Talk:Pokémon Sun and Moon

Japanese Titles Added

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.

---

Ok, so I added the Japanese titles for the games with all of the useful information with them. I would recommend editing the information that I inputted into a format, where it looks nice as I'm not a professional at Wikipedia page editing or anything.

MysticFuryOfficial (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The Japanese titles shouldn't be in a footnote. None of the other pages on Pokemon games are set up with the footnote method. They all have the names in the first paragraph. We should be consistent instead of making up a section just to have these games titles in it.--2601:140:8206:3980:C437:C096:DCCA:B9AA (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• "None of the other pages on Pokemon games are set up with the footnote method" isn't a valid argument. The guideline clearly says what is to be done with the Japanese titles, and just because older game articles haven't been updated yet, doesn't mean the grandfather rule applies, unless a good argument against it exists. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • It is simply another option to format the pages. And X&Y has the same formatting as all of the others and are just as new. The footnote method isn't used anywhere except the oracle of seasons page as far as I know.--2601:140:8206:3980:8581:2986:D2B2:EE4A (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Edit: The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages doesn't even use the footnote format. There's no reason this page should either.--2601:140:8206:3980:8581:2986:D2B2:EE4A (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Again, because other pages haven't used them yet, isn't a valid excuse. I know the guideline itself isn't mandatory for every article, but what is the point of it if we can simply ignore it because WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Pinging @IDV and Masem: for more discussion. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Obviously the guideline shouldn't apply everywhere, but this is a prime example of an article where no value is lost from placing the Japanese title in a footnote: it's the same title (almost – Pocket Monsters vs. Pokémon), just written with katakana, which means nothing to the average English speaker. If the Japanese title had been different from the English one, and the Japanese title had been well-known/commonly used in English reliable sources, then there would've been more value in it, but I'd still likely footnote the kana/kanji in that case.--IDV^talk 01:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
        • Every page about something Japanese has the Japanese name right at the top along with the English name. We don't need to say it's "pocket monsters". The X & Y page doesn't do that. But it still has the Japanese right at the top. There is no reason this page should be different from every other just because you two decided it should.--2601:140:8206:3980:8581:2986:D2B2:EE4A (talk) 07:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
          • I'm just going with what the guideline says. I personally don't care if it's there or not, but just because other articles haven't been updated yet, isn't a good argument for keeping it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
            • You picked the last possible option in a guideline that says every option before it should be used in almost every situation. The WP:JFN entry says it should be used for long titles that impair the readability of the paragraph. The Japanese names for sun and moon do not meet that. You are misinterpreting the guideline.--2601:140:8206:3980:792F:A75A:EC13:890C (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the IP guy here. It seems weird that all of the Pokemon pages except this one had the same formatting. Also, they're right that the guideline you linked to is for longer titles in Japanese. Anyway, I've asked for more people to discuss this by posting messages on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games because it looks like it should have more than two people talking about it, particularly for such a big future video game.--OuendanL (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support footnote - I prefer the footnote version version. To 99% of English language readers, all that Japanese is meaningless jargon. Not to mention, it just means means the same exact thing. It's not like it's notifying the reader that it has some badass "Midnight Crimson Black" subtitle in Japanese. There's no real insight here. Sergecross73 msg me 23:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
• For everybody saying "the other Pokemon games don't have it", well, that can easily be fixed by doing the same to them. In fact, I'll probably go ahead and do that at a later time. Also, this sort of discussion doesn't require the help of the Japan Wikiproject, only WikiProject Video games. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • • Since the article is about a Japanese topic, it falls under the purview of WPJ in addition to WPVG, so saying that only WPVG has any say in the matter is flat out wrong. I thought all of this had been sorted out a while back, and that it was agreed that including a single mention of the Japanese title at the beginning was acceptable. Whether it "means the same exact thing" is irrelevant. There are plenty of Japanese titles of all sorts of things (including video games) which are exactly translated into English. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Hmm, well I can't recall of anytime we asked WPJ for help regarding a video game issue, but I haven't been around as long as some other WPVG members. And the issue was never sorted out, at least for this article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
        • You're treating this as an "us versus them" thing, when it is not. We are all here to make the encyclopedia better, so anyone can provide input, whether or not they are explicitly a member of any given project. There is a lot of overlap between the scope of WPVG and WPJ since probably half the video games (and video game systems) in the world are developed in Japan. For all Japan-related articles (and there is no doubt or dispute this article is Japan-related), the Japanese title is given in the first paragraph, usually in the first sentence. MOS:JA is quite clear on that. This provides consistency across all Japan-related articles. As for previous discussions on this topic, there are a fair number over the years: 2007a, 2007b, 2007c, 2009a, 2009b, 2010, 2010b, 2011, 2013, 2016, and a few more here. This is not a new thing to discuss. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
      • I agree that WPJ should have a say, sure, but the consensus at WP:VG was pretty strong in this approach. We're not removing the Japanese name, we're just moving it out of the opening sentence because it adds a lot of foreign characters in the middle of a sentence right off the bat. It doesn't exactly help with an articles readability. Sergecross73 msg me 00:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
        • All pages on topics that are not originally in English are set up this way. It doesn't matter if the original topic is Japanese or even French or Spanish. They all have the original non-English name in the first line. That's a rule on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#Include alternatives. The footnote format is never used anywhere on Wikipedia.--OuendanL (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
          • I think the main "beef" some have with topics originally Japanese is that Japanese doesn't look like any Latin character language, and so looks "messy" to them. Not making any judgments about that, but that seems to be the main concern I've seen. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, in addition to WP:OSE, the consensus by WP:VG happened within the last year, so this "inconsistency" probably has something to do with the fact that there haven't been any Pokemon articles created since its inception, and the guideline doesn't necessarily require us to retroactively change the 1000's of articles that already exist. Neither way is wrong, it's just that the footnote approach is preferred. Sergecross73 msg me 23:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

There's simply no reason that this page should be different from even Star Fox Zero or Fire Emblem Fates, which also came out in the past year.--OuendanL (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Nobody has argued this but you, if we are to apply this guideline to all Japanese games, then they would have it too. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

That's also WP:OTHERSTUFF. If anything, those titles also do not need their Japanese name in the lead. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP as is, no footnote, as a blatant violation of MOS:FORLANG. What's wrong with the current, in-line Japanese title usage? It's a non-issue, and not only is every other Pokemon game formatted like this, but also almost every other Japanese video game on Wikipedia, and there's no reason why the Pokemon games form an exception. WP:JFN is irrelevant - firstly, that guideline is for "readability issues", which there isn't here, and secondly, that guideline is also explicitly for Japanese title explanations, while here it's a transliteration. Employing footnotes when the Japanese and English titles are the exact same just leads to redundancy. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 00:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • How are you to say what guideline is irrelevant or not? It either needs to be edited to reflect more proper usages of it, or just be removed. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

It's irrelevant because it's not applicable to the situation at hand. See my post below. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 08:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Non-issue" is WP:DOESNTHURT. You skipped over "unless the Japanese name is critical to the understanding of the topic" part of WP:JFN. Concensus can change; Wikipedia's guidelines are not set in stone. This also means if the footnote method isn't preferred, we can always change it again. But like Dissident93 said, you can't decide for yourself that it is irrelevant and ignore it. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Dissident93 and Soetermans: Yet WP:JFN literally reads, and I quote, "It is recommended that unless the Japanese name is critical to the understanding of the topic one should place the Japanese name explanation in a footnote to the official English title", emphasis mine. Notice how it says "Japanese name explanation", not "Japanese title". I'm not the one advocating we ignore guidelines here, I'm saying we shouldn't misuse or clearly misapply them. You just can't apply guidelines to situations which they aren't intended for, or tack on personal interpretations to them, otherwise the entire point of guidelines becomes perverted. From WP:VG/JP, "If a Japanese title has the same meaning as another regional title, use Template:Nihongo with the format {{nihongo|'''''English title'''''|kanji/kana|rōmaji}}" - that's a guideline that is actually applicable to this situation, so that's the format we should be following. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 08:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that those two guidelines are somewhat conflicting, if not poorly worded. I think by this point we do need to find a new general consensus. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Changed to strong keep. We're violating WP:UEIA here, which reads "When the native name is written in a non-Latin script, this representation should be included along with a Latin alphabet transliteration." Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 03:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support footnote. We have to look at the context here; this isn't Shadow of the Colossus with a different Japanese title; the original title is a transcription of the words "Sun" and "Moon". That is not notable to point out in the lead; the footnote method is more appropriate for that. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

But creating a footnote just bloats the article even more by making a superfluous section. It's why WP:VG/JP recommends the nihongo format. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 08:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

While I don't think that having a notes section is bloating an article, notes and references can also be one section, like so. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support footnote. The first sentence of the lede is among the most sacred space in the article and we're the English encyclopedia—it makes no sense to include a full line of text that is unhelpful to virtually all of our readers. This is a content issue, regardless of the working read of JFN as consensus. czar 18:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support footnote Agree with Czar. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. Seems like more people prefer the footnote over not, but is this for the guideline in general, or simply for use on this article? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• This is just for this particular article, but there's technically already consensus for it's use in video games in general, when the guideline was created from the WP:VG discussions. It would really take a new discussion and consensus by opposers to change that... Sergecross73 msg me 12:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• So kind of back to square one then? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• This discussion's lasted only 2 days and it's pretty much a tie (Nihonjoe, Satellizer, that IP guy, and I are against the footnote and 4 other people are for it). You can't decide it that fast.--OuendanL (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• First of all, who said I was deciding anything? I simply asked a question. Second, you forget about the fact this guideline was passed in the first place, so it should lean more on supporting footnotes than not, unless people's opinions have changed since then. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I just feel really uncomfortable with undoing a consensus that's built up over tens of years and thousands of articles on Wikipedia through using a discussion conducted at the drop of a hat at WT:VG as precedent. Especially considering that the scope of using foreign languages in introductions goes far beyond just video games - Vladimir Putin, a person, contains Russian in the intro; Tokyo, a city, contains Japanese; and the Quran, a religious text, contains Arabic. I still reaffirm my stance to keep it as is, but if the Japanese was moved to the footnote in just this article it wouldn't bother me too much - yet it sets off a slippery slope where editors can just create Japanese footnotes in random game articles and be totally justified doing it. JFN may be ill-equipped to deal with this and there should be a RFC or due process first, should that be done. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 08:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support footnote or removal entirely. This is English Wikipedia. The general reader (and regular editors like myself) doesn't give a shit about how the title is spelt or read in Japanese. Including Japanese titles in the opening sentence is a dumb convention that never should have be used in the first place. I'm not sure why the inclusion of Japanese titles is so prevalent on English Wikipedia, it's almost always useless information and certainly not significant enough to be in the opening sentence. --The1337gamer (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Foreign titles are used in the introduction of anything with non-English origin, like Vladimir Putin (person), Tokyo (place) or Quran (religious text), and has been as such for years on Wikipedia. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 08:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Two of your three examples consist of one word, 1 syllable, five letter words. The unreadable content for a vast majority of readers is minimal. The problem is when ポケットモンスター　サン・ムーン Poketto Monsutā San & Mūn?) takes up half of the opening sentence - its foreign and not-understandable content for most. Also, it's not being removed, just moved out of the opening sentence (and there is still a direct link to the Japanese content in said opening sentence. Anyone with foreign language knowledge can easily click on the footnote link.) Sergecross73 msg me 01:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

My argument rests on the fact that such a section would be superfluous as it would literally only read "Pokémon Sun and Moon is known as Pokémon Sun and Moon in Japan" plus some Japanese text. If you want longer foreign titles in non-VG pages, there's One Thousand and One Nights, Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, and Hohhot, bonus for the last one as Mongolian text is vertical. If readability is the only concern here (I'd personally argue it's perfectly readable) and the discussion is for this page only, I wouldn't be so vehemently opposed. But the rhetoric espoused by some editors above is that they'd support removing foreign languages from all pages, or at least WP:VG pages, which should not happen without a sitewide RFC. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 03:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, WP:UEIA begs to differ. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 03:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, because no ones talking about removing alternatives, they're talking about moving alternatives to a different place in the article. Very big difference. Sergecross73 msg me 04:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

But UEIA specifically recommends they be placed "preferably in its first paragraph". Even then, there's still my concerns of the section being superfluous, the guidelines being unclear and contradictory to WP:VG/JP, MOS:JP and MOS:FORLANG, which deliberately leads "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence", as well as it being out of step with virtually every other subject on Wikipedia, concerns which are still left completely unaddressed by everyone. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 13:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support inclusion in lede/lead. The opinions above only confuse things because the person who started this discussion wants to include the Japanese in the lede, but the above opinions by Soetermans, Czar, DragonZero, and The1337gamer all indicate support, but of the opposite of what is being suggested here. WP:UEIA states that "all frequently used names by which its subject is widely known" should be included, "preferably in [the] first paragraph". It then clarifies that by stating that "If there is a significant number of alternative names or forms it may be helpful to keep only the most common two or three in the first paragraph and a list of them in a separate section or footnote to avoid cluttering the lead". Very few (if any) Japanese video games are known by more than 2-3, so they all belong in the first paragraph. WP:UEIA is applicable to all articles on enwiki. MOS:JA applies to all Japan-related articles. Those two guidelines agree with each other. Since this one is out of step with a wiki-wide guideline, it needs to be brought into step. Creating exception after exception only serves to confuse people when they go from one article to another and find an apparently-haphazard application of the guidelines on the site. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• I do agree that the guideline needs to reflect all game articles with Japanese titles, else people are just going to argue for what games count or not, which is basically how this got started. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

For posterity, I responded to the UEIA claim at length in the WikiProject discussion linked below czar 05:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per WP:UEIA, MOS:FORLANG and WP:VG/NONENG. I do not see an issue in readability, and WP:JFN seems to refer to a readability issue driven by an explanation of a name and not a direct translation. Virond (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Scope of WP:JFN

Started a separate but related discussion here. All participants welcome. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 03:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Implying the footnote

I added the translations onto the Wikipedia page originally, but then the page was edited by another user and the translations were put in the footnote. That's all that I have to say. MysticFuryOfficial (talk) 10:16, 24 April 2016 (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.

Logo

Isn't there a guideline that we only include the logo or boxart of the primary version in infoboxes except for remakes and/or sequels? This means that the infobox should only include the logo of Pokémon Sun, right? ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 17:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Correct, only one cover art is supposed to be used. Sergecross73 msg me 23:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Possible official confirmation of Hawaii being basis for Alola?

I found this: http://lineblog.me/masudajunichi/archives/3406435.html But is it an RS? I don't really know. Oneseventhree (talk) 11:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a bunch of pictures on a free blogging website. I wouldn't consider that to be a reliable source, no. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 14:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Huh. That's weird, because this seems to be Masuda's official blog, as he always tweets about it, and this very same website is used to cite the last sentence in the article. If this is not a reliable source, shouldn't we nix that last sentence? Oneseventhree (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Special Demo Confirmation

So Nintendo just announced a special demo version available October 18. But I was wondering if this information should be placed in its own section or in the promotional section, and if so, whether it should be in its own paragraph or not? Here are some links: Sogen1323 (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

please add game engine

Please add game engine of Pokémon sun and moon 🌑 !! Ultrastarine (talk) 10:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, we can't do that unless Nintendo/Game Freak/The Pokémon Company says something about it. They're probably using their own in-house engine, though.--IDV^talk 10:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

What's the engine then? If it in-house (most likely), then it doesn't belong in the infobox per its documentation. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Z-Ring peripheral mention

Is anyone aware of a Z-Ring peripheral based on the one in the games? It syncs with the games themselves Visokor (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Pokémon Ultra Sun and Ultra Moon

Hi it is a new Game. We should create a new article. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

In the future, maybe. But for now, we know too little for an article to be made. It would be best to wait for more information and then see whether an article should be made or not. SkyWarrior 21:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the main reason I requested deletion on the article that did exist was because it was simply WP:TOOSOON for an article. — Gestrid (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Reassessment

I have had a look at this article, for the re-assessment. It's clearly not a Start level article. I have re-assessed as a B, but maybe that is a little generous. The lack of WikiLinks in the plot section, the 'tooltips' being used, when there are already notes in the article, and the lack of references in the intro are all reasons why I would be against the B. Rest of article is very good, however. Lee Vilenski(talk) 12:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed the tooltip part and added a couple refs to the lead (namely “last game for the 3DS” and “fastest selling” parts). Added a handful of WLinks as well to Plot although it’s fairly tricky to do so. Juxlos (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Leaving as B-Class. The article is good enough to warrant it. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Plot summary - a trim

I tried to trim down the plot's length (1,093 -> 438). Did I leave out any major plot elements or leave in something unnecessary? Juxlos (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

"According to the developers, Ultra Sun and Ultra Moon were the last planned games"

IGN itself seems to be uncertain what the quote We're really treating Ultra Sun and Ultra Moon as the culmination of our work with the 3DS system. (Japanese?) means, as jp.ign.com translates it in a manner that does not imply the games will be the last on the 3DS. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

IGN’s interpretation here is fairly straightforward from the title, so I would take it at face value until proven otherwise. Juxlos (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Juxlos: See, I can't actually see the English version of that article. (I have no idea why -- I changed the language settings on my browser and everything. I briefly considered posting to RSN about whether a source that deliberately hides itself from people living in certain regions for "convenience" reasons rather than any kind of government censorship or the like presents a problem from a verifiability standpoint.) I can see the title in the URL, but jp.ign.com translates "last Pokemon RPGs" as "ポケモンRPGの「集大成」" ("culmination", "compilation", "cap on such-and-such years of work", which could mean "last", but...), and for all I can tell the reason they were reluctant to translate it directly as 最終作品 or something like that is that the original Japanese on which the English article was based was not specific and they wanted to hedge their bets. The Google preview shows me the opening paragraph of the English (We're really treating Ultra Sun and Ultra Moon as the culmination of our work with the 3DS system.), and both it and the opening paragraph of the Japanese (ゲームフリークが3DSで行ってきたことの「集大成」になるという) present it a bit less black-and-white than the title of the English; when a source's title says something different from what the main text says the main text normally takes precedence. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, no one seems to translate the fr.ign.com original articles into Japanese, so I can see this, which also takes the same quote (Nous pensons que Pokémon Ultra-Soleil / Ultra-Lune est le point culminant de notre travail sur la 3DS.) out of context in its title (IL N'Y AURA PLUS DE RPG POKÉMON SUR 3DS). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: The English title is straight-up “ULTRA SUN AND ULTRA MOON WILL BE THE LAST POKEMON RPGS FOR 3DS“, although I agree that IGN might have done a bit of a leap there. Some rewording might work - any suggestions? Juxlos (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Not really, no. The problem is that calling it the "culmination of their efforts" is non-NPOV promotional nonsense. If what they actually meant was (and what we want to say is) that it was "the last planned games of the Pokémon main series on the Nintendo 3DS" (not even what that article title says: several non-main series games are RPGs), then we need a source that directly supports that, and doesn't appear to be doing so based on a careless editorial leap. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've removed the sentence from the article (and the Ultra Sun/Moon ones) Juxlos (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 21:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll take on this review. If you haven't heard anything from me by this time next week, ping me. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Review

• The lead seems to focus a lot on gameplay, but contain nothing about its development.

• Trimmed gameplay a bit and added a sentence on development

• In the gameplay section, the entire first paragraph is unsourced.

• A lot of it is general to Pokemon as a whole, so I added an instruction booklet for a previous game (Black) as a source\

• " If the player then travels to Ten Carat Hill, they will encounter Necrozma, which is said to be highly reminiscent of the Ultra Beasts." i Is this said in the context of the game, or is it a fan speculation? It's hard to tell from here.

• Removed the "reminiscent of the Ultra Beasts" phrase - it's not stated such in game, and easier this way

• There are a couple of uses of "in an interview with [blank]"; maybe rephrase?

• I guess the phrase isn't necessary - removed. Also, it's just a single use?

• "who also was the producer" - Maybe change that to "who was a co-producer" as there's more than one producer credited for the games.

• Done

• You've linked IGN three times: in "Plot", "Development" and "Reception". The first instance is necessary as it's just a description of what the islands feel like, which I think can be communicated without IGN being included in the sentence. As to the second,

• Uh, is this an unfinished sentence?

• Yes, sorry. It meant to say that the second wasn't needed if you were cutting down on statements like "in an interview with X, Y said", which has been deal with. The third was just a question of delinking it. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• In general, there's an inconsistency with the italicising of website and journal names in the prose.
  • • Fixed for the most part, I think
• Citation 2: Link GamesRadar
  • In fact, generally link to website and journal names in the citations where possible, as there are too many to cite in a simple review.
• Citation 3: Is there a better source available?
  • Replaced with Nintendo source
• Citations 7, 10: Include the publisher, if you can.
  • Done
• Citations 54 and 65: These need filling out properly, look barebones at the moment.
  • 54 is done. Not sure how to fill in 65 - that's a simple web page without any dates on it
• Citation 55: It's "Destructoid", not "Destructor".
  • You sure? Anyways, done
• Just to be safe, archive Citations 27, 44, 54, 63, 65, 76 and 77.
  • I think IABot is broken for the time being - mind checking, just in case it's on me?
• Citation 73: Missing "publisher".
  • Fixed
• Can you find another source for the Famitsu scores? Nintendo Everything's a little rocky for Wikipedia purposes.
  • Replaced with Gematsu - though that means the X and Y comparison had to go
• The Reception section needs work. You could expand the prose, include reviewer names, and reduce the number of quotes.
  • Some fixing (partial dequoting and a name)
• "According to Nintendo of America, Sun and Moon are also the fastest-selling titles in Nintendo's history.[49]" - This belongs in the "Sales" subsection.
  • Moved
• "Later, it was revealed that these are actually new forms for Necrozma, known as "Dusk Mane" or "Dawn Wings", achieved through absorbing either of the two legendaries, in a similar fashion to Black/White Kyurem and Lusamine's mutated form. Amongst other new Pokémon, three new Ultra Beasts have been confirmed to appear - known initially as UB Assembly, UB Burst[e] and UB Adhesive; later to be revealed as Stakataka, Blacephalon, and Poipole respectively." This entire piece is uncited.
  • Nuked the piece - a bit too much attention to just the few Pokemon considering the amount of text in the section anyways.

This is quite a lot to sort out, so I'll put the article on hold for now. Good luck. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Review noted - will get around to fixing the issues within a week. Will ping when all are addressed. Juxlos (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Juxlos: I've had another look at the article. You seem to have addressed all the issues I raised, though it will needs more eyes and probably a copyeditor's eye if you're planning on taking it further. I'm comfortable giving this article a Pass. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

EDIT: If you want to continue work based on my comments and suggestions, please do. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Will do a final walkthrough of the article this weekend - feel free to make the call, or on Sunday. Juxlos (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, also, thanks for the review! Juxlos (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

deluxe edition

Shouldn't info about the Deluxe Edition of the games be added to the Release part of the page? 88.146.223.98 (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)