Talk:Kanto (Pokémon)/archive 2
S.S. Anne Port Easter Egg
edit| S.S. Anne Port Easter Egg |
|---|
| though extremely hard to pull off, if you go trough the game without obtaining cut, you can explore the port around the SS anne before it takes off. This can only be done by trading for a Pokemon that knows cut, or teaching a Pokemon cut in Pokemon stadium 1 and/or 2 with another game. Another way is to just white out form the S.S. Anne
The port contains the only automobile I have seen in all the games until Sapphire, Rub, and Emerald. its a pickup truck. I know about the area because i was told you could get a mew from that area, but the rumor was false, but the area is for real as is the truck.Yami (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC) i found it on the web, its a little off but its still proof http://www.eeggs.com/items/50225.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yami Takashi (talk • contribs) 04:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC) I keep having the information taken down saying it is only "speculation" but its real. There are pleny of references that shows the Truck. Also like i said the mew thing was false. Artichoker keeps changing the article back. I think the info i added is a nice addition to this article, and if it doesn't belong there then neither does the info on the pokrmon fanclub. The Truck is real, the mew isn't, and the info is not speculationYami (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC) I added a picture, i'm new still when it comes to adding pictures to this site buy here it is Image:Ssanneporttruck.gif If someone could upload a image and fill out the info the way wiki wants that would be a good help because i keep getting orphaned image messages Yami (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Who put you in charge of what is or is not notable for a article on a game many spent long hours on exploring and seeing all it had to offer. If you think the truck doesn't belong then the pokemon fanclub doesn't belong either. explain how that is notableYami (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
A truck that is one of the only vehicles I know of in the Pokemon games except for the moving van in Sapphire, Rubby, and Emerald. The truck is where a rumor of a mew was located, so the fact the fanclub has the bike voucher makes it more notable then a truck that is a nice little easter egg in a game where all you do is walk through most of the game. The truck adds to the article, you shouldn't just delete it without thinking. wikipedia even states so in the Dispute resolution article.Yami (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC) I don't know why you are being hostile to me or the info I am trying to contribute. I am only trying to contribute to this article to make it better. If i was a new users to wikipedia the info on the truck would interest me if i never new about it. wikipedia already received harsh criticism because people can add and change what ever they want. Schools are even banning the use and blocking Wikipedia because it can often be unreliable. At least i'm trying to add and contribute to a article and not adding nonsense. Yami (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
the same argument could be used for this whole site. wiki articles use other wiki articles for references all the time. Most of the internet is fan or personal sites Yami (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
a reference is a reference. I've seen the truck with my own two eyes doing it that hardest way possible by gong through the game without HM 01, and the phantom PC is just as real as the pokemon center pcs or the one in the Pokemon leagues. You also say your not attacking me on a personal level or non bias but your edit summaries say different. "evising this paragraph for now, as the other edit was careless enough to simply revert my edit without viewing the changes" "Removing speculation, gamecruft, and nonnotable information. Please do not add this back until consensus is reached on the talk page" "the fact that there is a truck in this game is completely nonnotable" "emoving speculation (and as a matter of fact it does NOT hold a mew." Each time i provided citations/references which proves its not speculation. I have repeatedly said that the mew thing was not only a rumor but false as well. Yami (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
you are clearly making an attack against me and even JeremyMcCracken thinks so. Just leave the information on there, if it doesn't belong then time will tell but stop acting like your the police. Yami (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Your response on my talk page proves that you are being bias and attacking me personaly. If you weren;t then you would have let it go and not kept editing my contribution. I also contacted someone about this and they're a third option editor that defuses these situations. Yami (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Artichoker, you said that two out of the three sources couldn't be used as they didn't meet the standards for a reliable source. I have investigated the two sources you linked to, and this has proven to be correct. However, could you please post the usable source here for me please? Sometimes one source is enough for inclusion, but at other times it isn't, depending on the nature of the source. Cheers, The Hybrid 21:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Posted my side like Useight asked at the bottom since this section was getting crowded Yami (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Arbitrary breakeditOkay, this is getting heated. First, both of you need to heed WP:DTTR. No more warnings; you're both well aware of the dispute. If the reverts continue I'll post at WP:RFPP so it can't be changed, until something can be worked out. About the sources- I didn't look carefully enough at the source I kept. It's wetpaint, which is a wiki site so it isn't reliable. eeggs.com is not reliable either, as it accepts user content. I'd support including this material, but only if a better source can be found. I would recommend Yami Takashi look for one. Don't forget google books- a printed game guide may have included this. If there's still disagreement on inclusion, I'd recommend a Requests for Comment to get outside opinions. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I found a gamespot link but Artichoke keeps saying that even with that the truck shouldn't be added. I don't see why the truck can't be added if i have it properly cited with a creditable source, but somehow this is switching to so many different arguments i can't keep track of what i have to do to get the truck added. The truck was called speculation and then the notablity was called into question then somehow the pictures i found and the fact they were non-free was used agaisnt me even though all the pictures on the article are non-free Yami (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC) |
Invisible Walls
editif i remember right there are slight borders/markers that shows the wall's layout. Its been a long time so i can't be 100% sure but i seem to strongly remember this in Gold and silver as well Yami (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
can someone verify this for me? I can't remember 100% why i asked but for it though Yami (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, there are small, white, dotted borders in Koga/Jasmine's Gym showing the exact locations of the "invisible walls." However, this is purely gamecruft and does not warrant inclusion in the article. Artichoker[talk] 16:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't remember if i was going add it, most likely i wasn't and was only asking. Yami (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
My side on why i think the truck is notable
edit| My side on why i think the truck is notable |
|---|
| Thought the argument wasn't entirely on the existence of the Truck, but also the Notability of the truck.
I admit a lot of my frustration came from the terms "Speculation" and "Non Notability" being repeatedly used. Rather my contribution was or was not notable, it by any means was not speculation. I apologies if I seem to be arguing for its existence but I want to clear every detail up to keep my thoughts Linear. Now to prove that this information belong here. In the Pokémon world, most of the show and in the games is surrounded by nature. The only thing that contrasts this is the surprisingly advance technology seen in the franchise. Even though they can transform Pokémon and objects into energy, and even teleport it long distances, they still have lots of nature. Even in the show the viewer hardly sees any automotives. The exception being officer jenny's bike and the police force cars, a few ambulances and the occasional truck. Unless the plots needs it you rarely see any vehicles in Pokémon. The games and show is almost always done on foot unless you get a bike or a Pokémon to transport you somewhere, and even then that leads to more walking. The word of Pokémon is just full of Technology, yet they don't rely on it to get them where they're going and when you see a truck it contrasts everything else. Even here on wikipedia the fact that there is a strange nature-human contrast is noted in the Pokémon article. The Truck was put there by the developers/programmers for one reason or another, either for a nice little Easter egg, or a joke of some kind. For all we know they could have put it there to start rumors on it and maybe increase game sales. Who knows I'm not going speculate on that. The truck is apart of the games (Red, Blue, Yellow and even more notable Pokémon Fire Red and Leaf Green.) The fact that the game developers and programmers in charge of redoing the first two games for a new market and keeping such a feature proves that it has some worth. I didn't even see another Truck or car in the games until I read about the new Pokémon Sapphire and Ruby. Then when I got a emulation of Pokémon Emerald I enjoyed another chuckle as I saw the moving van that brought the player to their new home in the Hoenn region. The moving truck reminded me of the first time I saw the only vehicle in the games that I knew of. The whole game is nothing but walking, biking and using a Pokémon to transport you. Through most of the game you feel like the only technology around was a few electronics here and there. Having to walk through tall grass, caves, and make it across bodies of water gives the franchise a certain charm. In the real world we can get on our bikes but when your and adult a car is just so more natural. The game keeps an certain kind of innocence because it keeps the fantasy of child hood alive by not having cars and trucks everywhere. Not only does the truck completely contrast the nature to human side of the game, but it brings with it a whole mythology with it. Through out the years one of the most sought after and quested Pokémon was Mew. Many Rumors on how to catch Mew without a Nintendo event blanket the internet and a few magazines for years. Among the many rumored methods of acquiring Mew was using well known glitches and secrete places. When I first heard the rumors about mew and the truck, I naturally turned to the internet. Though the method I found was a lot harder then a recently discovered method, I still enjoyed finding this truck. I even sacrificed a 100+ hour game on my Pokémon Blue to go through the game without obtaining cut from the S.S. Anne's captain and worked my way to finding the truck. The truck is apart of the game, it contrasts the human-nature tone of the franchise, and it has spawned a rumor that gave many people hope about getting their own mew. I think this is why it is notable and a nice addition to the article. Yes we have sites like gamefaq for this stuff, but if there is going be a article on the cities of the country from a game like Pokémon, then why not put as much detail about the cities in as possible. I'm sorry I repeated something, and didn’t keep a linear thought to well, but I want to make it clear that I love the show, and I want to contribute to the best of my ability. Yami (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
And it appears in not only Red Blue and possible yellow (not 100% on that one) but also the remakes of the first two games. and just because you can't interact with it doesn't mean it isn't notable. I posted about the phantom pc, you can interact with that but just because you can see that does it make that not notable? And how can i remember every single time a cars and trucks shows up? the only time i know i see them is if officer jenny is in the plit, then the plot needs it, or in the movies from time to time, or maybe a little shop selling out of the back of a truck. If you want to find all the times that a automobile appears then be my guess, but as i've said the pokemon world is a strange mixture of humans and natures. you could walk for miles in forests nd such, but then find a city that isn't connected to another city by a high way or urban homes but surrounded by forest and nature. Yami (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
With that logic, is the truck so small that it has to be taken out of the article? And yes they have advance technology but other automobiles but its still a part of the game, they kept it in the games for a reason, and if something like this isn't notalbe because it only has a limited role in the universe of pokemon, then any and all articles on shiney pokemon should fall under that too then. Its so rare you find them just like a automobile in the show or games. Yami (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Well the Rumor it hid a mew with your logic should make it just as notable as the way shiny pokemon made the red garados plot notable. Mew is rare, Everyone wants to catch one without having to go to Nintendo or buy a gameshark, and people must like the truck enough to still mention it on sites and take the time to post videos of it on Youtube. Its apart of the whole mythology that makes people like pokemon. Yeah you can't do anything with it, but the rumors that said you could got enough people's curiosity up to check it out. Also someone had to have wanted to check the area out enough to take the time to go through the game without cut or whiteout to surf and get over there Yami (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
What does that have to do with anything? that doesn't help or hurt either point Yami (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Your trying to twist my words. I'm not going carry this on anymore and I'm going let Useigh decide the matter because this is just turning into a battle ground. Yami (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
TheChrisD: you two are trying to stir the discussion off course. The Truck just has a rumor attached to it. Just like most camps and amusement parks. The Rumor doesn't make the thing its attached to. The rumor just adds to the enjoyment of the thing. Artichoker: By rumors are not allowed that just dictated that we can post just any old thing. it to keep any rumors that could lead to legal troubles off wikipedia. I stated that the rumor that is attached to the truck gave lots of people a reason to find the truck. And Useight stated clearly that we were to not edit the article so it indicated to me he would decide rather it was notable and not and readd the info. Also it seemed to me like he just wanted me to present my evidence which i did the first time and for you to state why you think the truck shouldn't be there and leave it at that. Not further the argument past my first and your first post. There has not been a consensus yet. JeremyMcCracken is with me and TheChrisD seems to be with you so right now its just a stand still.Yami (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Also the info should be on the article Yami (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
My argument is not based on a rumor stop trying to manipulate the discussion. Yami (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I said that there was a rumor attached to it, not that the rumor was behind it. We're not going get anywhere, i e-mailed Useight i say let him decide rather it is or is not notable because we're in a bias discussion that won't end. He made it clear the info was taken down temporarily so that means he must plan on adding it back since he asked us not to put it back or remove it ourselves. Yami (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Frustration is frustrating :P. If you feel that you are not getting frustrated, then ignore this comment. However, if you are getting frustrated by the comments of other people, I suggest walking away from the computer whenever you have just read a comment that frustrated you for a period of time. This will slow things down, and give you a chance to process the comments through critical and open-minded logic, rather than an emotional thought process which demands the opposition be wrong 100% of the time. Anyways, verifiability is defined as coverage of a subject by reliable third party sources. Without verifiability, information cannot be inserted into an article if the information is contested, per WP:V. Now, verifiability is often incorrectly used interchangeably with notability. If something is verifiable, then it is notable, but not necessarily the other way around. If something is notable, it still may not be covered in reliable third party sources. If it is not covered, then the information cannot be inserted if it is contested, no matter how strong of a case for its notability can be made. The only way to prove notability is through verifying the information with reliable sources. This has not been done here. Eeggs.com is not reliable due to the user-submitted content, as has been mentioned, nor are any of the other sources that have been brought forth. The way for this information to be inserted into the article is by showing reliable third party sources for this easter egg. Use WP:RS as a guide for judging a source, and then list it here if you think it passes the standard so it can be reviewed. Also, Useight doesn't have the authority to make sweeping judgments about the notability of information. An admin is a janitor, not a judge. The only way to this information can be inserted is to verify it. Useight cannot make that call himself, nor would he claim to be able to. Cheers, The Hybrid 00:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC) this isn't about the existence of the truck, and i provided youtube links but they were removed. The truck exists, and I've posted a lot of sites for references. Why would you argue that these sites with user produced content are unreliable when in fact the dispute is on a truck for a article on a website with user generated content. Yami (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Let me ask you this, how does having this info on the truck hurt the article? will it actually bug you that much to see a little info on a truck and a picture in the Vermilion City portion of the article? Will the info on the Phantom PC really cause that much trouble. I mean the article talks about what happens when you do something here and there that related to the game so why should a little info on two cities be allowed. If the truck and phantom pc (which i notice you had removed as well, thats the next thing on my list) shouldn't be here then the start Pokemon shouldn't be under Pallet. Where Pewter is shouldn't be there because the other towns and cities don't display a geographic location. The part about Lavender town being like Mr. Pyre in the Sapphire, Rubby, and Emerald games for their Pokemon memorial services shouldn't be there. What does it matter if they hold memorial services for pokemon, its not worth noting if a two easter eggs are not worth noting. the Motos for the Game corner should be removed from the celadon section, what does that add to the article? Yami (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The whole argument started because you (one person) thinks that is not notable and the image proved the truck exists and this isn't about creditable soruces this is about you causing trouble because you want to police the article. Yami (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The picture was evidence, go to youtube and type in pokemon truck. You can see videos of people going to the truck. You didn't question anything, you removed the contribution without even trying to right any mistakes. I referenced the material multiple times from multiple sources, i went through the trouble of finding a picture and uploading it, and I even gave a little background info on some old rumor about the truck that i said was false but doesn't mean the truck is a rumor or that the truck isn't notable. The rumor is just attached to the truck the truck isn't the rumor itself. It is certainly not speculation, and your edit summaries look like they are attacking me with them saying things like "Well, I have said this three or four times, so I guess another time won't hurt: DO NOT revert until we have reached a consensus. thank you." If you thought the info was fishy then you should have done research instead of just removing it and calling it speculation. How can a picture that clearly shows the truck be speculation? how can videos be speculations. this stuff isn't easy to fake. The truck is apart of pokemon history. Yeah i was bummed when i couldn't get a mew from it but at least i tried it out and i enjoyed finding the truck for myself. Yami (talk) 02:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Well if you never played the game how can you say rather the truck is or is not notable? that's like saying cat food taste like dead fish when you never tried it and the can says chickenYami (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC) I better state this now since you keep getting me back on the truck, but what about the phantom pc, that is interactive which was your apparent main beef with the truck, its apart of the scenery but so are all the other pcs. Why can't that be added? Yami (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Its 2008 not 1996 finding places that you would deem "reliable" is a little hard on these games now. The games are 12 years old we're lucky people still have the resources or the fandom to give out this information 12 years after the games came out. Also Nintendo hasn't exactly been so informative about these glitches and features. How are these sources unreliable in the first place? The picture shows the truck exist but why are you asking for a reliable verifiable source for something you see with how many eyes you have. The phantom Pc will be tricky, and i couldn't find a picture but you'd probably just say it was photo shoped or something like that to try and discredit it. I have the Pokemon yellow emulator on my pc, and i can take screen shots but then you'll just say that's unreliable and unverifiable. You're never going be happy until i go to japan and drag a gamefreak employee out of their office or bed at gun point and force them to verify everything.Yami (talk) 02:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I exist, far more than the truck exists in fact, because I am made of matter, and am not just written in some programming language. However, I do not deserve an article, nor do I deserve to be mentioned in one, as I am not notable, nor am I mentioned in reliable third party sources. Existence is irrelevant. Also, Artichoker's conduct is irrelevant to whether or not the information will be inserted into the article. Personal attacks or manipulation of your statements has no bearing on the content portion of this dispute. After we settle the verifiability issue, I would be more than happy to mediate the conduct portion of this dispute if you would like. As for the here and now, the content dispute, the only thing that will grant you a victory is a reliable third party source, as described by WP:RS. Read the link to understand why the previous sources are unreliable. If you don't read the link, you are at a serious disadvantage in this dispute. Cheers, The Hybrid 02:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC) That is completly uncalled for and You would not make a good third party to decide on conduct of either i or Artichoker. Overview Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. These specific examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment. Use your common sense, the easter egg site is a third party site and the context fits the content its referencing to. www.eeggs.com or more exactly http://www.eeggs.com/items/50225.html related directly to the truck. Nowhere in the Wikipedia:Reliable sources article did it say that a site that has user provided content is not a reliable source. Yami (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
How to verify the reference i gave on the truck. go to the article. go to the truck under Vermilion City, and click the little blue number off to the side. if you can click it, and its there then that is called Verification. Yami (talk) 03:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
And i read the pageYami (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books I did all thatYami (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC) How about you help and find some yourself that way your less likely to just remove it and say its speculation? Yami (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Those sources are reliable, its not like they are saying there a mew there or that there is a bear where the phantom pc is.
yeah only three you and the other two and for all we know you could be all three why don't you help try and improve my contributions instead of spending this time ridiculing me. you're not interested in the material your just interested in causing trouble for me. Yami (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia clearly states that its best not to just delete a article or something without thinking and undoing them is just like deleting. Its your job to also try and find reliable sources to help better the article as well.
Why don't you guys stop trying to despute more with me and try and help me with the article and what i want to addYami (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I tried to find some sources on this particular truck and here's some of what I came up with:
It seems that it is only mentioned at fan sites and forums, which are not considered to be reliable. Useight (talk) 04:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for helping find other sources. I doubt they will make Atrichoker or the other two happy but at least I'm trying to add to the article and not trying fight against what i added out of personal views. I could have easily went through and removed what i deemed unnotable but i didn't. There is also the Phantom PC which was also taken down. Artichoke said the truck was not notable because it was not interactive, but the pc is. But then he said that the pc isn't either because its a glitch but Missingno or how ever its spelled is a glitch and that is listed in a article. Yami (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Useight if the text under the pictures isn't notable then what about this
 |
Compromise
edit| Compromise |
|---|
|
If text on the truck isn't notable then can we at least keep the picture in the article with a caption about the port/dock and the truck maybe? Yami (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC) http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon_FireRed_and_LeafGreen_Versions Nice little bit of trivia at the bottom that shows the truck and the programmers seem to have paid homage to the old mew claims with a new item in place of a mew. Yami (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I said you were bias and this is just bordering on harassment now. Also if i made it into bulbapedia it must be notable. it also late here and yes he said the are not considered reliable but that doesn't mean they aren't reliable. Yami (talk) 05:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Would anyone like to compromise and at least add these two images with the following captions to the article?
Yami (talk) 05:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia didn't give me the option of using Fair Use as the tag like Bulbapedia listed the color image, and all the screenshots have Non-free for their tag on this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/All#Screenshots Also it'll take a while before i can upload a image because that would require the use of my emulator since that is the only yellow version i have after all but my Gold and Silver gamers were stolen. And since GameStop is a reliable source and i found where they talk about the cookie in place of mew for the remakes of red and blue i think that it will be notable if your only problem was that i couldn't find a source you called reliable. Yami (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
http://www.gamepro.com/nintendo/gameboy_advance/games/cheats/41704.shtml http://boards.ign.com/pokemon/b5012/165801242/p1/?9 http://www.gamespot.com/gba/rpg/pokemonred/show_msgs.php?topic_id=m-1-43563795&pid=918915 http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=918915&topic=43563795 http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=26400297 Yami (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Also check the image out it says it qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law, as such display does not significantly impede the right of the copyright holder to sell the copyrighted material, is not being used to generate profit in this context, and presents ideas that cannot be exhibited otherwise. Yami (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Useight if the text under the pictures isn't notable then what about this
Then if the first one is, then we can use that with no problem Yami (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The user under this subheadline says that IGN is a reliable source as are all other popular game sites. Also this isn't about what you think is or is not relative, that's how this whole thing got started. Saying the original games is fine since the image is black and white, there is no way for anyone even with the title of the game to tell where its from. the first 3 games all had their own color to the game that was represented by what game you played. Pokémon Blue had a blue tone to the image, Pokémon Red had a red tone. Yami (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Also just saying its a truck makes it look random unless someone clicks on the image to see the descriptions, then that and only that would make it non relative Yami (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
well it seems to me more then just one person is talking about and conforming it, so i don't see what the problem is. Where are you coming from here? We both know the truck exist and we both know about the rumor that once was attached to it, and we both can see that the truck makes a reappearance and this time has a propose. What is the problem here now? you seem to still be trying to call it speculation or something. The truck is apart of Vermilion port just as much as the S.S. Anne. all the S.S. Anne is good for is a few battles and the sea sick captain that is throwing up in a trash can that says "yuck shouldn't have looked" and gives you HM 01 Cut. then the anne leaves and you never can go back unless you cheat with a device. Yeah all the truck is good for is scenery to you, just like the anne stuff i said is to me, but the fact that the programmers put it there, people speculated about it and is spawned a whole slew of rumors that were proven false but gave people something to do other then complete the S.S. Anne which i would call a side mission. The programmers for the remakes even took the time to bring the truck back, and it even seems they payed tribute to the old rumors. That has to be notable. Yami (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC) How about these captions
Yami (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Yami (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
If you want to clean up a article with rumors go to JFK because thats using the word rumor in the same context that i did explaining the background of the truck.Yami (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Well the same goes for the use of rumor when talking about the truck, and it's important for both the history of the game and for this portion of the article as well. Yami (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Can we just put the two images up, and if a user of wiki wants to learn more all they have to do is click the image(s) The article does need more images, and at the top two different versions of the same image is used so i don't see a problem with using both for this particular instance. Yami (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
That was just the tag i used last night because the auto tagger thing told be to put a tag on it., and they are fair use because they don't limit the copy right user from selling the product and all that stuff. I've told you about the tag deal 3 times. And I don't see anywhere where the rules or plocies says they should be use only to "show something the reader needs to know and cannot completely understand with just words." That's just you being stubborn. Yami (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Its obvious to me you just don't want this on here because you want to be stubborn and police the article. If you didn't think it was non notable you should have posted in the talk and said it really shouldn't be there and not just go and undo the contribution without consensus Yami (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm going just go ahead and put the images up and nothing else, and also put the pokemon fanclub info back in since that somehow went away. the article needs more images and if your so worried aobut this non free stuff i'll get my own screenshot and put it up. I'm already working my way through pokemon yellow now. Yami (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
You are not the police of this articleYami (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going read anything. I stand by my belief that this belongs in the article and what does his lack of experience with images have to do with anything Yami (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Now your threatening me, what kind of high are you getting on your end trying to act like the police here. Im going to an admin with out any involvement and seeing if i can't have something done to remedy the situation and have you either ban, or blocked. Yami (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh and i read that article and those pictures are not breaking policy. Yami (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
It does not go against number 8 because it helps people learn about something they might not have known. So it inturn increases their understand about the port of Vermillion Yami (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
It increases the reader's understanding of Vermilion and its port which are both a big part of kanto. Because you want to police the article we don't even have any info on the Pokemon fanclub which if we use your logic may or may not help the reader understand Vermillion. Yami (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Well if its just one screenshot of a truck why is it so offensive to you? Yami (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
So if i take my own screenshot of the truck i can add it and you won't have a problem about it being a non-free image because it would be a screenshot made specifically for the article? Yami (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what having an extra image no matter what you call it hurts the article. The images help people see pokemon history. I'm adding them back, if you want them gone then you wait for consensus. They're not going hurt the article any. Yami (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC) I also didn't go to the history tab and undo anything. Yami (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
So you undo my edit a second time just because i forgot to put a edit summary and you claim it breaks consensus? I want to see where in wikipedia it says we have to reach any consensus. show me the policy because to me all your doing is deliberately vandalizing my contributions. Yami (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. YOu haven't tried to work with me at all, you even denied my request for help.Yami (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Then how abotu you go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution Focus on content, not on the other editor. Wikipedia is built upon the principle of representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias. When you find a passage in an article biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not possible, and you disagree completely with a point of view expressed in an article, think twice before simply deleting it. the fact that you just go and undo my contribution seems uncivil to me. Yami (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
You seemed to have focused on me and not the main point many more times. [[ad hominem][ You also tried to claim victory when i decided not to turn this into a large needless discussion. Yami (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't trust any third party people you bring in. And you did, you tried to say that consensus was reached and that the info shouldn't stay as see below. And back to you twisting my words, you kept trying to stiry the conversation to one side of the story by trying make it look like i was basing it all on the rumor and that that was all i was talking about.
This isn't going be solved if you are the only one to bring in third parties Yami (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I've not even met these people and you have just said that they are against me? You just proved my point, and you are going agaisnt Useight's request against ad hominem you are personally aiming at me and not the topic at hand Yami (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Also i only called you bias on two things and The Hybrid Bias as to his capabilty to be a mediator. If he was capable of being a unbias mediator. Yami (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
My camera is broke but the emulator has a screenshot function and i can also use print screen key, but the problem is wouldn't the use of a camera shot of the screen be kind of tacky? I also could always make my own image of it pixle by pixle. I once started on a project to recreate the Jhoto and Kanto Region by hand pixcle by pixcel but it gave up. would a picture i made by hand pixle by pixle count? Yami (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Is the free image thing the only problem with this addition? Yami (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear Lord this discussion is getting long, and over something completely worthless too. I think this qualifies for WP:LAME. Now then, I do have extensive experience with images, videos, and media in general. Fair use images are allowed if they are absolutely necessary, or the information they help to convey is absolutely necessary. This is certainly not the case here. Therefore, using the images goes beyond violating Wikipedia policy, it is in violation of international copyright laws, as well as the copyright laws of the United States in which Wikipedia is based. Also, creating an image pixel by pixel counts as imitation, which goes beyond violating the fair use laws. It is considered copyright infringement, which could result in jail terms and heavy fines for the creator, as well as Wikipedia being sued for publishing illegal materials. Now, forums and message boards always fail WP:RS because the people posting the messages are not considered experts or individuals with credibility on the subject of their choice, the messages are not peer reviewed or critically examined by other sources for accuracy, nor is the material contained within such sources actively examined and controlled by the site said forum belongs to. The Hybrid 00:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC) If its so lame then why did you come back. Also its not going be copyright infringement, and Wikipedia isn't really publishing anything. Now if they printed out a wikipedia magazine and the picture was there then that would be some grounds for suit. If it was all the images on the page would have to be taken down because their rights belong to Nintendo and their sub companies. Yami (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I might not know them by heart but at least i properly cited the source, and i found other soruces that are more crediable. Yami (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Those images display necessary information try clicking them Yami (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Will you please quit skipping around, and if that is the case then one of the kanto pictures should be removed sicne two doesn't help people understand the article any better then one, and the pokemon mannsion entrance is the same. Yami (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I said only one of the world maps, and how is the mansion no different then the truck? to me they're in the same boatYami (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The truck isn't mentioned because you kept removing it. That's like saying there is no need for a bullet proof vest after you have two slugs in you. To make matters worst because you wouldn't even let the images be there for a minute, they were removed so if this is resolved in my favor i have to reload them because you wanted to delete them right away. Yami (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The truck makes a return and with it there is a lava cookie. Game Freak must have liked the rumors enough to humor people with its return and a item along for the ride. The lava cookie something that doesn't appear until latter in the game. Also its a item that is in the third gen games and the remakes of the first gen games since they were made roughly the same time. In Sa/Ru/Em the item says its a local specialty and you can only get them on Mt. Chimney. Also in FR/LG you have to defeat the Elite Four, and go to Two Island to get them from what i found. Those are some more good reasons for its inclusion. You work hard and you get rewarded with a nice treat for your pokemon and it heals them of all status effects. You don't even have to defeat the elite four and travel out of your way to get it. Also many of the places i find the truck mentioned call it The Infamous Truck a pretty good title for something you thing is not notable for inclusion. Yami (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
You're taking that out of context, you know why the lava cookie is there. Yami (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
now your just splitting hairsYami (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC) |
Why the Truck should be added
edit| Why the Truck should be added |
|---|
|
I could think of many more reasons but that was all that was on top of my head at the time. Yami (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
You get a lava cookie in the new remakes. the rumors said you would get a mew depending on the rumor you heard. I didn't say anythign about the lava cookie because your so big on gamecruftYami (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
They could have taken it out, or made it where surfing wasn't possible there but they didn't. I dont know how much space(in the game) the truck took up, but if i recall not only is there a zoom in view like those pictures i found, but also a zoomed out view. I know that i add a simple symbol to something in flash and it increases it about 200k do i don't know why they would waste space on not only a sprite that never shows up else where but also have a zoom out view of the truck. Yami (talk) 00:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure about them being a remake of yellow. usually in every generation two games come out, then a thrid/more advance version comes out. R/B then Y G/S then Cy Sa/Ru then Em D/P then ? (i can't wait) But either way in the first games and remakes they could have saved time and money if they left it all out. it would have taken less time and work to have Professor Oak Message "Now is not the place for that" or how ever it goes to show up when you try to surf but they didn't. Who knows maybe they put it there to screw with people, and then came out with rumors for it. Yami (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Companies are always trying to save money. The whole Y2K thing came about because companies wanted to save money, so thy only used the last two digits of the year (if my memory is correct) Why would Nintendo and GameFreak waste time and money on the truck, and the whole area around the truck? yes its speculation but everything existce for some reason. Maybe the were going put a special item there but the area is there and it might be a programing quirk but so is missingo and he is mentioned in an article. Yami (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I got plenty of links to establish verifiability. You seem to be focusing on my and not the true topic at hand. Yami (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Even Artichoker Verified that a source i found was verifiable, so read the whole thing before you try and say other wiseYami (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The guy right under us said any popular game site including gamespot was. and you did say the first one was. Yami (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I would also like to add that the link from the gamestop site i found directly related to the subject, and wikipolocy says that refrences should relate directly to it. Yami (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Its gamepro, i had Game Spot and Game Stop on my mind for some reason, but why should it be discredited because it links to a forum? Many sites have forums, and articles that link to a forum.Yami (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Wait there are two Gamepro and a Gamespot on. god this is gettign confusin Yami (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC) The Gamepro one should be reliable enough as a temporary ref until a better one is found? the gamespot on i can see where your coming from, i got confused and thought you ment that there was a link somewhere on the gamepro site and said because of that it wasn't reliable. The gamespot is a forum itself. Yami (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean my information? Yami (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I can easily reword it in that caseYami (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Along with annually housing the S.S. Anne, Vermillion City port has a vast loading dock that holds many unknown things. Among these is a truck that was so out of place that rumors were built around it. What ever mysteries the port holds, you can be sure to find something of use just laying around. [1] Is that good? it describes the port like a real port, it talks about the truck being out of place, the rumors without describing the rumors, and it hints to the lava cookie with out being gamecruft. Yami (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Well do you know whats in the crates? or whats in things on a real loading dock? If you do don't say because post-9/11 that gets people put on a watch list. And how does it reading like a magazine hurt? And the truck is the only one in the game your playing if you see the truck so its hinting to that. And we could always put the truck is never put in use instead. Also i expect a forklift not a pickup truck. Yami (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
that's not the point here. ok how about this. Along with annually housing the S.S. Anne, Vermillion City Port has a vast loading dock that holds many unique things. upon further exploration, you can be sure to find these unique things and maybe something of use just laying around. And if that doesn't help decribe the loading dock then i think it would be a proper place for the image(s)Yami (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't have as much personality as mine. its so dry, and you would just remove it even if i did right that and cite it. You were the only one at the beginning that had a problem with the truck, and JeremyMcCracken even mentioned that, and he seconded that it should be added and said it was properly cited. At tops you have maybe 4 people with you that i know of that has a problem with one thing or another with the truck. Uesight said he never played the games and he has said he wasn't sure of its notability if i remember but i didn't hold it against him, and you kept saying i called everyone against me bias. Yes i questioned the Hybrids ability as a mediator and he proved that he couldn't be a non bias mediator when i called it into question and he lost his cool. He posted a very sarcastic comment then he said he would be more then happy to act as a mediator then he got mad at me and really started pounding into this subject. The impact he has on this has been lessened because he is to bias to properly discuss the notability and verifiability of this truck
This has been a long and exhausting discussion, why must you keep on splitting hairs. I've provided enough evidence and everything for this to be included, but every time i add this info or the images you, and only you took it down. You also kep bringing policies that are at best vague enough where you can manipulate their meaning in your favor just because you don't want this truck in this articleYami (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
|
Any ideas
editDoes anyone know if gamespot is a reliable source? or any game sites that would be deemed reliable? Yami (talk) 05:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, GameSpot is a reliable source. Pretty much any "popular" gaming website (IGN, etc) is reliable. As long as it's not self-published, such as a blog, it's fine. — FatalError 05:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't tell if this http://www.cheathappens.com/show_cheat.asp?ID=10613 would be counted as reliable. They have the informations but they call Vermilion Viridian which i could understand someone gettign them mixed up.
Yami (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, because you can look at the bottom of each "cheat" it will say in gray lettering (supplied by: batusai_the_slasher2002), etc. So no, that is not a reliable source. Artichoker[talk] 21:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Well i found another source
Consensus has been made and The information is going in with two references cited. You said that you would have no problem if two references were cited and that is what i am going to add. Yami (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm, for all your talk and eagerness to add the info, you haven't really worded it well...
- I mean, I'm reading it, and it doesn't seem all that "important". TheChrisD Rants•Edits 22:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me if its a little dry after i spent 2.5 days debating. My ability to properly word it without someone calling it this or that has been dulled. I can rewrite it when i have a fresher mind set. Yami (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that is a little better. Yami (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Also a picture would help but people want to be just as difficult about that. Yami (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I added a picture. It ties in well with the text, and I think we needed at least one in game picture since all the others are not from the game(s), but the game(s) is discussed in the article. Yami (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, you misunderstand. This is an invalid source. As all the information is submitted by different individuals and not checked, so it is not reliable at all. Artichoker[talk] 01:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Artichoker is right; you cannot add the information. The Hybrid 01:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The second one was valid, and the picture goes with the article. Also if i have one reference that is good enough, stop being difficult Yami (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- We are not being difficult. The second one is not because, as has been stated multiple times, all the information is submitted by different individuals and not checked, so it is not reliable at all. You are the one who is being difficult by not accepting that your source is invalid. Also the image explicitly violates WP:FUC, so therefore it doesn't matter if it "goes with the article." It cannot be added. Artichoker[talk] 02:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Then the info and first refrence/citation alone will do. take the image out but leave the info alone.Yami (talk) 02:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- You will need at least two references in order to really prove that your information is actually notable. Artichoker[talk] 02:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
That is what you say, all the other items have one. Yami (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Because this little bit of information is very controversial, as evidence by this talk page. Therefore, in order to establish notability, you will need at least two reliable sources. Until then, please refrain from editing the actual article, I don't want this to escalate into an edit war. Please wait until consensus is reached on this talk page. All you need to do is provide one more reliable source, and I shall let your information be added. Artichoker[talk] 02:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
You do not get to decide how many is needed, and multiple admins have been alerted to this. You are vandalizing this article Yami (talk) 02:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- I am not vandalizing this article. There is a large difference between a content dispute and vandalizing. Your information is controversial and therefore requires more sourcing in order to be considered notable. Artichoker[talk] 02:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
How is the second reference/citation unreliable/verifiable?
And you are the one that made it controversial because you didn't want it on the article. I have noticified multiple admins about your actions and this entire case. Yami (talk) 02:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- As I have stated before, all of the information on that page is submitted by different individuals and not checked, so it is not reliable at all. Yes, exactly correct, that is what made it controversial. And yes I am already aware that you have notified admins, however if you reason for notifying them is to try and get me "punished," I don't think that will be the case. Artichoker[talk] 02:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Neither me or Ueseight can see where that site has user submitted content. The source is valid Yami (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't believe Useight said anything about your source, but as I stated before look at the bottom of each "cheat" it will say in gray lettering (supplied by: batusai_the_slasher2002), etc. which means it has submitted content, and is therefore unreliable. Artichoker[talk] 14:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
he said it in a e-mail between us, and I do not see any grey letters on this site http://www.xtreme-cheats.com/tlyour_cheats.php?15597 are we talking about the same site. Yami (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry I was talking about the previous site you provided: http://www.cheathappens.com/show_cheat.asp?ID=10613 This new site I have never seen before, but it looks reliable enough. Okay I no longer have any qualms about you adding back the information with the two reliable sources. However no image should be added. Agreed? Artichoker[talk] 15:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
That was the second reference that you removed yesterday check the history. The article got locked because you didn't check the reference/citations. Yami (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oh sorry, you should have informed me that you had found another verifiable source. Then this edit war wouldn't have happened and the dispute would have been resolved sooner. So anyways, I'll go inform Useight that the content dispute has ended and he can unprotect the article. Then you are free to add the information along with both of the reliable sources. Artichoker[talk] 15:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I did say i had two reliable sources.
Now there the question of the image. Now i believe that the article should have 1 in game image, and it helps the Vermilion section. Also the kanto images are non-free art but the image i want to use would be a non-free screenshot. The image allows people to see the harbor or loading dock depending on what terminology is acceptable. If i understand the non-free policy. because we can't find a free version, and because it helps show what the text alone can't relay i believe it would be acceptable. Yami (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- But the text CAN relay it perfectly well. Your information is just about a truck. The picture shows just a truck, so there is no need for the picture. Please just go with the text, and do not include the picture. Let's not get into another content dispute. Artichoker[talk] 16:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes but talking about the general harbor would help the truck and info on vermilion port as a whole. And if we talk about it as a whole i think a picture, not necessarily one showing the truck would be nice. now as i have said if i remember right there is a zoom out version of the whole area so maybe if i remember right and that is the case i can take a screenshot and the whole area can be shown?
if you still think its not needed i won't press it anymore because i'm in the mood to play PKMN Yellow. Yami (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- The picture is non-free and not gravely need, that's all the reasons needed for exclusion. Artichoker[talk] 16:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Why did you revert it? You wrote the info to dry and when i tried to add a little you revert it?
when i first wrote it, it had more body because i mentioned the rumor built around the truck, but just saying there is a pickup truck with no back or side story is too dry and not what i had in mind for the article. I wanted at least to mention the area, what is in the area and/or the rumors built on the area. I think talking about the area more like a real dock and still mentioning the item in the area, but not explicitly saying what the item is would make it less dry sounding. Yami (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)