Talk:Dennō Senshi Porygon

Seizures induced by news reports

This article currently includes the following claim

Some had seizures when parts of the scene were rebroadcast during news reports on the seizures.

This claim seems to appear widely in English language sources, but does not appear in Japanese language sources (at least not contemporaneous sources). Additionally, I've never found any specific claims of which particular Japanese news reports replayed the footage in question. The claim is always that it happened, but never any specifics.

Dogasu's Backpack reviewed many different contemporaneous Japanese news reports, and none of them played the footage; at most, they simply showed stills of the scene in question.

In terms of English language sources, they all seem to trace back to this 17 December 1997 Reuters piece by Janet Snyder. Since Reuters is a ubiquitous newswire, other English language sources seemingly relied on Reuters for that claim (such as the CNN article currently cited for this claim on the page, which credits Reuters). I suspect there may have been some kind of miscommunication that resulted in that claim being included in the Reuters piece, because otherwise you would expect this fact to have been widely reported in the Japanese media.

Unless a contemporaneous Japanese news source making this claim is identified, or a Japanese TV news broadcast that does replay the footage is found (or the subsequent apology that would have inevitably happened), I do not think it is reasonable for the claim to remain on this page. --SnorlaxMonster 14:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

This article talks in great detail what happened (Google translated from Huffington Post Japan). It is a Japanese source.

Since this article talks greatly about the repercussions and cites news sources at the time, I think it's safe to say that this event actually happened. Zoltan.dulac (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you misread the discussion, no was saying the seizures didn’t occur but were disputing the claim that Japanese News broadcasts discussing the issue reaired the footage causing additional seizures after the fact--65.92.162.79 (talk) 05:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Guardian article - Pokemon shock as a mass panic

A story in the Guardian provides an interesting perspective, and could warrant some new content in this article. See: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/dec/16/pokemon-explosion-tv-japan-children-hospital . Also, see: Mass psychogenic illness --Marshelec (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Page structure

@QuestFour You have on several occasions attempted to revert to page to the 19 December version. I had initially thought this was a mistake caused by accidentally editing an older version of the page, due to the lack of any explanation in your edit summary.

Could you explain your specific issues with the current page structure, and why you prefer the 19 December version? In your most recent edit summary, you cited MOS:PARA as a reason to remove "needless subheadings", but I don't see the relevance. MOS:PARA talks about what to include in the lead (which hasn't changed), not using bulleted lists in the article body (which this page doesn't), not having too many very short paragraphs (which there are admittedly a few of in the newer version, although in my view are necessary), and not having overly long paragraphs (which the old version definitely has). None of that relates to subheadings, so perhaps you meant to cite a different policy?

If you could explain exactly what your issue with the new structure is, I think we could work out a solution that everyone would be happy with. But at present, I have no idea what your problem is.

Regardless of whether you prefer to older structure or the current structure, I would ask that you do not simply revert to the older revision, as there are a number of other changes by many users (including myself) that have occurred during that time period that you are also reverting when you attempt to revert to the older page structure in this way. Even if the page is to return to that previous structure, it is important to preserve those other changes. -SnorlaxMonster 03:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The main point I was referencing in the policy is "short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading," which applies to the current version's immediate response, effect on the Pokémon anime and changes to television standards sections. Also, per MOS:LEAD, your shortening of the lead is nonconstructive and unnecessary as the previous version (although could use some trimming) is of appropriate length and due weight per the policy. I've restored the former layout while preserving other edits and trimmed the lead appropriately for now; further changes and improvements should be discussed here prior to being implemented. QuestFour (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can reference the "Immediate response", "Effect on the Pokémon anime", and "Changes to television standards" as being "short paragraphs and single sentences". All of those examples include a large number of sentences and multiple paragraphs, and two of them have 5 or more paragraphs. "Immediate response" and "Effect on the Pokémon anime" are two of the longest sections on the entire page, so I really don't understand why you believe them to be too short. --SnorlaxMonster 03:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

In terms of the changes to the lead, there were only two things that I removed: A reference to the effect of Nintendo's stock price, and a reference to the fact that the event has been parodied in popular culture. While the incident had a lot of long-term effects, a temporary drop in Nintendo's stock price (a company not even directly involved in the incident) just barely worth mentioning in the body, but definitely doesn't belong in the lead. And I don't think the pop culture references to the incident are so common that they merit an explicit mention in the lead—the existence of the "Cultural impact" section (which is visible in the TOC) should be sufficient. Instead, longer-term effects, such as changes to television standards, seem like they would be more appropriate to include in the lead than either of those two. --SnorlaxMonster 03:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Dennō Senshi Porygon

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

article was promoted in 2008 with this "review". the article contains many unsourced statements, many duly tagged with {{citation needed}}. ltbdl (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2023 (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.

Production and reception

I just realized there are no sections on either the episode's production nor reception in the article. Should we consider adding them if needed? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Go for it. Charcoal feather (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Why are we including the seizure inducing video in article without warning?

A video of the sequence appears in the video, which is known to be seizure inducing to certain people. I believe should have a dialog warning that playing this video can cause a seizure, or we should remove it. Zoltan.dulac (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The text One of the scenes reported to trigger epileptic seizures. Is directly below the video and considering that in the over a decade that we have had this video up no one has complained about getting a seizure watching the video shows that this appears to be a complete nonissue.--65.92.162.79 (talk) 05:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, we can’t include any more explicit warnings per Wikipedia:No disclaimers which while it allows for some exceptions, none of them apply here and even if it did I see the existing text I mentioned previously as sufficient. Also a look at the archives have shown a general consensus to keep the video so it shouldn’t be removed unless a new contrary consensus is formed. Finally, a discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 August 4#File:Denno.ogg came to a consensus against deleting the video so I don’t see removal as a valid action unless the there is clear evidence that he consensus has changed.--65.92.162.79 (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)