Talk:Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 29, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
July 28, 2009 Peer review Reviewed
August 18, 2009 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Good article

Pokémon Japanese cover artwork[edit]

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) 00:34, 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? (talkcontribs) 00:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


Edits[edit]

I've removed and substituted all of the single-gendered mentions in the article; way too many "he"'s and "his"'s in there. I've also removed some information from the article. I got rid of the trivia section, as per WP:Trivia, and removed some other trivial information. One paragraph contained the same information two sentences in a row, so I removed one sentence and rewrote the other. I also removed some unnecessary detail, rewrote a couple of sentences, and combined a two-sentence paragraph with the slightly longer one above. MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Reflect changes[edit]

"The upgraded games are once again set in the fantasy world of Kanto and follow the progress of the central character, Red in his quest to master Pokémon battling."

Not entirely true, sure it reflects the similarities between the upgrades and the originals! However it doesn't reflect the change that the central character can be female, meaning that it would follow "her" quest! That's why I started a sentence "However..." afterwards!

T3021 (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I have fixed the article. Artichoker[talk] 02:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've looked at the updated version, and there appears to be a discrepency, you've listed her as "Green" (like in the manga), however the next section lists her as "Leaf"! I don't know how important it is, but I thought I'd point it out!

T3021 (talk) 02:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm...the female character's default name is "Leaf". Shouldn't it be leaf, and not Green? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.56.87 (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

True, although I do not own the game myself, I did read it on a website recently somewhere, but it didn't occur to me to make a note of the page, for reference! Anyway, Leaf is based upon the Pokémon manga character Green, however, as Leaf is her default name in the games, then it probably should be changed here, and we could possibly keep the link, swapping Green for Leaf!

T3021 (talk) 01:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, Blue(Gary) in FireRed and LeafGreen were changed back to "Green" as in the Original Japanese Pokemon Red and Green, instead of "Blue" like in the North American Pokemon Red and Blue, so this might confuse people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.157.28 (talk) 03:29, 25 September 2008

Rename/move article[edit]

I propose renaming the article Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen versions or Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen Versions. More discussion has occured here. SharkD (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I know it is insanely late to reply to this, but I think it should be said that this is not a "version" per se, but essentially a whole new game. For it to be a "version", then there would have to be only one Pokémon game with many versions, and not a game series. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

More game console thingies[edit]

I added that these games could be played on the DS's, cuz, well... they can. Yah. Please say if there is a problem with that. Thankya! --Pooja13 (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't add the DS systems because they're Game Boy Advance games, not DS games. -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 03:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

How you download the game Zonerphx602 (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Removed false images and posted back the original images[edit]

The Box Art for the Pokemon FireRed and LeafGreen is called Pokemon Chaos Black. That game is a bootleg and a retard just simply removed the FireRed/LeafGreen box art and placed his own, [Image:Pokemon chaos black.jpg]. The fake Box Art itself already violated copyright.

I have REMOVED it. I have no idea where's the real BoxArt, so the image will be left blank until someone puts up the original one.

LordThrall (talk) 16:11, 3 June 09 (+8 GMT)

Found one more picture, which shows the battle scene in Pokemon Chaos Black, a bootleg. I have REMOVED it also.

LordThrall (talk) 16:17, 3 June 09 (+8 GMT)

Done my research, and Pokemon Chaos Black was just basically a hack of FireRed. More info here. [1]

LordThrall (talk 08:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Found the original images, and i have uploaded back into the article already.

LordThrall (talk) 16:27, 3 June 09 (+8 GMT)

Images have been removed, and as in this [2] site, the user who uploaded the false images had been blocked.

LordThrall (talk) 8.42, 4 June 09 (+8 GMT)

Thanks for your vigilance in keeping the article all purdy. It's much appreciated. -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 08:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Lordthrail, thank you, because it is obvious that chaos black is not fire red or leaf green, however, I need to correct you on your statement that this is a fire red hack, it is not. Chaos black is an IPS patch of a Pokemon Ruby game file, and as a result can only be played on an emulator. 75.104.160.38 (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Quick-fail criteria:[edit]

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, or similar tags.

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

Good Article Criteria:[edit]

1. Well-written:[edit]

(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:[edit]

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:[edit]

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. [edit]

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. [edit]

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:[edit]

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Written Review:[edit]

A very nice article, good writing, and in good form, in my opinion. Statements have good references from reliable sources, including the quotes in the Reception section. It covered all the important aspects of an article about a video game, without unnecessary information or a huge section about the plot. The images were good, although one or two more images would be nice to help describe the game more if you ever decide to try for Featured Article status. All in all, a very interesting and informative article. Keep up the good work! Epass (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if any more images would be appropriate. What type of images do you think the article needs? Anyways, thanks for your time in reviewing the article. Cheers, Artichoker[talk] 19:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe the cover of LeafGreen or a picture of the main character? I don't really know... perhaps a screenshot? Epass (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Well the cover of LeafGreen is a copyrighted image, and since it really doesn't add much to the article that isn't already put forth by FireRed, I don't see how adding it would significantly enhance the reader's understanding of the subject. We had a picture of the main characters a while back, but I also removed that, because once again I'm not sure how it is significant to the article. A screenshot would probably be the only possiblity; what aspect of gameplay do you think needs to be displayed? Artichoker[talk] 20:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Just a suggestion on my part, but what about a screenshot of the Fame Checker (I think thta's mentioned in the article) since these are the only games it has appeared in (to my knowledge)? MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The Fame Checker isn't mentioned in the article, and only comprises a very minimal, unnecessary aspect of the game. Artichoker[talk] 20:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Does it matter?[edit]

They aren't enhanced that much to warrant enhanced infront of the title.MR KennedyDX (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes they are. They were made 8 years after the original games, and come on a different platform, with completely updated graphics and audio, along with a large amount of new in-game features (i.e. Sevii Islands) Artichoker[talk] 01:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
And?MR KennedyDX (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
There is no "and". I adequately responded to your point. How about I ask you "and"? Artichoker[talk] 01:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I mean "and" as in so. Big deal, a lot of games do that, but are mere remakes.MR KennedyDX (talk) 01:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
No, that doesn't mean they are mere remakes. Frankly you're not making any sense. Artichoker[talk] 01:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

FireRed and LeafGreen[edit]

what is the difference betwwen FireRed and LeafGreen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.95.18.30 (talk) 04:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

LeafGreen instead of FireRed for cover art?[edit]

The cover arts in other Pokemon game articles are consistent in alphabetical order. How did LeafGreen managed to have its cover art displayed before FireRed? Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 17:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure it really matters, as to the reader of the article the same purpose is served. Feel free to upload an equal quality image of FireRed and swap out LeafGreen with it in the article, if you really want to. Artichoker[talk] 23:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)