Black and Pokemon White. It does not provide the reader with any information other than this guy hates the titles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeh but its not just him saying he doesnt like them. He does have a reason which is the same as someone else saying they dont like the gameplay or the fact that someone thinks pokemon has gone to far, there all valid opinions and should be included if they are within the scope of reception towards the game. Salavat (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not relevant to the article. And it really does not add anything other than a "reception" for which it's merely reacting to just the names. If the 3DS had not been announced, there would probably be no such reaction.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Numerous other editors seem to disagree, arguing that it is relevant to the article. This seems to be becoming an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument; if you don't like the way he does journalism, bring it up with him, but as of now, he is still a reliable source for reception, even if you think he is taking too much license. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite bluntly, the WikiProject seems to have developed a warped perception of reception as of late. Anything that even briefly mentions the subject is instantly seized and used for the article, even if it's almost completely irrelevant to the article. This kind of perception and action is why the Caterpie and Bulbasaur articles failed, and now it seems that it is carrying over into the game articles too.

Let me put it quite simply. Reception is a full review of the material, giving a rating on the quality of the gameplay/album/song/film/book/whatever, noting what was good, what was bad, what worked, what didn't work, all tied together in a nice little knot of opinion. This is none of those things. This is a guy saying "I don't like the names, their names remind me of red and blue", which is barely relevant to the article. That is not a review, and it is not reception. It is nothing more than a quick reaction to the news which says "New games, I don't like the titles. The end." The games aren't even out, they're still in development, and until they are actually released there is nothing to review. Again: this isn't reception, it is a reaction to the announcement (and yes, there is a difference between reception and reaction). Anything that reviews the full games (when they come out) should be made welcome. Anything that doesn't say a thing about the gameplay should be kept out due to irrelevance, IMO. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Really? You would have to establish consensus before I can accept your definition. That is not the definition used in most articles, including FAs like Master Chief (Halo). Narrowing it that much may make it easier to build uniform articles, but may not give a complete view of reception to a work, so I don't think it serves to build a better encyclopedia. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as you brougt it up earlier, WP:VG/GL says that a Reception section "shows the impact that the subject had on the game industry: commercially, artistically, and technologically". This little blurb about not liking the titles or it not being on the 3DS is none of those particular criteria. Also, articles on characters are different from articles on the video game.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as MM brought up two other character articles, I was responding to his comment as a whole, but you're right, probably not as relevant as I meant it to be for this article. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk)`

That is narrowing it down too much. This is perfectly fine reception/reaction/whatever you want to call it. It is an editor criticizing the developers for naming the games Black and White. I also think it is relevant that they think it was a bad move not waiting for the 3DS, as it would have been a better game, as it would make better use of the graphics. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Narrowing it down is what makes some news stories WP:RS and relevant, rather than just two paragraphs of whining about the titles of the game. The game is not out yet and all we have are two titles and some shitty screenshots taken from someone photographing a copy of CoroCoro a week early. It's not relevant to the article or the reader. Just because it mentions Pokemon Black and White does not mean it should be used as a reference.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

And seeing as how it was brought up, WP:VG/GL states that a reception section is one that "...." Saying the titles are unimaginative is not any of these things.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the criticism that the developers/Nintendo/whoever aren't waiting to release it on the 3DS is probably relevant (certainly more so than complaining over the names), but I still don't think it's Reception worthy. That brief segment would work much better, in my opinion, under a Development section than recption. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Then rename the section "early reaction" or something. It is still criticism of the games, and is good information to include. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ok. I guess the criticism on the names isn't too relevant. Besides, it is likely that they will be renamed to Dark and Light, so that statement would no longer make sense. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The "early reaction" isn't important to the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There is "early reaction" content in plenty of articles. As Melicans said, the 3DS criticism is good information to include. You can remove the part about the names if you want. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, the GamesRadar thing provides no criticism useful for this article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Revisiting

The "Reception" section in this article as authored by Scapler is not a reception section at all. The news article being used as a reference does not say anything about the games. All it says is that the author does not like the titles. Then he states his dislike as to how the games are not going to be on the upcoming 3DS handheld. This content is not critical reception. It is an editorial that is being latched onto because it just happens to be posted on what is usually a reliable source for information. Editorials are not reliable sources. So therefore, this section should be removed until the games are actually releasd and someone plays the game through and actually gives a critical response to the game. This should be a review in a major gaming publication, and not a 14 sentence opinion piece on a gaming website. Reception occurs after a game is released. Not before the game is even in beta.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, the fact that more than myself and MelicansMatkin have been involved in removing the section from the article because it simply isn't up to par with what is considered good content on the English Wikipedia is proof enough that there are more people who do not want it there and there is a consensus against including it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ryu, you're taking this to an extreme: editorials are valid sources. And pre-release reception is still important to discuss: you don't have to play the game to have an opinion on it, and then note changes to said opinion down the line. However, I do agree that this particular piece feels less like reception and more "ew funny name". That's not to say that it can't be used as additional reception with another line, just it'd fit better as a reference alongside others noting issue with the name or lack of a 3DS announcement than by itself. There just isn't enough meat for the sentence that's there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

An opinion piece like this is not a reliable source, particularly the lack of useful information within. This is just an example of someone trying to get an English language source for an subject that has not even been released in its country of origin yet.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Once again, you not liking the content does not make a source unreliable. Would you throw out all OP-EDs as a source for anything? Does that mean only "numbered" rating systems are reliable, because that is not current consensus on the project. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 02:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

And I've gone out and sought a third opinion on the usage of this at WP:RSN#GamesRadar piece. An uninvolved editor has agreed with you that the reference is a reliable source. However, it you are using it beyond its means and it should not really be used in a "reception" section, but rather be used as a reference to state that the games are not announced for the 3DS system. So in this case, to remove the undue weight to the author's opinion, it should be used in an existing section of the article that discusses the games release rather than discussing a reaction to the games' titles release.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Personally, I wouldn't call the comment "Reception", but would include it elsewhere in the article with due weight. I may be using a different definition of "Reception" here, but in my mind you can't greet something until it has actually arrived. Anything prior to that is "Anticipation" or "Expectations" or even "Responses to press releases". I wouldn't take a reviewer very seriously if they stated "The game has been recieved poorly due to it's name" before the game is even released. It strikes me as giving undue weight to the comment. However as I stated, this depends on your definition of "Reception", but I wanted to share my view as I am sure there are a few people who share the same definition as me. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Infact, re-reading it again, it's a comment I would put in the "Development" section when it is created. But certainly not the "Reception" section. --Taelus (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think now we have that consensus to remove it! かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 10:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

OfficialNintendoMagazine.co.uk

Both of the references added by Scapler to this site are using Serebii as their source for information. I do not really think that we should be using these particular news articles as a source if they are basing their information on scans from a Japanese magazine that has not been released to the public yet posted on an American website which we have determined in the past cannot be used as a reliable source.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This website is a considered a reliable source, and has been deemed so at WP:VG/RS. If someone came to an article with a source from CNN, but you removed it because you claim to know of their sources automatically and deem it unacceptable, it would be OR, and the same applies here. Tell me, where in the work here does it say they got all of there information from serebii, because if you READ it, it actually cites some of the information to Junichi Masuda. Stop removing reliable sources from an article without discussion first, especially when doing so based on OR. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The source here specifically says that they got their information from Serebii, and as such is not reliable. However the other source makes no mention of the like, and as such is fine for use. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 13:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

True on the second, but all of the information in the second article is also in the first, which, as I already pointed out, cites other things, so does not come all from serebii. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I think if a reliable source wants to trust serebii, then we can trust their articles. It is still a reliable source stating information. Where they got it is irrelevant. If the information later turns out to be false, then we can remove the source. But now, it seems like that information is correct. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, there should not be any English language sources for this as the game is only in it's promotional stages in Japan. We can cite the CoroCoro issue when it's officially released in the middle of next week rather than OfficialNintendoMagazine.co.uk.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Honestly; why are the standards on this so different between the Zoroark film article and this game article? Officialnintendomagazine may be reliable, but if they are taking their material from Serebii, Poke Beach, or any other fansite, that makes that particular article unreliable. As of now, the only information being produced by Serebii is based on leaked images. Until Coro-Coro is actually released, any such additions along those lines constitutes WP:OR, since (though unlikely) it is entirely possible that they were faked. It's happened before, after all. We shouldn't be including any information at all that hasn't been 100% confirmed by a properly released gaming magazine in Japan, Pokémon Sunday, or the official website. Until the information is legally released, it is original research and nothing more. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Once again, if you READ the article, it clearly states that Masuda is the source for the graphics being revamped. HE SAYS SO. To the remark that Ryulong made as to English language sources, why not? The fact is, there are English language sites, like IGN and Nintendo Magazine, that are perfectly capable of translating Japanese sources and then reporting on them. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Please Lock

Can you please lock the page so non members can't post becuse they keep on vandaliseing and puting rude words A Candela (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that there is enough recent vandalism from different people to warrant it. However, I have forwarded your request to the proper authorities at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for protection. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I hate it when people do this and there is nothing wong in calling the new games Pokemon Black and Pokemon White it's just a name for the new games A Candela (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected for one week it looks like. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Logos?

We only ever use one of them regardless of whether or not they are free images. Should probably revert back to just the Black logo. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 08:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong about using more than one fair use image if they serve separate purposes. And anyway the two images are in one file which makes things less complicated. When the game is released it will be replaced by album art anyway.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If Nintendo actually released an image with both logos on then that would be one image. However per the source and the layout of the image uploaded to here, it appears to be a derivative and therefor really still counts as two images. In which case is an excessive use of non-free images. Salavat (talk) 09:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It's only two images. Two is not excessive when one cannot be used to serve the same purpose.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You use that argument, but what of the boxarts of Red, Gold, Ruby, FireRed, Diamond and HeartGold? They don't adequately make it clear the article is about Blue, Silver, Sapphire, LeafGreen, Pearl or SoulSilver, do they? And yes, despite the fact it's one image, it's a badly made image with excessive whitespace between the two logos. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 12:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Because we only use one boxart, we should only use one logo. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Query: I recall consensus in the project being for the one box solution having been reached rather recently, but I can not for the life of me find the page where that happened. Can someone who knows point it out to me; it would be much appreciated. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ryulong left a message on my talk page after I reverted back to the one logo version in which he noted that since its essentially just text that is being used in the logo, it may well be fine to use both of them. Just something worth bringing up; we can't use multiple images, but if the images are comprised of only stylized text there may not be an issue at all. The question is, do these fall under the categories of images or of text? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a good question. Perhaps we should ask at WP:MCQ? Theleftorium 15:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Worth a shot I guess. If nothing else it will at least create a precedent to go by for future releases. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the licensing policy on the Commons discusses this. From my understanding this is more than stylized text because of the Poké Ball-like logo, taking the image out of the realm of free use. However, there are some logos in Commons:Category:Video game logos that I would think were beyond stylized text, so asking for future reference sounds like a good idea. —Ost (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The "Pokeball-like logo" is merely a red half circle. One could argue that it's a simple geometric shape.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can upload this logo into this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.138.47.13 (talk) 09:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you read this section before asking that question? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

5th generation starter Pokemon

i hope that you can see it real soon at http://pokemon5thgeneration.blogspot.com the latest post is the 5th generation starter pokemon - i've whiten out the pokemon because poeple can come to this site will hardly guess Blubbermarble (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It cannot be used as a reliable source.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Boxart

Shouldn't we put the boxart instead of the logo, since it's been revealed now? --75.28.54.40 (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I tried, but there was an error. Railer-man (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

To upload images to which you do not own the copyright, you must provide all necessary information in the templates you are told to fill out. You must name the article it is used on, who owns the copyright, whether or not it is low resolution, and why it is being used. Neither you nor anyone else who has uploaded what is the "boxart" has done so.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The Black boxart was put up, but it seems most people are using the White Boxart when they are using images, so I think someone should change the boxart, so more people will be familiar with it. Plus, the white boxart with Zekrom seems to be preferred more to the black boxart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.26.126 (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As in all the other game articles, we use the first game. Red and Blue uses Red. Gold and Silver uses Gold. etc. So Black and White will use Black. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Protection awareness

I'm not suggesting semi-protection yet, but I read the history, and vandalism seems unnecessarily high on this page. At what volume of vandalism should we s-protect the page? 2D Maestro ^{Mexican Radio} 19:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It's been done before, and I am on the verge of asking again, what with the obscene amount of vandalism for a game not even released yet. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

What vandalism are we talking about?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Essentially everything that's been reverted in the past couple days. Obscene image replacement, text changes, and the usual profanity are included. Like Scapler says, it's kinda high for a kinda obscure game. 2D Maestro ^{Mexican Radio} 00:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Send a request for page protection for unsourced fancruft and high vandalism then. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 00:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

New Poke's revealed

I don't know how to source Coro Coro itself, since they brought the information, and I read it on Serebii (it said it was confirmed from C.C.). If you didn't know, some new Pokemon were revealed. They're a little cool, and yet a little spastic looking (see wildly-grinning ape). Coro Coro said so, but I don't know where to add it. I'll just put it out there then. 2D Maestro ^{User 2} 13:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to update the article on every single pokemon that is released. With the boxart pokemon revealed, the only thing left to update is the gameplay or release dates and post release, the reception. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 22:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have the same thought with "DragonZone", if every new Pokémon were revealed and we added it in, we will have a whole list of Pokémon revealed; this did not happened in Pokémon Diamond and Pearl. Personally, I think that only the Starters and the Legendaries are important. Other Pokémon which has no special effect for the game, did not have a need for adding it in the article. --Frontier95 (talk) 02:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Sadmanager, 18 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} For the North American release date it says spring but I have a source that says April, http://www.gamestop.com/Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?product_id=78063 and I would like to change it

Sadmanager (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

GameStop ALWAYS makes a random date in April. It is never the right day. GameStop said Platinum would be out in April, but it came out March 22nd. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

thanks, I didn't know.Sadmanager (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Editing the information

I think that all those (more than important) information of this page is not needed. We only need to show what notable information were revealed, but not the specific information.

For example, for the three starters Pokémon, what are their species are not needed in the article.

I will be editing on that. --Frontier95 (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, but where is a list of gen 5'ers going to be? More are on the way, with every month or so bringing a couple more. 2D ℳaestro ^{Hablar/Escribir} 00:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not important for this page. The early ones yes, but not all of them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I never said on this page. Are they just going to be compiled on the List of Pokemon? 2D ℳaestro ^{Hablar/Escribir} 13:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we are waiting for more information to be revealed to be written about. Right now the list entries would be empty. If you want to do something, then try Here. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

None of the Pokemon that are found in any particular game are listed on that game's article. It's not relevant to the general reader. Right now, this article is about the development and promotion of the games and that should be it until after the games are released.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"initially only contain brand new Pokemon"?

Hoping someone who has read the source can help - does this mean that the game will contain older Pokemon, but only in the later stages, or that older Pokemon will only become available with later games?122.106.75.172 (talk) 10:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Only brand new Pokemon will be available at first. Once you get the National dex, the other Pokemon may start appearing with swarms, PokeRadar, etc. That means there will be no Pikachu, Jigglypuff, Abra, Machoke, Geodude, Zubat, and all those Pokemon that have been in every single game. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Do we have poof that we won't see any old pokemon before post game —Preceding unsigned comment added by CorocoroPokemon (talk • contribs) 20:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The gamefreak director's blog said so. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Release date

The game comes out on April first (no joke) of 2011 for America. I cant wait! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo5882723 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually Nintendo has never released an official release date for the games outside of Japan. Not to be mean but any site with a US release date or any release date for a country outside of Japan is guessing. For now it is best to wait for an official announcement.--Marchbaby 18:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If you got this information from GameStop, or some other site from preordering, they are lieing. That is just the general date they give all games released in spring. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the Australian release date via the Pokemon Black and White website cited as reference number 5 on the main page, the date format seems to appear as October 3rd as opposed to March 10th. If I remember correctly, the Australians write their dates the way the Commonwealth does (which is DD/MM/YYYY) and not in reverse like North America (MM/DD/YYYY). In good faith we'd like to remain optimistic that the game will be released on March 10th for the Australians, but as it's not confirmed to be whichever way, could we please edit it with a question mark as until we have actual verification from official sources. If the date format is corrected to show 10/03 then we can take that as March 10th, otherwise 03/10 would read as October 3rd. Confusing I know. Tomatzu (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Or we can simply not mention it until they list the release date with a month.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

JP Iwata Asks

[1] - JP Iwata Asks(interview with game developers). Can anybody read and accurately translate this? It probably has some really good stuff that we could use in this article. I don't know if that would count as WP:OR though. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If it's an interview it would not be original research. Might be considered a primary source since it is from Nintendo, but it is still viable information. Melicans (talk, contributions) 02:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering whether translating the interview would be OR. I know the source is good. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

From what I recall, no, it won't be. So long as the link is provided to the original document and no part is directly quoted, it should be fine. The information is the same, after all, even if one person's exact translation may vary from another's. Melicans (talk, contributions) 02:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what it says exactly, but it does mention that Isshu is based on New York. The team even visited the Museum of Modern Art for inspiration. They visited aquariums and zoos to ensure that the new creatures have some real life ground in some manner .Black and White are radically different in order to greater distinguish themselves from the existing DS Pokémon games. Some good stuff here for a development section. --.:Alex:. 04:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

BW crackdown on fansites?

Would the recent actions of Pokémon fansites being served Cease and Desist letters for copyright infringement of imagery from Black and White be a notable addition to the article once (or rather if) reliable sources for it some out? TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 23:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As it is most likely fake, then no. But if it does get confirmed that Nintendo doesn't want fansites showing pictures from Black and White, then it can be added. I don't think its true though. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It is, in fact, legit. If an external source reports on it, then a minor mention might be worthy of inclusion; though where it would go I haven't the foggiest. Melicans (talk, contributions) 00:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

News4Gamers and Gamesradar

N4G and GamesRadar have lots of news on Black and White stuff, but all of it is sourced from sites like Serebii, Bulbapedia, or PokeBeach. Just to confirm, can they not be used as sources? They could help source the above section's query. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they are still all quoting that particular Bulbanews story, although then again at this rate, is anywhere going to try report it as a primary source rather than rip the Bulba article? If a few more sites start quoting it, then I'd say we may as well just throw it in even if BN isn't reliable. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 00:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No. We should wait for a better reliable source than fifty blogs quoting BulbaNews.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

IGN. Done. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 03:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

And now also The Escapist, Destructoid, and Kotaku. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 04:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Aloe and Iris

Aloe and Iris are racist stereotypes; this should be mentioned in the article. --70.245.189.11 (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source which verifies your claim; otherwise it's just original research and can't be included in the article. Melicans (talk, contributions) 14:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If Aloe is a African stereotype, then Fantina is a French stereotype, and Lt. Surge is an American stereotype. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

How biased is that? Don't mention that here! Railer-man (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I may be feeding a troll, as well as using the talk page for a discussion, but HOW are they stereotypes? Show us sources, too. Alex.liu064 (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from [[Talk:{{subst:Pokémon Black and White}}]]. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

• Quick fail - Gameplay section was just copied from Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver, and could be expanded for new features. Plot section doesn't exist. It just isn't in a state anywhere near completion. Once it is complete, it will be ready for GA. But not now.

Reviewer: _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yah, I am not sure what broke there, and I realize I can't review the article as I am the 2nd top contributer, but this is a fail. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I am closing this and placing the failed nomination template on the talk page. Please read the instructions on WP:GAN when reviewing articles. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 174.93.24.206, 31 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} In the introductory paragraph, the article notes that over 150 new pokemon are introduced. There are actually 156 new pokemon introduced, a fact which is important because this is the most pokemon introduced in a single generation, even more than the original 151.

So if someone could change the 'over 150' line to the actual number (156) and add that this is the most pokemon ever introduced in a single generation, it would be appreciated.

174.93.24.206 (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Noted.--JL 09 ^_q?c 12:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The official count has not been confirmed because 3 of these Pokemon are event only and these events have not been set yet. Therefore, rather than including Keldio, Meloetta, and Genesect in this count, which is only known because people dug through the roms, it's better to have an approximate number that is sourced than an exact number which is not.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, Eurogamer.fr is not a reliable source, as far as I'm aware. Let's not use a French language source as a citation for a Japanese language game.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

How come Eurogamer is not a reliable source? Even the reference you've cited about the release of "over 150 Pokemon" never mentioned of that. As far as I know, you can use other language sourcing for another as long as there's a rough translation of the cited text.--JL 09 ^_q?c 18:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, not all IP are disruptive.--JL 09 ^_q?c 18:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The official Japanese website says that there are more than 100 new Pokémon in the games. Because this was repeatedly changed to "exactly 156" days after the games' release, it was changed to "over 150". Unless you can find a Japanese language source that is reliable and uses the 156 count, this information should not be added. And I never said anything about any IP being disruptive. In this situation, 156 is not reliably sourced and won't be until Nintendo Japan initiates the events to capture/acquire Keldio, Meloetta, and Genesect.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, go on.--JL 09 ^_q?c 18:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice failure of WP:AGF there. But now we have a reliable source.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm dropping in as a fly-by editor

To request a GA nomination for this Pokemon-related article. I'd just like to monitor the level of support here for such a nomination.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The article just got quick failed for GA. It isn't done being written yet. When the time comes, one of the people who actually helped write the article, and know when it is ready will nominate it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it has several unsourced paragraphs, and the Reception section is seriously lacking, as it hasn't been released worldwide yet. Given that the article will change drastically then there's no way for it to pass. I've got no issue with it getting nominated a third time for GAN once it's had its international release and has been updated accordingly (and existing issues also fixed), but it's not possible to pass GAN at the moment. --Teancum (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

What unsourced paragraphs are you talking about? The only ones I see are the plot, which is assumed to be sourced by the game itself. According to WP:V, unless something is likely to be challenged, a source in unnecessary. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs of the Gameplay section. I'd say the New features section could use some general beefing up, too as there are lots of things a non-Pokemon player like me might dispute. --Teancum (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs of the Gameplay section are, as far as I am aware, the same gameplay aspects as every other game in the series. They're unreferenced because there's nothing to reference them to. It's how the games are played, in general, and that has not changed since Red and Green were released in 1996.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

But you can't just assume that someone who stumbles on this article knows how Pokemon is played. I have no idea about anything Pokemon, so those look like unsourced paragraphs, which they are. If it's the same gameplay as other games, then sourcing it should be incredibly simple and quick. --Teancum (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

But the article explains the basic game play mechanics and points to the much larger and much more indepth Gameplay of Pokémon article. New games should only source new stuff that is added. Not waste time finding references for stuff everyone knows from every other game.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not following - a quick synopsis of typical gameplay is there, it's extremely easy to source. Why not source it? If this ever goes back to GAN that's going to be a red flag. --Teancum (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Settings and Plot

First off, Hello! I'm new. =) I was thinking under the section "Setting and Plot", there's a sentence that says "The Isshu region is also home to a diversity of people, such as the black Gym Leader Aloe" I think Iris and Renbu should also be mention here, Though Renbu is a elite four member. If that can't be done then I think it's be best to just change the sentence to "The Isshu region is also home to a diversity of people, such as Black Gym Leaders". That it is all. I'd appreciate any help. n_n Blondcrystal (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No one knows what Iris is and Renbu does not appear in reliable sources (yet). Aloe was shown when the game was first described. We can point out specific examples from reliable sources. Also that's just a direct copy paste from the Pokémon regions page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I see, and honest to heart Iris looks like she's more Black than Renbu would be? Especially looking at the newly revealed official artwork. Iris in the guide book. and there is Renbu's official art.. I think we all know what Iris is, I think you should change the section in Pokemon regions and then copy it onto this article. Not to mention Black is misspelled. It should have capital "B". ^^;; Blondcrystal (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Iris is not black (read of sub-Saharan African descent) and Renbu isn't either, and "black" should not be capitalized as it is referring to her skin tone, not the game. Also don't edit my comments.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I never edited your comments(I hope you don't mean because I capitalized a lowercase "B")? When referring to someone skin tone/race it's only proper that you capitalize the first letter as you would when typing any race (Asian, Caucasian, or Latino). And that's strange, if Iris is not Black why did Nintendo respond back to my letter regarding getting Black female voice actress for Iris and Aloe telling me "I can certainly understand your thoughts on this matter and want you to know how much we appreciate you sending them in. I also want to assure you that your comments will be added to our records for Pokemon and made available for other departments at the company to use as they see fit.", and when I sent a similar letter about Dahlia, they told me it's possible Dahlia isn't Black. Is it that Iris is not Black, or is it that you don't want her Black. hmmmm... Blondcrystal (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Your edit somehow changed my mention of "Pokémon regions" to "Pokemon regions". And "Black" isn't a race. It describes the skin tone (normally found in those of sub-Saharan African descent or the indigenous peoples of Australia and the South Pacific), which is why our article doesn't capitalize it. Aloe is only an example, and she is an example who shows up in reliable sources that everyone has access to (the official website).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why it edited your comment, weird. However Black is a race and not just a skin tone. Are you American? If so you must know about President Obama. When he was elected as president it was wrote in history that he was the first "Black" President (with him not only have a light brown completion, but he is directly biracial). Perhaps in other Nations black is a term only to describes people with literally black skin, but when B&W is released in NA and European regions it won't be a crime to just call them "Black" since Aloe and Iris not only have darker skin but puffy hair. Traits that Black people usually have. As I said Nintendo of America (The company that own the series) is NOT hesitating on getting Black voice actors for the characters in the anime. If you need further proof I can screen shot the email and show you (since it is all I can do), if you want me too? Blondcrystal (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

"Black" is a skin color, not a race. And also, your emails to Nintendo of America do not count for anything here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You know what, I'm just going to remove Aloe's specific mention entirely because you cannot seem to understand why she was chosen. Iris isn't Afro-Isshuan anyway.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Blondcrystal, you have no idea what you are talking about. Black is not a race in any way, shape, or form. It is a term used to describe people of races that have black skin color. Also, on Wikipedia we write articles based on reliable sources. Like Ryulong said, reliable sources have described Aloe as black. We don't have a source showing Iris as black. Even if we did though, we don't need to list every single black person in the game. That sentence is using Aloe as an example, and more examples of the same thing are unnecessary. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 22:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Black can be a term to describe race, what about the "Congressional Black Caucus", what I just explained about the President of the United States. Also I know my email won't play for much here. All I can say is when the time comes you'll see? They plan on getting an African-American/Black female for their voice actors since it would be more appropriate for them. This conversation has changed way from the subject is what meant to be. If you don't wish to edit the article with the information I said there's not much more to be discussed here, sadly perhaps it would be best if you just remove Aloe's mention entirely. I wish the both of a good day, and Take care. Blondcrystal (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

"Congressional Black Caucus" is a proper noun. And actually, reliable sources have not stated Aloe as black. She and Dent are just the earliest ones to be featured in reliable sources. Aloe's name has been removed entirely from these pages, as well as the fact that there are characters considered "black" by their skin tone.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I seen the edit you made to the page, I wrote on your page already in regards to that. Blondcrystal (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Addition of official English names

Yes, I understand that the promotion section should include the original Tsutarja, Pokabu, Mijumaru and Isshu region. But how about the summary? For example, Ruby and Sapphire synopsis (even Diamond and Pearl's) does not mention the starter Pokemon the way it is done here: not Treecko (Kimori), Torchic (Achamo) and Mudkip (Mizugorou) contrary to Snivy (Tsutarja), Tepig (Pokabu), Oshawott (Mijumaru) here. The Pokemon USA website has already revealed the official names then why the repetition of original Japanese names should occur, especially that the original names are already mentioned in their respective Pokemon list articles?

And for the Isshu and Unova region. I'm tired of seeing these things repeating thrice.

1. "set in the Unova Region, or the Isshu Region (イッシュ地方, Isshu-chihō?)" (note that the Isshu Region translation can be inserted next to Isshu-chihō);
2. "for example, the Hiun City of Isshu represents" - should it be the "Hiun City" of Unova?;
3. "journey through the Unova (Isshu) Region";
4. "The Unova Region, originally the Isshu Region," - another repetition in Unova's map box;

And changing Isshu to Unova and the starters' names into their official English names will give us a trouble for non-Pokemon readers or say, readers who haven't encounter the Tsutarja, Pokabu, Mijumaru and Isshu things before.--— JL 09 ^{talk (site)}_contribs    09:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"Unova Region" is not the translation of "イッシュ地方", Hiun City is still the Japanese name, that thing could probably be removed, and the image caption does not really affect the prose of the rest of the article. The filename is still "Isshu.jpg" or something like that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that "イッシュ地方" is not the translation of Unova, but how about the constant reappearance of Unova/Isshu or sometimes interchanging them? In the list of Pokemon articles, we used the template Nihongo, for example Rhydon (サイドン, Saidon, Sidon) but Rhydon isn't the translation of Sidon. I propose to use that system once when the name of Unova region and Isshu mentioned the first time, like "Unova region (イッシュ地方, Isshu-chihō, Isshu Region)". And how about the starters?--— JL 09 ^{talk (site)}_contribs    10:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The article is still mostly about the Japanese release... Not sure right now.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The Japanese names are displayed a little more prominently right now because the English names were JUST revealed the other day. Some people will be confused. Give it at least a week. (Note: I am not saying do "Isshu (Unova in English)", I am saying "Unova (Isshu in Japan)") _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

North American release date

Bulbapedia recently reported on a Gamestop flier that sets the North American release for Sunday April 17, 2011.

http://bulbanews.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Possible_Black_and_White_American_release_date_revealed

They say it isn't confirmed as the true release date, but I've read other sources seeing the same flier. Is this information credible enough to be added to the article?

Alreadytaken4536 (talk) 22:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not enough. We will wait for a better source. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 83.250.108.193, 10 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Serebii.net confirmed today that the european release of Pokémon black & white is set on march 4 2011 http://www.serebii.net/index2.shtml

83.250.108.193 (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Serebii didn't confirm it. They are not a reliable source. They don't just get information out of thin air. Official Nintendo Magazine UK however, did say the date is true. So I suppose it should be changed. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

AUS date, 03/10/2011

I think it is plainly obvious that the date ISN'T October. All the other English dates are in March, so it makes sense for it to mean March 10th, not October 3rd. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

We still need a reliable source to say it is March 10 and not 3 October. Australia always gets shafted with game releases.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Composer red links

I really don't think these need to be linked. It encourages making articles about non-notable subjects. I looked a week or so ago, and their articles, if created, would be forever stubs. There just isn't enough information about them. Maybe a Composers of Pokémon article could be made, but they don't need individual articles. There aren't enough third party reliable sources discussing them. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:REDLINK disagrees with your opinion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

What part? It says don't remove red links to articles that you want created. We don't want these created. They will just be AfD'ed or redirected to Pokémon. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 22:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Why do you suggest that we don't want these created?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

They are not notable. I searched for sources for at least two of them. Plus, manga writer and game composer articles are always getting AfD'ed and redirected. If you think these are notable, and sources do infact cover them, then that is one thing. But I don't think these could be articles. Bulbapedia doesn't even have much about them. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you searched for their names in Japanese? For all you know they are indeed notable. Bulbapedia is a crappy website when it comes to coverage of real world material. Wikipedia isn't like that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I haven't searched for their Japanese names. I searched for their English translated names, and came up with a few "Game detail" pages, but nothing actually covering them. There may be Japanese language pages that have information, but 99% of normal editors won't be able to read/use them. Thus, links to these pages make no sense, because only 1% of people can actually understand the sources that might exist. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if people can't understand them. If they're notable they can have articles, regardless of the language of the sources used. Just because you can't find anything in English doesn't mean we can't have pages on them in English.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Game Informer Review

Game Informer gave the games a 8.75 out of 10 in the issue I just got today.--Marchbaby 00:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchbaby321 (talk • contribs)

Yah, I got it yesterday. I forgot to add it. Will do it in a sec. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

removal of Japanese text discussion

As I stated at the Video game Wikiproject, this discussion should be here. But if you want to have it there instead, at least a link should be provided so people who work on this article know what's going on. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Japanese_text_in_Pok.C3.A9mon_Black_and_White Dream Focus 15:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2