Talk:Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Missing

The glitch section is missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fivexthethird (talk • contribs) 05:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It was removed, but there is a sentence about it in the Gameplay section.--十八 02:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that won't do. I'm very disappointed to come back and discover this deletion. If you read the above discussion, you'd see that we worked fairly long to reach a concensus on the issue. Glitch City as it's own article even went to AfD, and here's the important bit. Admin decided that the article would be deleted BUT that the pokemon red blue page should include a section on it. And you've failed to even do that.

I'll of course assume good faith... Artichoker must have somehow failed to notice this deletion. After such a struggle for concensus on the issue, and his taking part in the very AfD discussion where it was ruled that a Glitch City section would be added to the Pokemon red/blue article, surely he would have reverted the edit if he'd noticed this. As he missed it, I'll add it back myself.MKULTRA333 (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I did indeed notice its removal. Before re-adding it, try finding some reliable sources for its inclusion. The sources it had before were absolute rubbish as evidenced. Until then, this section cannot be added. Artichoker^[talk] 17:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The sources were quite good. One is a published book on playing Pokemon and another is a map of the glitch cities in question. This is really disappointing, Artichoker. You are a very poor wikipedia editor and you can not be trusted to act in good faith, as evidenced by the fact that you allowed the section to be deleted the very day it was created, after pretending to me that it had all be resolved. You act in bad faith and with deceit. And you act as if you own this article. Very sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MKULTRA333 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The first one is a link to Amazon selling a book. That is not a reliable source. The second one is a map submitted by one person (he has an account on Wikipedia by the way; User:Abwayax.) I don't own this article, but this unverifiable original research cannot be added until reliable sources are added. I suggest you actually read that guideline before commenting again (or revert warring on the article page.) Frankly your behavior so far has not be very good. Artichoker^[talk] 18:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

My behaviour has been far superior to yours. That the source is not an online article is irrelevant. You have in the past specifically resisted any links to online articles on the grounds that they were just fan "cruft". For a popular culture item, that really only leaves published books.

I won't be going away on this Artichoke. Annoying as it may be for me to have to do this, it breaks my heart to see people like you ruining wikipedia with your rampant deletions and authoritarian attitude. MKULTRA333 (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You are completely misguided. These sources are all websites, and they are not reliable. I doubt you have read WP:Reliable sources which you should really consider reading before talking here about things that are obviously incorrect. Instead of waiting to discuss this on the talk page, you have edit warred on the article.

In any case, my claim stands, the sources you provided are not reliable. Can you refute that? Artichoker^[talk] 18:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is quite easy to demonstrate that sources are valid. "Pokemon Future" is published by the large, respectable publishing house [1], and the author also wrote "Pokemon Fever," "How To Become A Pokemon Master," "Digimon Power," "How to Win At Sony Playstation Games," and "How to Win at Nintendo 64 Games."

Having established the validity of that source, the link to the map hosted at the Universtity of Berkely serves to link the reader to an example they can view, and it happens to be one of the best examples out there.

Plus, reliable refers constantly to articles, not sections of articles. Are you honestly saying that you don't think Glitch City and the Glitch pokemon exist?

You behaved as if this was all sorted. I walked away thinking maybe the concensus approach worked after all, and that perhaps I had misjudged you. But the very day the issue was apparently settled you gladly let someone else delete it all for you. Now you try to block it coming back despite the WP:Reliable sources. MKULTRA333 (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

But you are citing Amazon, with the selling of the book. Cite the book (and its pages) instead. Also, the second source still fails WP:RS. And sections of articles are part of the article. So that point is irrelevant. I am saying that they are unverifiable for the most part (my personal belief about whether they exist has nothing to do with anything.) Artichoker^[talk] 19:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, it's not just verifiable; it's true. Go borrow a Game Boy and a copy of Red or Blue and try it yourself. WP:RS and WP:V apply when the validity of content is in dispute, which it is most certainly not here. If you want, you can delete it on the grounds that it's not notable, but you would be mistaken there as well--as I've said below, the MissingNO. glitch is quite notable indeed, even if the others aren't. Pokémon Red and Blue are in fact well-known for their glitchiness. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

But existence has nothing to do with notability. So valid sourcing is still needed for the information's inclusion. Also the 'M and Missingno. glitches are already mentioned in the article (see the Gameplay section.) Artichoker^[talk] 21:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Content Dispute

Okay, I've took a look at the situation. I found that MKULTRA333 added the glitch info here and then it was removed by Artichoker here one minute later. Later MKULTRA333 re-added it here and it was again removed by Artichoker here. MKULTRA333 added it a third time here and it was removed by Kung Fu Man here. For the fourth time here MKULTRA333 re-added; Artichoker took it out again here. I will not stand by and watch an edit war take place on the article, this will be discussed on the talk page only. Now, to resolve this, it must be determined whether the information is notable. Obviously, many, many video games have glitches; however, Wikipedia is not a compilation of everything that exists, only those things that are notable. So, even though the Glitch City, as it is called, actually exists, this alone is not enough to warrant inclusion. It must be evidenced that it notable above the thousands of glitches that can be found in every other video game. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs.com. Now, here are the three sources that have been used so far to back up the glitch's notability: An Amazon book review, A How-To on finding Glitch City, and A cheat code guide. I'm going to go over these sources a bit better after I eat some lunch, but as for the first and the third one, it appears that any individual can add content, and therefore, are not reliable sources. I'm not sure about that second one at this moment. Anyway, it up to MKULTRA333 to provide reliable, verifiable, third-party sources to back up the notability of this particular glitch. During this dispute resolution, nobody should add or remove information regarding this glitch until a satisfactory consensus is reached on this talk page. Useight (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment, Useight. This pretty much sums up everything that has taken place. As stated, it is up to you, MKULTRA333 to provide reliable, verifiable, third-party sources for the inclusion of the controversial content. If you can do this, then I will have no objection to its inclusion. And hopefully Useight will not need to fully protect the page. Thanks, Artichoker^[talk] 21:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This has been done completely incorrectly. The correct procedure is to tag the relevant sections with {{fact}} and then allow sufficient time for references to be added. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia, I would like to remind everyone, is verifiability--we can check the references and decide for ourselves, as readers, whether it is trustworthy. I don't see what the problem or big deal is here; Wikipedia is not paper, so keeping a glitch section is not a problem. Undue weight says we shouldn't discuss non-major topics more than major topics in an article; certainly glitches in Pokémon Red/Blue are important. Besides, it's not a clear violation of WP:OR, so we can assume good faith on the part of whoever has added the glitches section and referenced it. Lastly, anyone with Pokémon Red/Blue can verify the glitches themselves, so what, precisely, is the reason for removing the glitches section? If notability's what you want, I don't see a problem with that here, unless you've never played Pokémon Red/Blue. Although Glitch City and the other miscellaneous glitches are, admittedly, not terribly notable, it is undeniable that the M or MissingNO. glitch is notable, as it allowed players to instantly become perfect trainers--their Pokémon would have superior stats and they'd have far more potions than other players. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Unverified information can be removed, and as that information had no verification (all the sources were unreliable which is why it was removed the countless other times over the months) it shouldn't go into the article until some good references are found. Remember, just because something exists does not mean it is notable. Also, 'M and Missingno. are already mentioned (and legitimately sourced) in the article (see Gameplay section.) Artichoker^[talk] 21:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Unverifiable information (not necessarily unverified information) can be removed if it is potentially damaging to the reputation of anyone or anything. Far from being damaging, these glitches actually add to the gameplay experience, but mostly for people who are into glitching games and tinkering with them. As for being unverifiable, there are plenty of websites which all say the same thing, so unless there's a massive conspiracy to trick people into thinking there is a Glitch City when there isn't, I don't see a problem with regards to WP:V and WP:RS. As for notability...that's another matter entirely, and it's a valid point, but that's not what you guys have been discussing here. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well in any case, the information should not be added until its notability is proven, and that can only happen by backing it up with reliable sourcing. Artichoker^[talk] 21:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No, notability guidelines are about articles, not sections of articles. In fact, the notability guidelines specifically say that non-notable subject matter belongs in articles on the main topic rather than in their own topic. It is not necessary to prove notability for every idea in an article, only for the article itself.

And M1ss1ontomars2k4 clears up the issue of verifiablity quite nicely, over and above the fact that the information is sourced to a book published by a respectable publishing house.MKULTRA333 (talk) 02:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, Useight is hardly an objective outside source, but someone you've appealed to in a biased manner and who you've gotten help from before. I mention this only because when I made similar appeals for help you slapped with a "canvassing" accusation.MKULTRA333 (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No, notability guidelines encompass the entire article, and sections are part of the article. The sections must be notable; quit making up your own rules. And it cannot be verifiable or notable until some reliable sources are found. Also, Useight is serving as a neutral mediator for this discussion, as he said it is up to you to prove the content's notability which can be done through reliable sourcing. If you read WP:CANVAS you will see that I was not canvassing, while you were. Artichoker^[talk] 03:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No, as it says near the top of the WP:NOTABILITY page:

"These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles."

Read it if you don't believe me.MKULTRA333 (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The glitches of the game are completely unrelated and will need to establish separate notability. Instead of wasting everybody's time by arguing, why not try finding some reliable sources. I don't want to have to repeat another ridiculous dispute. Artichoker^[talk] 03:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Artichoker, have you actually read what WP:NOTABILITY says?

"Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people [10]). The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines;"

You are completely wrong about the content of articles having to meet the notability requirements of the article itself. The quotes I've shown above from WP:NOTABILITY make that abundantly clear. Why can't you admit that you are wrong on this? MKULTRA333 (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but if you take a look at WP:UNENC, it says "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This page can be used for WikiLawyering and ad hominem attacks or it can be used to ascertain whether or not Glitch City belongs in the article or not. Useight (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The main problem is not even Nintendo has regarded the glitch, nor have any published guides that I know of. The glitch itself is just a common one where the game is drawing data from somewhere it shouldn't: if it turned up anything actually existent like hidden people or bits of text or items that would be one thing. But it's just an area you walk around in till you get bored. That doesn't even deserve a sentence when it can just be covered with "the game has many glitches." It's not like we're talking about Pac-Man's kill screen here. :P--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I also couldn't find anything from Nintendo or the Pokémon Company, the best source I could find was at ign.com. Useight (talk) 04:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Really guys? Really? You're really arguing over whether or not a couple sentences of relevant information should be included in the article? Is it going to brutally murder the article in cold blood, with its entrails strewn all up and about the internet to put forth a mention of a couple sourced major glitches most people who've played the game know about? Is it going to destroy Wikipedia's servers and annihilate its reputation as a scholarly sour-oh wait. Just put the section in for Christ's sake, you're taking this site all too seriously. Every normal person who uses Wikipedia as a knowledge resource sees you as children fighting in a sandbox right now. Any person who cares enough to look up Pokemon here sees you, immediately puts their hand to their face and hits the back button with the first few lines of this post going through their heads. Seriously guys. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Useight, if you want to complain about wikilawyering, please direct your accusations to Artichoker, nto me. He's the one who drags up every WP:Whatever he can think of. I'm merely responding to his excessive (and often wrong) lawyering.

Norse Am Legend, hehe, yeah, it is trivial and kinda funny, but at the same time, why should we just let people gut wikipedia just because they get glea from owning pages and deleting stuff? It is a small issue, but symptomatic of the way some people are ruining wikipedia.

MKULTRA333 (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the point I was getting at. It's amazing how so many people can be so anal about such minor things being included here. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 05:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I really hope you're not referring to me as a "child in a sandbox", I'm merely attempting to resolve a dispute from a neutral perspective. Useight (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to anyone here specifically, it's just generally how I see a lot of discussions of this kind on Wikipedia. No incivility and etc meant. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Then I think you'll enjoy reading WP:LAME, if you haven't already come across it. It's pretty good. Useight (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW Useight, not to slight you, but I don't think you really count as neutral even if your intentions are honest. A glance at your own talk page shows you have a friendly relationship with Artichoker preceeding this discussion, and you posted here specifically at his request. Also you are too close to the Nintendo Pokemon subject, being a member of both WikiProject Pokémon and The Nintendo WikiProject, which somewhat compromizes your objectivity on a subject that might be interpreted as showing flaws in a Nintendo pokemon product. An example of how that might manifest was shown by Kung Fu Man, who claimed the bug wasn't official unless Nintendo admitted it existed.MKULTRA333 (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I said "attempting" to be neutral. I'm not the absolute best candidate to mediate, but I thought I'd show up to make sure things didn't get too heated. Useight (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah but that *isn't* what I stated: I stated it's a common glitch (and yes, very much on par with "blue hell") and neither Nintendo nor many guides have covered it. Does "glitch city" have citable reception? A legacy? Mention in later games? Did it affect how players played the game? The whole article you have on your user page is in fact nothing but a bunch of original research with no citations to back it up. Sorry but this is really got nothing to make it worth talking about beyond a footnote. And that is my neutral opinion.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the reason why Glitch City and the rest of the glitches cannot be arbitrarily added is because they compromise the integrity of Wikipedia because they have no good sources. All of the current sources are rubbish, and adding an unreferened, list-crufty section to a good article is not ideal. Also, I am not preventing this information from being added because I love Nintendo, frankly I could care less if they get criticism or not. And you can see that the 'M and Missingno. glitches are already in the article. Finally, Useight has always acted as a mediator in content disputes I have been involved in. I choose him because I know him, and I know he is neutral and fair. No, I have not "won" all of the disputes, sometimes the other editor gets to re-add the information back, see Talk:Kanto (Pokémon) and Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Kanto (Pokémon). As you can see, the disputed information was originally one sentence about a truck. After three days of arguing, misunderstanding, etc. The other editor finally did what needed to be done (find some reliable sourcing) and then everyone permitted his information to immediately be re-added. You can do the exact same thing here, or you can continue to argue, misunderstand, wiki-lawyer, etc. and we can have another candidate for WP:LAME. It's really your choice; best, Artichoker^[talk] 13:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, if your sole purpose of this whole dispute is to just get this content added to Wikipedia, this article already has the information on all of the glitches. Artichoker^[talk] 14:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe you actually just used "the integrity of Wikipedia", "cruft" and "wikilawyer" all in the same argument. Such things are really be contemptible and should be mentioned under policies like WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. This isn't an article discussing the symptoms of a major disease or something that's actually important where hardcore, badass sources are required, it's a Pokemon article with a disputed minor pop culture-related section. Add the section. Make it good. Have the article reassessed or ask for some third-party opinions. If the new section's sources are "rubbish" and it destroys all credibility of the article by demoting to B-Class (Shock!), take it out. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well thank god they're not. Anyway, sources are always required. If information is controversial and being challenged by an editor then sources are needed. Artichoker^[talk] 20:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidently we have sources, but you and one or two other editors just don't seem to like them. It's not like we're trying to throw in an entire section of "If you cut down a tree, stand on top of the spot it was on, save and reset the game, you'll be on top of the tree!" here, just the most prominent glitches that've worked themselves out to be widely-known aspects of the game. The kind where you walk up to one someone who's played R/B and say "Hey, remember Missingno/Glitch City/The Truck?" and you get a general response of "Hell yeah I do!". These things are notable, sourced, and as long as the section they're in is written in a nice, encyclopedic tone it shouldn't detract from the article's quality. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No, we do not have reliable sources. Sources one and three allow self-submitted content, and source number two was submitted by one person and is not verified. Regardless of whether some guy that played the game remembers Glitch City, it cannot be added until some reliable sources are found. Artichoker^[talk] 21:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, are we arguing that the sources in question could possibly be nonfactual or the glitches themselves are non-notable? - Norse Am Legend (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I am talking about the sources; they are unreliable and cannot be used. Artichoker^[talk] 22:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple hundred other sites, and that crappy book on Amazon among others, that all say/show the exact same thing as those sites do, so obviously the information is reliable and factual though. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not until you prove it. If there are "a couple hundred sites" then you shouldn't have any problem showing me some reliable sources for the information's inclusion. Artichoker^[talk] 22:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this has just degenerated into the realm of being asinine. You're saying nearly 16,000 Google results for Pokemon "Glitch City" and several dozen videos on YouTube of people getting there, proving its existence is overrided by the fact that I'm too lazy to check which ones fall under Wikipedia's vague definition of "reliable"? - Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, YouTube is never a reliable source. And if you are too lazy to search for the sources, then there's no helping that; the information cannot be added (unless of course someone else will find the sources.) Artichoker^[talk] 22:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hell yeah! The average Wikipedian's lack of basic human logic wins again. Whatever, I've lost interest. I hope someone else has a great time finding your precious needle in a mountain of pins. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, yeah, I have to agree with Norse Am Legend. You've really pushed things into the absurd, Artichoker. You've become obsessed with petty lawyering and ownership of the article. As Norse points out, Glitch City appears in a book published by a reputable publisher, appears on hundreds of YouTube videos, and virtually every popular message board for the users of Pokemon Red and Blue has an entire forum dedicated to this and other glitches, while some message boards are just about these glitches, when you can download maps from Berkely of Glitch City... and you still insist there's no such thing, dammit, until you see a thesis on it in the American Annals of Symbolic Logic, The New England Journal of Medicine and a page at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Hilarious. It's a well known aspect of the red blue series that attracts significant interest from diverse people, discussed all over the net, written about in at least one published book... but it just ain't enough for WP: waving Artichoker.

You can't see the wood for the trees, Art. The sad part is how much influence you've been allowed to accumulate in this little pokemon corner of wikipedia. I guess your bulling, officious style pays off.

And I can see it may be an endless uphill battle, given your past history of reneging on agreed edits the second the other editor turns their back.MKULTRA333 (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No ad hominem attacks during this dispute. Discuss the content disput only, not each other. Useight (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, YouTube, forums, and message boards are never suitable sources for Wikipedia. I have never said there is no such thing. I know that Glitch City exists, and have gone there many times in Yellow version. I also think its hilarious how you are completely ignoring what has been said countless times "you need to find some reliable sources", and instead focusing your time on attacking me. If there is well-published book out there talking about Glitch City, then why don't you cite it (page numbers included) and use it for one of your sources? Lastly, what past history of reneging agreed edits? Kanto (Pokémon) still has that nicely sourced information about the truck, and it shall stay there. When the AfD finished and the result was to merge, I agreed with that decision; and I still agree. However, just slapping on some poorly-written, listcrufty section with no reliable sources isn't going to get the job done. If you want this information to be added (which I don't have any problems against as long as it is well-written and sourced) then you are going to need to find some reliable sources. Yup, reliable sources; I have written another big paragraph and we are at the same spot: square one. No doubt you will try to refute what I have just said, twist my words, attack me, etc. However, doing so will not get Glitch City added back, whilst searching for reliable sources certainly will. Artichoker^[talk] 15:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go to the library tomorrow and see if I can find a copy of the book mentioned above. Although it might have been easier to find about four years ago. There are a couple libraries in town, I'll take a look. If anyone really, really cares, it's for sale on Amazon for 92 Canadian cents. Useight (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

"Lastly, what past history of reneging agreed edits?" A simple look at the edit history of the page will show that, after our long battle, a concensus was finally agreed. I placed a short glitches section in, allowed you to do a revision of it, and then it was settled. Concensus had appeared to work. I come back a month later, and find that you not only allowed it to be deleted that very day, but also that when I tried to add back the very edit you finalized, you now fight it tooth and claw.

Look, I tried to do things constructively the first time, and I'll try again, but I have to admit that my "good faith" in your trustworthiness on this is very low. Plus, dealing with an editor who made the "lamest edit wars" page doesn't encourage enthusiasm.

I'll see if I can contact the author or get a copy of the book... but if I can, expect a much larger glitches section, since I'll have at least a complete chapter to work from.MKULTRA333 (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A consensus was agreed to add well-referenced glitch section to the article. I would never agree to allow the addition of what was put on that article. Also WP:LAME is a joke page, and most likely that entry didn't even belong there; in fact it probably even fails criteria number 1 for inclusion: It must have been an actual edit war. Discussions on talk pages, even over trivially lame details are not "edit wars" and should NEVER be added; we want to encourage such rational exchanges (in opposition to actual edit warring), not scorn them with ridicule. But if you can get a book and add a well referenced glitch section to the article, then that's fantastic. I would actually like to see a relevant, well-written and sourced addition to the article because that would bring it one step-closer to featured. Artichoker[talk] 14:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment by now-uninvolved Abwayax

Hey guys, I don't stop by here very often (I get more than a day's worth of WP:ABC debates browsing Wikipedia Review) but I felt like saying something, and here it is.

Firstly, Wikipedia isn't the entire internet; just because something isn't included on a Wikipedia article doesn't mean anyone's "pretending it doesn't exist", or that no one will ever learn about said thing. Even if Glitch City doesn't make it into the article (and I honestly don't care all that much if it does or not, even though I'd like to see a mention), there will still be information about it all over the internet. Wikipedia is just one site on the internet, and removing information about some glitch doesn't erase all information of it from existence.

Secondly, just as Wikipedia is just a website, this is just a videogame. Looking over this talk page I'm seeing stuff about "a lack of basic human logic", "obsessed by ownership", "ruining Wikipedia" etc... Whether or not a videogame glitch merits inclusion in one website out of hundreds of millions makes relatively little impact in the grand scheme of things. The information will still be there, the people who are interested in such information will still have access to it... I just don't see what the big deal is.

Never mind me, I had to let that out. Abwayax (c :: t) 01:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Abwayax, the entire article is hardly critical to the survival of the human race. We could adopt the position that it's fine for ownership and deletionist practice on any article not deemed "Important", but is that really the wikipedian ideal? I'm aware of the apparent triviality of this little struggle, but it is symptomatic of a larger scale issue across wikipedia. What is being discussed here is general principle, not just the particular details of some trivial subject.

Speaking of general principle, Useight, could you please clarify something for me. Probably the main source of my irritation from the very beginning has been Artichoker and others simply deleting anything they didn't like. Various excuses have been given, currently the issue is Citations.

So am I allowed to just delete anything in any article that I deem lacks credible citation? My understanding is that actually it is supposed to be tagged in the article as needing citation, and that the edit gets left for a period to allow others to search for citations.

As M1ss1ontomars2k4 stated above: "This has been done completely incorrectly. The correct procedure is to tag the relevant sections with {{fact}} and then allow sufficient time for references to be added."

I have never once been given this courtesy, instead every edit has been deleted first and then demand for citations made.

Useight, shouldn't the Gitches section be restored and time allowed for references to be found? Isn't Artichoker using a bad, hostile editing style by deleting first and demanding references later?MKULTRA333 (talk) 04:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think, in this case, we can go ahead and re-add the material and use a couple of {{fact}} tags. It seems there is a consensus as to the notability of "Glitch City", mostly due to the book referred to above. However, it seems a citation giving evidence of that notability can't be found until someone finds the book and references the page number. Hopefully someone can get a hold of the book. Due to gas prices, I haven't driven across town just to take a look at the library, but I'll look for it the next time I'm over there. Perhaps you guys can do the same. But, yeah, it seems the consensus is that there is evidence of the notability, we just can't locate that evidence yet. Useight (talk) 05:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

But if this discussion had initiated right before I did the GAN I would have had to remove the unreferenced section immediately. This is a good article and therefore should only contain referenced information. I'm not arguing that its not notable, but I just think that sources are needed before any major addition to this page. You guys talked about buying/checking-out the book to get the needed sources, but nobody has done that yet. Artichoker[talk] 12:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Also a good point. I hadn't even considered that this is a GA. GAs shouldn't have a bunch of unsourced info. Someone's got to get that book. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Artichoker, maybe a lot of this could have been avoided if you'd explained how you were trying for a GA at the time. Plus, originally I was editing the seperate Glitch City article, that had no effect on the GA of this article at all. It was only after you insisted that the Glitch City article be redirect here that I said it only made sense to now actually mention Glitch City.

Instead I was constantly harrassed with cries of "Vandal!" and a barrage of templates. And this was a good month before any GA. If you'd just explained that was your concern I'd have happily played along (though I still think either a separate glitches article or a glitch section here is needed.) I don't think going for a GA suspends treating other editors and their edits with a modicum of decorum.MKULTRA333 (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Uhh, MKULTRA333, is pretty much right. Hmm, mayby we should just make a pokemon glitches article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.0.194 (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Missingno

Missingno should be given its own page. Where would the Pokemon community be without it? PikachuSnowman (talk) 06:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... where would it have been without it? I mean, if they hadn't put Missingno in it, I would have never be able to breed such a strong team when I was 12. Cheers, Face 17:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It is settled then. I will create the page! PikachuSnowman (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I strongly recommend you don't. A single glitch in game is not notable enough to have an individual article, as evidenced by this AfD. All the information on Missingno. should be kept on this page, and it already has one line in the "Gameplay" section, which I believe will suffice. Artichoker[talk] 18:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No, your the wrong one, sir. That is about glitchcity. How about this. We make the article, and put it up on AfD right away to see what other people think on this matter, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fivexthethird (talk • contribs) 23:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought you would take the hint of my initial comment, but I guess not. Anyway, once upon a time, there was a Wikipedia which had all kinds of fancruft, like Missingno. That article was even labeled a Good article at one point, see the archived talk. But that Wikipedia is no more. A mention of it in this article might be appropriate, but it shouldn't have a seperate article, because there is nothing to write about. Cheers, Face 07:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that Missingno. is indeed mentioned in this article. Check the "Gameplay" section. Artichoker[talk] 11:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad titling

It's name should be Pokemon Red, blue, and green. Fivexthethird (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No, because this is the English Wikipedia so we will use the English names for the games. Artichoker[talk] 11:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep. There never really was a "Pokémon Green". Only a "Poketto Monsutā Midori". Cheers, Face 12:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5