Talk:Pokémon Heroes

Pokemon Heroes theatrical trailer

The only one i could find or i could keep looking. also i'm not saying that it wasn't advertised i'm saying it wasn't advertised enough, in the early/mid to late 2000's you'd need to have a TV spot or a poster or something for an upcoming film, otherwise nobody will know you're film exists. It's not like today where you can post one thing online and somebody will know it exists, but it wasn't like that more people where watching TV to know a movie's coming out. So what i'm saying is, The distribution company didn't put much of an effort advertising this movie. Link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=br9aq4Bt7qY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:196:8800:cc30:6c83:e7fe:9653:16 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 16 May 2021‎ (UTC)

Please note that this talk page is not a discussion forum. Rather, it's for discussing the improvement of this specific article on Wikipedia. See more at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

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

---

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

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 21:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Eiga-Kevin2 (talk · contribs) 08:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll start reviewing this soon. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk - contribs) 08:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Pokelego999 My first impression upon reading this article is it isn't covering its subject broadly enough. I see very little written on the plot (which is 349 words and should be at least 400 per WP:FILMPLOT), production, cast, and crew (needs more on them in the infobox and lead section), and initial critical reviews. It also has no mention of the 2022 Pokémon Film Festival screening, which has its section on the Japanese Wikipedia's version of this article. I suggest you should try to expand your writing on these sections for starters. Will place it on hold in the meantime. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Eiga-Kevin2 thank you for pointing out the Japanese article! I had actually looked into the Film Festival, but could not dig up sources on it in English or Japanese, so this is very helpful. I will note in a few areas:

-I can't dig up many sources on early reviews. The few I could find were very light and didn't say much, and the bulk of others are inaccessible to me. I searched in News, Books, and Scholar for this, and found little. Without knowing specific sites that did reviews back in the day, I doubt I'll be able to find more with ease, especially given internet reviews were significantly less common in the early 2000s.

Actually, you can expand on the Western critical reception using reviews sampled on Metacritic: https://www.metacritic.com/movie/pokemon-heroes/critic-reviews/. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 09:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

-Production, cast, and crew have little to no sourcing existing. I could find nothing verifying them for either the Japanese or English versions, and little to no sourcing in either language. What's there is what I could find, and I did as in-depth a search as I was able to for this. This is about as comprehensive as it can get for the time being.

For the time being I've expanded the plot (Admittedly did a bit too much on trimming for conciseness initially, woops) and added the information on the Film Festival in Reception. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for sorting most of these out so soon, it looks much better. I did a bit of research to help you with the production, and found some reports on the "production announcement" in January 2002. [1] [2] Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Eiga-Kevin2 I've added what information I could from those two sources. Incredible finds given their age! Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

Article fails the "broad" criterion due to lack of vital information on the movie's production history as well as foreign and domestic critical receptions that would satisfy a general audience. Casting and development should not just touch on the routine stuff, such as voice acting, writing and directing credits; it should also provide some background on the script development, the filmmakers' motivations in doing the film, date of production, the animation design, canonicity, et cetera. With regard to the reception, very little coverage is given to both Japanese and Western contemporary reviews, rather giving undue attention to retrospective reviews from English-language sources. Furthermore, prose is also problematic, with the lede suffering from length and paragraphing issues, and the infobox is missing much of the credits, e.g. the composer/s, producer/s, editor/s, color process, et cetera (see Template:Infobox film); however, you should be able to retrieve these from the Variety's review: https://web.archive.org/web/20240910124218/https://variety.com/2003/film/reviews/pokemon-heroes-latios-latias-1200541720/. Should be quickfailed to give the nominator ample time to work on the article, which is C-class at best. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 09:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I should have ample enough time with the week-long period given while an article is placed on hold, and I have more than enough time to do editing this week. I'll try to do an even more thorough search than I have done previously, but I will note that several aspects of development may not even be mentioned, or are mentioned in sources that are not readily obtainable. I do not see why these aspects not existing should be held against the article, given what matters for comprehensiveness and understanding of the film's notability are primarily reviews and other such demonstrations of it. If the film itself and later notability tied to it can be understood by the general audience, then I'd say it satisfies the comprehensiveness criteria. Development is also important, but if at least basic details can be verified (As they are now; I'll add the Variety source later today) it should be fine for audience understanding as to background. Regardless, I will see what other information I can add to this article to further its detail. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not see why these aspects not existing should be held against the article, given what matters for comprehensiveness and understanding of the film's notability are primarily reviews and other such demonstrations of it. This sense of complacency goes to show that we really have set the bar low for Good Articles. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

According to the criterion you're citing, criterion 3 (Specifically a, in this case): "The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics."

Not every detail needs complete coverage so long as "it addresses the main aspects of the topic". The article covers the main aspects: It gives an overview of information in all the necessary areas, including by showing reception and impact, illustrating the film's box office and plot, and by giving an overview of what developmental details happen to exist. So long as it is sufficient enough to the point where readers will not be confused, then it is satisfactory, and I have done my best to make the prose understandable in all areas to avoid confusion. While these details you're listing are very helpful, they are not necessary for a complete understanding of the film and why it is important, and their lack of availability would not be detrimental to that understanding.

Your argument of the article not being in-depth enough is not specified in the GA criteria and is strictly a personal interpretation of how these criteria work. I doubt this can be considered "setting the bar low" when I have strictly followed the criterion used to judge hundreds of Good Articles before this one. I do agree to some of your points, such as a lack of retrospective reviews, for example, hence why I'll see if I cannot work to expand these areas, but these details do not require a complete article overhaul nor take so much time that a quick fail is preferable. I am curious about your issues with the lead; would you be willing to specify what prose alterations are necessary?

Either way, it's entirely up to the reviewer as to whether this should be quick-failed or not. I give my assurances that I will be able to address the necessary concerns that this article has within the allotted time, and I give my assurances that I have done my utmost best to make this article as in-depth and comprehensive as possible with what information is available to me. If the reviewer has any further concerns regarding the article that may justify a quick fail, then I will understand and likely re-nominate at a later point in the future, but I do believe in its current state that this article can and is currently meeting the GA criteria, as outlined on the criteria page, and that improvements to the article are more than feasible within the allotted time. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry pal but this article requires a lot still to meet the criteria and the supposed lack of online sources seems to not help that. I think it'll be easier just to quick fail it instead of continuing this review like Nineteen Ninety-Four guy suggested. This article seems more at C-level and would need a lot to get it to even B-level for starters. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 18:58, 10 September 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.

Recent changes

Hello. I've restored the cast table as per MOS:FILMCAST ("Use tables with care due to their complexity; they are most appropriate for developed, stable articles (and are also recommended to display different casts, such as a Japanese-language voice cast and an English-language voice cast, in a Japanese animated film.") and reinstated most of the previous pre-August changes (such as the extended plot and infobox credits).

I can also help with the production and reception sections where necessary. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Sjones23 I specifically changed the plot to cut down on unnecessary fluff, and specifically removed the table since the bulk of the cast is unverifiable and not identified in reliable, third party sources. While I appreciate the help on the infobox, the information re-added via your edits is information that should be removed from the article for the sake of conciseness and verifiability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

About the Japanese cast, the credits from the original release can be used as a source. We can also review the relevant guidelines at WP:MOSFILM where necessary. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Sjones23 MOSFILM states nothing about either of my points. While conciseness is not a rule in plot summaries, it is highly encouraged for better readability. If you feel something should be retained, that is a discussion for now instead of bringing back the old fluff cut from that section. Cast also needs citations; nothing about MOSFILM says they can go uncited. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

For the cast, what we do want to avoid here is a full list of credits (that's not WP's purpose) but if there are notable small parts after the cast to mention these rather than filling out additional cast notes with non-notable names just to hit on the few that are notable (such as the main cast and the villain's voice actors). We just need to have citations to reliable sources as per WP:V. WP:NYPOST also mentions we shouldn't use New York Post as a reliable source.

Regarding the Japanese voice actors, they are already mentioned in the original release's ending credits, the theatrical release poster as well as other Japanese sources such as newspaper articles and so on. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any mentions in the poster, and the film's credits are not a valid third party citation (Unless there's some policy for that, but I'm admittedly not sure). Could you link to these newspaper articles you're citing? These are sources not already identified, so if you have anything that would verify the cast, it would be greatly appreciated. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The primary sourced reference for credits is the film itself and it doesn't need to be cited, it is assumed credit info in the article is extracted from the film credits. Anything not in the film credits needs a reference. Plot summaries should be concise but not to the point the plot can't be explained properly. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Seconding Geraldo's comments about cast lists. The credits of the film, television show, or video are perfectly acceptable sources for that information. They only time they aren't is if there's a mistake in the actual credits, and then we'd need a reliable source to back up the corrected information. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez I see. Thank you for clarifying this information about casting. I won't contest changes to the casting done for now, then. I can at least assure, however, that the plot is concise while being understandable. Any suggested changes I'm happy to discuss here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Plot summary

The previous version of the plot is at least close to the minimum 400 words, while the newer version I've been working on (which includes elements of the long-standing version that existed months ago) is now 475 words. Also, I think we should avoid technical details whenever possible per WP:FILMPLOT. Given that, which plot elements should be left out? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Sjones23 400-700 words quite literally means 400-700 words. It doesn't matter how much it's between. The previous word count was perfectly acceptable, and including unnecessary detail solely to buff it doesn't make much sense to me.

From the revision you keep reverting to:

-Kanji for Soul Dew and Alto Mare. Not really helping readers in any way and it's just fluffing the word count.

-The Sight Sharing reference is largely unnecessary and confusing for readers unfamiliar with their powers.

-The mentions of specific species. Casual readers will not know what Espeon and Ariados are, or what Kabutops and Aerodactyl are. Basic mentions of species more than suffice for understanding this part of the plot: They were attacked by Pokémon and fought them off.

-The overall plot here is just far less concise and more confusing with where things are at a given time. For instance, it does not associate Bianca with Latias's appearance at all, a key detail for understanding the ending. The blackened Soul Dew is confusing as there is no indication of why this is important. The stealing of a book by Annie and Oakley also doesn't have much bearing and is more confusing than anything since it doesn't come up again. Brock and Misty are quite literally not brought up again until the ending.

-Wording is unprofessional in places. (Ash and Pikachu come to the rescue) or grammatically incorrect (said to contain his own soul and can power the mechanism."

-I'd suggest using the rewritten, more recent revision of the plot since that's most concise, and focus on expanding from that version. I feel a detail worthwhile to include in the rewritten one, for example, may be the fact Bianca and Lorenzo were captured by Annie and Oakley and unable to stop them as a result. If you feel there's any more details worth adding, let me know, but this is just mostly a method of attempting to remove fluff from the article and make sure the plot points remain coherent for readers who have no understanding of what's going on. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll do my best to retain the best of both versions. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

It would seem redundant of me to participate--having never seen the movie myself--but I read both old and new plot summaries and they're both pretty good and easy to follow. My only gripe is the addition of Japanese text, like "The city of Alto Mare (アルトマーレ, Artomāre)". Since this is the English Wiki, I doubt English readers would care for the Japanese text in the plot summary. Armegon (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I've never watched much of the Pokemon series. I've played a few of the games, but that's not useful here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Japanese title translation

About the English translation for the Japanese title, I have a question: should we use the official translation or the direct translation where applicable? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

The official English title should be used if there is one. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree, especially since the official translation would logically fall under COMMONNAME more than the direct one. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)