Talk:Pokémon Platinum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pokémon Platinum article.
Article policies
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 12 May 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.


Contents

[edit] Why delete?

Resolved. During the AfD proces, the majority wanted to keep this article, so we will not delete or merge it any time soon.

Why should this page be deleted when it is a confirmed game? It just needs to be fixed up (starting with an accented e in the title). 12.31.255.91 (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You should probably look at the AfD page beforehand. All of this happened in January, from what I saw. QuadriusContribs 03:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I see nothing but crystal-ballism here, and consensus is that fansites fail WP:RS, meaning that, even if planned, the article is (a) unsourced and (b) speculative. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 04:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
All the information is taken from the magazine release (i.e. big publication). The fansites are just the source through which you can view it online. Does anyone on Wikipedia spend more than 3 seconds looking through the information of a page before throwing the delete tag on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.60.50 (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if CoroCoro revealed it; CoroCoro is not Nintendo. Unless Nintendo itself out-and-out confirms it, it is speculation. The fact Serebii is used as a reference (fansites are unusable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources) only puts a hole in the hull. Furthermore, the article is up for AfD anyhow here; removing the AfD tag while the discussion is ongoing is vandalism. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 04:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Why doesn't it matter CoroCoro revealed it? The guidelines say a reputable third party source, which CoroCoro is and it is also a printed publication which would satisfy notability. Wikipedia: Always assume everything is bad, delete everything and rule with a subjective fist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.60.50 (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I know it doesn't fall in accordance with WP:RS, but, don't kill me for saying this but maybe we should leave it on here for a few days, because Nintendo will probably announce a press conference in a few days saying whether it's true or false.
The CoroCoro shots look very real, and Serebii has never really said anything that's turned out to be false...
Although still fansites aren't accepted... ARGH! Wikipedia's rules drive me insane sometimes, everything has to be 100% confirmed by :::::sources even though things are blindingly obvious... Not talking about this article in particular, this could possibly be fake (even :::::though personally I think it's real) but Wikipedia honestly does have some stupid rules sometimes. Ignore me. :::::LuGiADude (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, on an unrelated note Nintendo did register the 'Another Form' and 'Origin Form' names.LuGiADude (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
They may have registered them, but there's no proof yet that it's for another Pokémon game, especially given that the French "Forme" is generally preferred in Pokémon (see Deoxys).
And Serebii has indeed been wrong a few times, such as Legendary Lucario. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 18:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
But this time they have a scan from a magazine confirming it.
And? Serebii is still a fansite; fansites still violate WP:RS. Now, if it was Nintendo itself hosting the scan, we wouldn't be having this discussion. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 21:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
When did CoroCoro did a mistake? Indeed Serebii makes mistakes but CoroCoro?? Did CoroCoro made a mistake on revealing Emerald? Diamond and Pearl? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.53.2 (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Where do you lot think CoroCoro gets its information from anyway :P coughnintendocoughLuGiADude (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this will be settled tommorow seing as how that issue of coro coro comes out tommorow. So far all we have is leaked stuff. But this page shouldn't be deleted seeing as how this game is pretty much COMMON SENSE.Zabbethx (talk) 12:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
True but apparently Wikipedia doesn't like Common Sense ¬_¬ Stupid rules... LuGiADude (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Common sense also says there will be a Baby Geniuses 3, but we don't yet have an article on that movie. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 20:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It's now already confirmed. Visit www.pokemon.co.jp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.53.2 (talk • contribs) at 13:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
To be exact, go here: http://www.pokemon.co.jp/special/platinum/ - Face 13:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dialga/Palkia

The game will feature both D and P. If you look at the scan, one of the overworld screens has the shadow of Giratina standing in front of Dialga and Palkia. Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 00:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image.

Shouldn't someone upload an image of the scan?--Kirbychu (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless you have a nonfree use rationale, it's not wise to do so, especially because the AfD is looking at a late frost. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 19:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep. There's not a snowball's chance in hell that the result will be 'delete' considering the amount of people voting for 'keep' or 'merge' ;) LuGiADude (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Ha ha, indeed. At the time of its creation, it looked like a snowball to people who either didn't know of the KoroKoro scan, or didn't know that KoroKoro was N's semi-offical magazine. I still think we should have merged with Diamond and Pearl right away though. But he, if the majority wants an article, then an article they shall have. We could always merge later if it turns out there are not enough differences. Cheers, Face 07:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Well Crystal and Emerald both have separate articles even though it is mostly the same plot, same pokémons and such.. although, Platinum will have different forme of Giratina, and possibly Regigigas and Shaymin like as it says below. --staka (T ・C) 20:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Haters?

Is it just me or does it seem that Wikipedia really hates pokemon? Just a few months ago individual pokemon pages were on this site. But they felt that it was too much so now we have crappy lists. Now we have a pretty much confirmed third Sinnoh game but it already has a bunch of people ready to delete it. I didn't see people trying to delete the Halo 3 page back when Halo 3 was just a rumor. And for the record don't give me that "Wikipedia is not a forum" crap, evertime I type something I hear that.Zabbethx (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

8-) Halo was not up for deletion ever, so yes, your point is valid. And the point wasn't a 'forumy' comment so you won't be getting that response here. Stated again - HALO 3 WAS NEVER UP FOR DELETION, EVEN WITHOUT 'SCANS' OR 'ALIKE' SO WHY IS THIS NOW??? The caps wasn't 'shouting' it was making my point clearer. LuGiADude (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The reason the individual pages were reduced to lists was because they were determined to be non-notable on an individual basis (sans Pikachu, and the reason this page got put up for deletion was because it read like soothsaying. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 20:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
When this page was created, it was based off info from an image taken with a cell phone that might have been a real image from corocoro that was only talked about on the fansites. If you read that sentence, you can see why it was nominated for deletion. There was no reliable proof WHEN THIS ARTICLE WAS NOMINATED FOR DELETION. Since then, real proof has come around so there is no reason for it to be nominated any more, which is why i closed it. The Placebo Effect (talk) How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review. 18:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Completely agree with Zabbethx Arutoa (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You guys shouldn't shout, and certainly not when you're on editor review :-(   Face 20:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Pokémon individually isn't notable so it is against the Notability Fiction policy.. so that is why it was placed into a list. Although some Digimon have their articles, I believe.. the last time I checked. --staka (T ・C) 20:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
You'll have to talk to the governing WikiProject about that; however, you'll have an albatross around your neck whan you do. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 03:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should we deem CoroCoro as a reliable source?

Resolved. As a promotional protégé of Nintendo Japan, the CoroCoro can certainly be considered an RS.

Now we've seen that CoroCoro is right about this, and has been right about everything that's been revealed in there, for example Gold/Silver, Crystal, Ruby/Sapphire... and basically every Pokemon game since, I'm thinking we should make CoroCoro an 'unofficial reliable source', if that makes sense. Hell, CoroCoro gets its information from Nintendo, so why not? LuGiADude (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. They have been right about everything pokemon so far.Zabbethx (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
CoroCoro is very reliable. The scan even had the Ken Sugimori artwork of Origin Giratina which was made specially for Platinum. And the fact that Nintendo made a Platinum website should also be taken into account. CoroCoro has only been wrong once, and that was about the Sinnoh starters. One mistake. Even Nintendo makes mistakes. The infamous "Cresselia is not a legendary" mistake, for example. So we should be able to trust CoroCoro. Arutoa (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
As I already stated above and at the AfD, the CoroCoro Comic has served as an informational magazine for new Nintendo games for years. Apart from Poketto Monsuta, it has featured numerous other manga based on Nintendo games (Mario, Donkey Kong, Kirby, Bomberman), and frequently has informational/promotional articles about new Nintendo products. So it is certainly an RS in my opinion. Cheers, Face 21:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, CoroCoro is a reliable source. However, because an official announcement was made on pokemon-games.co.jp before the issue was supposed to go on sale, it no longer matters. Posting scans of the magazine violates Fair Use, not to mention that it doesn't have any information that's not readily available on the official site. For now, the official site is the only source we need -- no CoroCoro, no Serebii/other fansite spam. Wikipedian06 (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other Forms

Is it true that Regigigas and Shaymin both have other forms as well? And if so, should it be in the article. I believe Regigigas is a "Sky Form" and Shaymin is "Another Form". But I'm not certain. Could some one check this up? I would but my computer is way slow and crappy.Zabbethx (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the names of things like "Sky Form," "Terrestrial Form" etc. have been copyrighted, but I'm not certain they were confirmed by the CoroCoro scans. I don't think anyone's denying their existence, but I don't think you'll get a reliable source at this point. The full detail of the rumour is that Regigigas will have a Sky Form, and Shaymin will have an alternative form that may be part Ice-type (although some sources swap the two around). 86.136.156.205 (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
As no one has seen of anything, and that this information could have been changed/lost in translation, i think we should leave it for now. Matt (talk) 05:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Platina & Form

I keep having to fix these each time I check this article.

  • Purachina (プラチナ?) is the Japanese word for "Platinum." It is not "Platina" even though that is how it is read. I don't know where people are getting "Platina" other than the initial posting on Serebii (the official Japanese website is "pokemon-platinum.com" for a reason).
  • The official website uses "Origin Forme" (オリジンフォルム Orijin Forumu?) with an E. This is different than "Form" (フォーム Fōmu?), which is spelled and pronounced differently.

I've placed commented out items to reflect these proper/official spellings.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I figured they'd use Forme; they did the same with Deoxys' 4 formes. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 02:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
As for Platina: Pu-Ra-Chi-Na P-La-Ti-Na. It's really obvious... it's a DIRECT translation - PLATINUM is NOT the Japanese name. So why have we translated the 'Pocket Monsters' bit from Pokkettu Monsuta or whatever but not Purachina to the PROPER way it's pronounced? IE - Pokkettu - Pocket, Monsuta - Monster, Purachina - PLATINA. PURACHINA =/= PLATINUM. LuGiADude (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The Japanese word for Platinum is "Purachina." Go check ja:プラチナ, where you will see that it redirects to the Japanese language name for platinum in Kanji. Also, the official Japanese page is "Pokemon-Platinum.com," not "Pokemon-Platina.com."—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
That official site is http://www.pokemon.co.jp/special/platinum/02.html. That is just a redirection. Even so, shouldn't it be Pocket Monsters Purachina in that case? Why put an English word into the supposed 'Japanese' name, so it would be Pocket Monsters Purachina? LuGiADude (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The address bar clearly says Platinum though. -Sukecchi (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh... yeah. *facepalmsself* LuGiADude (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current speculation

It will be an enhanced remake of Pokémon Diamond and Pearl,[1][2] in the same vein as Pokémon Yellow, Crystal, and Emerald.

Does ANYONE have a reference for this line? Im going to delete it in a few hours, unless anyone can provide a reference or give me a good reason why it should be deleted.

Also, see WP:ATT, more specificly: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. In other words, whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether we think it is true: Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. Matt (talk) 05:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the current sources count for nothing here - ie They're in Japanese. Matt (talk) 05:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Japanese language sources are just as relevant as English language sources, and the second Japanese reference mentions that fact that you claim has no reference.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
If i cant read them, i cant deem them reliable. Exactly what does it say?
Also, Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others might challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors. Matt (talk) 10:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The fact that you can't read them seems to be only your problem. There is always the idea of sticking it into Google. In there it says it's a "follow up" and "volume up" (ボリュームアップ boryūmu appu?), which appears to mean "remake" as it's used to describe such items in other Japanese text sources.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, its the fact that its not a reliable source because no where in the text can you read anything to do with a remake. Follow up does not denote Remake, and is it even a reliable source anyway? It looks in no way official. Please, don't add speculative material. Im gonna delete it unless you can, once again, try to provide some proof. Speculative material should be deleted without hesitation.Matt (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
The "volume up" and "follow up" parts clearly denote that it is a remake, as the phrase "volume up" refers to an update and a follow up. The game is Japanese, and the news sources about it now will all be Japanese. Dengeki Online is part of ASCII Media Works which is a reputable publisher of information. These are all reliable sources and concrete proof. Just because you cannot figure out the context or read the language does not preclude it as being "official" or "unreliable". Nothing in this article is in any way speculative.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
They're not official sources. The company might be a reputable publisher, but it does not mean all there information is concrete fact. This should not be in here until it is comfirmed by nintendo. The context may be lost in translation. Now, source it properly or wait until nintendo releases more information to put it up. Matt (talk) 07:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
The only thing lost in translation is you right now. All of these news sources come from press releases from the official source. There is the Nintento website and the news website. The news website is a reputable and reliable source. That and Wikipedia requires that not all sources be primary sources. Secondary and tertiary sources are welcome if they can be determined as reliable, which the Dengeki website most certainly is.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Still, you haven't provided enough of a reason to keep this. At the very least, saying the game is on the same tier as E/C/Y is speculative. Best, Matt (talk) 09:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
All three of those games were remakes. We have sources that say this one is a remake.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
We're going to end up in an edit war here, but seeing as that you seem to have some sort of point to make here, im going to step back. I do feel that this is still speculative though, as only one word which may have been a mistranslation seems to in the broadest sense of the phrase, prove anything. I do agree that it most probably is, but wikipedia is a place for things for facts, not for truths. Please remember in future however, not to add speculative material. Best, Matt (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)