Talk:Pokémon Sword and Shield Expansion Pass

Isle of Armor and Crown Tundra Merge Discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion is to merge the two articles together. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

---

These two topics, while definitely notable, don't really feel like they need to be separate splitouts. Looking at the article, they seem to have been developed by the same team, and all sources currently used for development discuss the subjects together. In terms of gameplay, each article has two paragraphs each, which is not so egregious in terms of length that a SIZESPLIT is justifiable, with the same going for Reception. (A good example of how this would appear is Pokémon Scarlet and Violet: The Hidden Treasure of Area Zero, though that article itself needs work) While plot is an egregious issue, both plots can be rather easily condensed from their current form given the simplicity of each game's story (Which is heavily overbloated in both plots as of current). Given these have both been released under the title of the Pokémon Sword and Shield Expansion Pass, (With official sources using this and this using the name) were announced together, and are frequently sold together, these subjects have significant connection and overlap that make it so a merge would not be detrimental to readers. I see no reason for the separate splitouts given these can be easily combined together to make a more comprehensive and easily understandable article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• I've been told this will help with discussion if I put this higher up, so here is a merge visualizer I whipped up in my sandbox. It needs some further alterations for quality concerns, but I trimmed plot and condensed the lead to help show how this would look together as one uniform page. Hopefully this helps with making a judgement on the discussion. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Just because they saw a bundle release doesn't mean they're the same content or that they overlap. Only that they saw a bundle release. This feels like rampant mergism for the sake of it without any real reason why having them as two articles inconveniences readers. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with you. They are somewhat considered two separate storylines, the only link between them being the Galarian Star Tournament that concludes the Crown Tundra. The Hidden Treasure of Area Zero, meanwhile, is evidently a single storyline. Visokor (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  While this is true in-universe, from an out of universe perspective, the two are considered halves to a whole. Sources such as this, this, and this all describe the two expansions as releasing two parts to a wider release (These are only a few examples off a quick search, you can find more relatively easily just by Googling the DLCs). Given both articles' pre-existing content overlap and the fact that out of universe they are frequently paired together in a significant context, I feel that the in-universe reasoning is not flawless for determining a split. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  No offense, but I feel this comment ignores a lot of the other points I've provided above. They share the same dev team and development history, for example, and are frequently considered two parts to a wider release. There's a lot of overlap between the two articles that make it so a merger is a more sensible way of covering the information without having two unneeded splits, and the information that differs between them is not so bad as to where merging the two articles provides a detriment to readability. I feel the question here is not "What's wrong with having two pages?" and moreso "Does having two pages really benefit readers?" when one article can cover both of these much more comprehensively together rather than separately. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  "Ignores" implies that I am required to refute all your points. I simply disagree with everything, and going over them one by one would just draw out an answer that could be distilled to: I disagree entirely. As the other user said: two stories, two locations, with the only connection being similar gameplay, except that this has never been a reason to combine articles into one or we'd have no DLC/expansion pass articles at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is still going to be a DLC/Expansion Pass article if we were to merge this content, and thus this content still will continue to exist, just in a different form. Most DLCs get split off because the content is unable to be covered without causing SIZESPLIT issues at the main article, and that is still true here with these DLC expansions and the main Sword and Shield article. However, this is not the case with these two expansions together, as put together they are not creating an article so large that it would be detrimental to reader understanding. Thus, I do not see your logic here: "or we'd have no DLC/expansion pass articles at all" feels like it's misunderstanding why I want to do a merge here. I'm not trying to eliminate DLC articles or anything, merely trying to cover the DLC's content in a way more concise and better for readers than the current format of doing so.

  Besides, it's not like video game expansions can't be covered together even if they have differing locales or plots. Look at something like Fallout 3 downloadable content, or Dragon Age II downloadable content. While not identical to what is done here, they cover multiple pieces of content in one article despite several differing in-universe elements. That is not to deny the fact there are plenty of articles on other expansions, but the point is that there is no clear consensus or ground rule stating that these articles cannot be merged together per your reasoning. These two articles have a valid merger reason (Shared dev history, dev team, and being two halves to a wider expansion, just to name a few) that I have already summarized multiple times above, so there is more valid ground for merging than just "shared gameplay."

  As an aside, I mocked up a merged version of this in my userspace sandbox to help visualize this. I did some work on the lead and plot to show how condensed and merged versions of this would look, though gameplay would still need alterations for quality reasons and to describe the basic Pokémon gameplay which is shared between both halves of the expansion. Either way, I do hope it helps show how the Expansions would work as one article, and how it is more comprehensive than they are by themselves, in a format identical to how Pokémon Scarlet and Violet: The Hidden Treasure of Area Zero works.

  Still, I simply do not see why The Hidden Treasure of Area Zero is accepted as one and this is not, given how both the SWSH expansion and SV expansion are relatively similar in terms of their reasons for being together. (Two halves of a larger, uniform expansion, which were announced and developed together, and later released as one bundle as part of one single experience, hence the shared title of The Hidden Treasure of Area Zero) The only thing separating them is their plots and different locales, which is not a problem for The Hidden of Treasure of Area Zero's article to cover as one, and is likewise not an issue for the SWSH Expansion to cover as one article. Imagine if we were to split The Hidden Treasure of Area Zero in half on the sole basis of having different plots and locations when they are still fundamentally two halves of one wider DLC. While I understand the plot of SV's two halves connects to each other in a much more direct way than SWSH's, this is using in-universe logic to determine that these are connected, and not the explicit out of universe knowledge of these being two halves to one expansion.

  Also, I believe there is some confusion over the two DLCs' association with each other, so I've found some more sources, which confirm the DLCs' announcement as two parts to one wider Expansion Pass, though there are plenty more beyond this. ([1][2][3][4]) I believe this should help emphasize how these are not two entirely unrelated DLCs, but rather two parts to a whole, and thus emphasize the fact of the logic in this merger. I apologize about length, but I wanted to be as comprehensive as possible in clarifying my viewpoint and why I believe that a merge would be beneficial, so that there are no misconceptions in rationale that seem to have been picked up here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 05:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I believe the DLC should follow similar precedence, such as Pokémon Scarlet and Violet: The Hidden Treasure of Area Zero and The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages, where it was decided that, despite being two individual products, there is a fairly strong connection between them. The benefit of merging them is fairly strong, and if there was hugely different content, I'd maybe consider keeping them split as a rational outcome, but they aren't, not really. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 08:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support per Pokelego's draft. Thank you for making this draft (you should link it in the top post as well!) as it helps visualize what the final page will look like. It's pretty clear that the two plot sections are a bit too detailed and should be trimmed, to the point where they fit within one page easily. There is an argument that having the two reception sections side by side improves reader comprehension by letting them easily compare the two at a glance. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support As the creator of this article and a heavy contributor of the other, I have often thought about improving each article but for one reason or another just couldn't bring myself to do it. Upon reading Pokelego's draft for the merge, even though it can be improved, is a far better summary than what is present. CaptainGalaxy 19:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

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

GA Review

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

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 02:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 14:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Expect remarks in a few hours. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Will go section by section. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Lead

Made the changes myself as they were minor.

Gameplay

• Are the overworld and Alolan Diglett quest important to mention?
  • The overworld is a large aspect of the base game which is expanded upon here, and was highlighted in reviews for the game. The Diglett quest is not as important, but still worth mentioning given it's one of the more expansive features added in terms of length. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
    • It's still a 'side quest', though
      • The Isle of Armor didn't add much, and this is one of the biggest pieces of content in there. I don't see much point in removing it given it would be the DLC's only real major addition not covered in the section. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Plot

• Use more "if"s or "when"s, it's a video game. Also, write the last para in crown tundra better - note is found in the first sentence, revealed the next.  Done
  • I'm confused what the issue with the note is. Could you clarify? Additionally, what spots would greatly benefit from "ifs" and "whens"? I left them out because I felt I didn't need to work in vague language when most of this is pretty concrete. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
    • For eg- The rivals attempt to cheat to win against the player, but the player defeats them despite this.: Is that every time, or just when the player is winning. And it's presented like a statement of truth, so does that mean the player wins every time no matter their inputs? or They manage to find a way to do so: Is that gameplay or a cut scene; and so on?
      • Fixed this one. Didn't see any others so if there are let me know. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Development and Release

Fixed them myself (pls feel free to revert any changes you want)

Reception

• Use quotes more, some stuff might sound like wikivoice, for eg, "lack of narrative weight", "lack of difficulty"
• Can you expand the reviews a bit  Done
  • Will do both of these later when I'm home. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
    • Admittedly not sure how Wikivoice factors in, since that's more focused on prose and misconstruing facts. The bits here are being presented as opinions of particular reviews and not as fact, and I've made sure to frame them as such. Additionally, I feel there aren't many areas where quotes directly improve understanding of the writer's thoughts, as many of them were very cut and dry with stating the good and bad (And many summarized them at the end). If there's any particular spots you want me to look at though, I can see what I can do. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
      • You are probably right, I'm just being over cautious

Images

Fine

References

Why are the following reliable-

• Fanbyte
• Gematsu
• Automaton Media
• Jeuxvideo.com

• Some publisher/website names are not wikilinked, do that (those with articles, of course)  Done
  • All sites without wikilinks do not have articles. Fixed one I missed with Metacritic, but everything else is already handled. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  • These are all listed as reliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources with the exception of Automaton, which has been used without issue in other GANs in the past. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
    • Everything fixed. I'll pass it some time later in the day after a second readthrough. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Spot-check

Checking every 8th ref in general

• Ref-1: re role-playing games. Players will adventure through
• Ref-9: Players are assigned a Pokemon
• Ref-17: The platform offered a lot more ... opened up a whole range of possibilities,
• Ref-25: new Pokemon Presents would be taking place on June 24 (the surrounding refs attest that it is this pack)
• Ref-34: 7 Good
• Ref-41: haven't seen the entire story, but what I have seen is fun,it's the repetition elsewhere in the Wild Area that may lack the dazzle and excitement
• Ref-49: Good 7/10
• Ref-54: Including Legendary Pokémon ... a boon ... but it undercuts the world-building Pokémon has so diligently crafted ... capturing Legendary Pokémon is where The Crown Tundra shines, the Galarian Star tournament fails to live up to the potential ...

Overall

Well written, Pokelego999, not many changes needed. DoctorWhoFan91

Did the spot-check, everything came out fine, passing to GA. Well done, very easy read. Congratulations, Pokelego999, keep up the good work! DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

(talk) 07:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

@DoctorWhoFan91: finished looking over comments and concerns. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)