Talk:Pokémon Platinum/Archive 1

Archive 1

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. Quadrius^Contribs 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

What about Bulbapedia? 79.70.179.58 (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikis can't be used as sources. Technically they're unreliable.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 18:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

There have been rumors of alternate forms for Shaymin and Regigigas, however at least one instance of the flying Shaymin has been disproven (an image many people thought was official was actually drawn by a fan); and it is unlikely there would be a special/better version of an event pokemon, something a player can't normally obtain. There has also been no real evidence of an alternate Regigigas... Could someone please remove or change the line about the Grass/Flying Shaymin in the article, to at least present it as a possibility instead of a fact? 72.177.191.52 (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Last I checked, "forme" is the British variant of "form".74.76.44.179 (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Confusing Sentence

I'm not quite Sure what a sentence here means: "When the special Regigigas that comes with the pre-order ticket for the 2008 film is traded from Diamond/Pearl, Regirock, Regice, and Registeel appear in the story." For one thing, how would Rigigigas "come with" a movie? Ignoring that for a minute, the sources are in Japanese, which I can't read. I tried translating them; one didn't work the other got me this: [1]. It's in extremely broken English but what it looks like to me is (and what sounds somewhat likely) is that it means if Regigigas is added to Platinum then Regice, Registeel, and Regirock would be unlocked. Does any one know what this means (particularly Staka who added the sentence)? Tommy11111 (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It means that Regigigas is given out with a viewing of the movie, and it unlocks an event that makes the other three catchable in Platinum when this Regigigas is transfered from Diamond/Pearl to Platinum. I will try to clarify this sentence in the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Serebii.net reliable source

Why not?!? Wikidude57 Go Red Sox! 19:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPS. Shah mat. For the long story, we cannot use Serebii because it (α) is a self-published source and (β) has little to no editorial oversight to confirm a claim. As such, we can't use it any more than we could use AGNPH as a source for Hentai. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Trump XXI)} 20:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. Serebii is occasionally wrong, however for non-controversial issues is should be allowed as they are as far as you can become, an expert in the field. Metagraph comment 11:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Occasionally wrong? How about never!Wikidude57 I am Stinky Stanley! 21:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh.. no. --staka (T ・C) 22:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Serebii is not reliable. They've screwed up way too many times in the past: for example, publishing the fake Shaymin Sky Forme pic and then retracting it a few days later after it was confirmed to be a hoax. If you want a reliable news site that's written in English, use pokemonplatinum.net (which I see has been cited). Everything is translated line by line from Coro Coro, Famitsu, the official website, etc. and from my limited Japanese knowledge (nowhere near fluent but can understand basics), they seem to be accurate. Wikipedian06 (talk) 04:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You're kidding me, right? They never stated that fake Shaymin picture to be real. In fact, they were more than likely sure it was a hoax, but posted it anyway for informational purposes, specifically reminding users not to take it as fact just yet. Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 02:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Direct Japanese language news sources are a better choice here for content rather than the translations by Serebii or other English language fansites. I've removed the Pokemonplatinum.net sources, as they are just translating Corocoro or Famitsu, which we could source instead if we knew the issue number and other information regarding the release date.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This would appear to be just as unreliable as Serebii, and if we cant accept them as a source, we can't accept that site either. Metagraph comment 06:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Could I just say, serebii.net get all their information from reliable sources. CBrowncamel (talk) 08:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

But the site itself is not a reliable source per Wikipedia's guidelines.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you people have to make such a fuss out of everything? You're uncertain of something, note that in the article.Rumours about something are part of the information , right? Furthermore, people in fansites don't just spread rumours, especially in popular ones. They gather and verify information, and then publish it. If Serebii was unreliable, you wouldn't find much Wikipedians using it and defending it.--UltimateDarkloid (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Japanese in article

Wouldn't this be better suited to the japanese wikipedia? I could be wrong, but i see an abundance of japanese text on the article. Why? Metagraph comment 21:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That's because this game hasn't even been released in Japan yet, so the majority of sources are Japanese. However, as evidenced by the AfD, the sources are still valid. Artichoker^[talk] 21:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, as the source material is almost all Japanese, the article should contain the text of the source material in some form.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't deny that the sources are valid (anymore), but wonder whether we need all the japanese names throughtout the article. The average reader can't read them, and all they do is make it look like a cross between jp.wp and en.wp. Metagraph comment 21:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The subject of the article is Japanese. It should contain the relevant Japanese text to reflect that and allow for people to know where the terms come from.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe this article correctly follows Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles). Artichoker^[talk] 21:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess, however it has a japanese translation for the forme's and everything. The game name sure, but the names of places and forme's? Couldn't this be found in the sourcing of such names? Metagraph comment 21:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The Japanese text isn't mentioned anywhere else. So it's better if it's here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

At Least Two New Characters

It is also shown by Bulbapedia that there are at least two new characters that will be in Pokemon Platinum. There will also be a large castle now available for exploration somewhere in Sinnoh. TheMANDan (talk) 06:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Bulbapedia is like Wikipedia but solely focused on Pokémon. Their information cannot be used here unless there is a reliable source backing their info up and information that is encyclopedic for inclusion here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the game's website backs up that information, actually.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 07:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It probably does, but is it OMG I NEED TO KNOW AND IT NEEDS TO BE IN AN ENCYCLOPEDIA sorta information?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The castle is in the trailer or the video on the official site.. but it is likely those contest places. Not for adventure and exploring.--staka (T ・C) 15:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can move around in the castle it can probably be explored —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.233.135 (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Release date

I noticed that Serebii.net[2] and Pokemonplatinum.net[3] both released a release date for the game, September the 13th this year. I added it to the article, but quickly removed it due to the lack of reliable sources. My question to all the editors is, should Serebii/Pokemonplatinum be classed as reliable sources? I guess one could classify them as a news source, and they usually are right (apart from some certain times, where apprehension and warnings have been put forward - not in this case), especially for uncontroversial issues.

And i cite,

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

They are a third-party source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy.

Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.

They ususally are correct, in fact Serebii usually triple checks facts before posting them. Its very unlikely these sites are wrong, but they do appear to fail WP:RS. Should we allow them, as the content guidelines allow for the occasional exception and use of common sense? Or should they be used for specific situations like this where no RS are present, and the information is probably more than likely correct? (coming back to the common sense part) I'd like some input! Thank you everyone, Metagraph comment 11:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can definitely use their reference (Coro Coro) as a reference here, and then suppliment it with Japanese entertainment/video game website news stories.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Serebii posted the fake Shaymin sky forme image (speculative) and has posted numerous errors in the past. Though they are getting better recently, I doubt the "triple-checks" claims. PokemonPlatinum.net is just line by line translating, so I don't see how it can go wrong, but it is an unofficial site. Has it had a history of posting inaccurate news? Then again, the Japanese news sites you insist on using (ITMedia, GPara) aren't necessarily any more official or reliable. Wikipedian06 (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, when it comes to the Japanese news sites, they get their information directly from Game Freak and the like. Several of the Japanese websites are major media websites, and we are using the textual source that these English websites use. I found the particular CoroCoro issue, and if we source that, it's essentially the same.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The ones I consider reliable are Famitsu, Dengeki, Nintendo Dream, Shogakukan, Coro Coro, etc. I haven't heard of the other ones. Wikipedian06 (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

They're still news sites. It's not like they're blogs or fan sites.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedian06, apart from the Shaymin incident (which was only reported on because Serebii felt everyone had a right to make their own decision whether it was real or not, and posted many, many warnings in regard to its legitimacy), Serebii.net has had very few errors. He does triple check news, i believe he gets it from at least three Japanese news sites, and if its reported in those he'll do it. Remember, it is more of a business and in his line of work PR is everything. What im asking here is that Serebii be used as a source for non-controversial issues when a Japanese source cannot be found at the present time. Its not that easy to find a Japanese source in the first place, then translating becomes an issue. Metagraph comment 22:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Serebii doesn't have industry insiders or anything like that. If Serebii has a piece of info, then the ENTIRE REST OF THE INTERNET has that info as well, and all that's left to do is follow the trail of copycat news sites until you find one that cites original source, which you can then use yourself. Serebii usually states where it gets its info from anyway. The fact of the matter is, Serebii is not a reliable source, and the very CULTURE of videogame news means that the only thing that is truly reliable is an official source - except for the few sites big enough to actually communicate with the industry, videogame news sites just republish stuff they found on the internet, and even though some make an effort to verify their material and thus tend to be right, they're still not really RELIABLE sources. Gelmax (talk) 05:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Pokémon Platinum's US realese date is March 22, 2009. Curciut City leaked that as some of the details, such as some name changes.

Look here for the curciut city leak —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pikachugal (talk • contribs) 23:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

merge proposal

I do not think these articles should be merged. There is enough independent information on Platinum as it is. Tezkag72 (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Theleftorium (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the merge notice. Sure, in a few months when there is not as much news coverage, this article could be merged, but that is not what is going to happen now. There are enough references that that outcome is not necessary. Sure, it happened to other similar pages, but that does not mean it should happen to this one.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article should not be merged as of yet. Once the game has been released and things have quieted down, we'll see what happens. My view is if this article is close to good article status a couple months after its release, it should be kept as an individual article, but if not, it should probably be merged. Artichoker[talk] 19:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Pokémon Platinum is just a enhanced remake of Pokémon Diamond and Pearl, remakes don't met the criteria of Notability, and notability is not temporary.--MCP9999 (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm, this is a legitimate Pokémon video game and therefore would warrant its own article. Pokémon Yellow, Crystal, and Emerald could all very well be individual articles, but were chosen to be merged mostly because their articles were not very good quality. And in the future, if you have a merge proposal, instead of simply slapping on a tag, start the discussion on one of the talk pages. Artichoker[talk] 19:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a remake of a pokémon video game, Isn't just with Pokémon games, remakes aren't notable to own a article, and in future, let's try to reach a consensus before removing merge tags.--MCP9999 (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of being a remake or not, this is a notable Pokémon. It survived an AfD and the consensus was to keep, not merge. Artichoker[talk] 19:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You (Mastercomputerpro999) are presently the only user pushing for a merger. Just because the word "remake" is in the article, does not mean that the subject of the article is immediately not notable on it own. There are eight separate references, seven accessible online, that are in the Japanese news media that support statements made in the article. As of now, the subject of this article is notable on its own. If, at some point, following the international releases, that the content of this article, including sales information and reviews (which are inevitable), still says "merge," then a merge can be discussed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay.--MCP9999 (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if we've reached a decision or not - but Platinum has many new features that do warrant it to have it's own article, at least for the time being. After it's US launch (whenever it will be), we can see if it still needs it, or if it should be merged into Diamond and Pearl. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 23:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

What is basically being said is that it shouldn't be merged because, one day, it might need to be separate. Question: Does it need to be separated? Answer: No. Yellow, Crystal, and Emerald were merged because the three games didn't need to be separate. The rules of Wikipedia are not "only merge when it's shown it can't be its own article". Why do we need to wait for it to become something? The logic of Wikipedia is "when it grows big enough to deserve its own article, it gets its own article". - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You just quoted from Wikipedia: "only merge when it's shown it can't be its own article". This article has proven it can be its own article. It has plenty of reliable sources and survived an AfD in which the consensus was to keep. We should be patient and see if this article can stem into something good; right now it looks promising. And if not, I would whole-heartedly support a merge. Artichoker[talk] 01:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a remake. It's an unreleased remake. It's, like, four paragraphs. There's precedence to merge these kind of Pokémon remakes. There's nothing to prevent it from growing on Diamond and Pearl's page. And no, you established notability of the subject, not a need to be its own article. It can't have a full Gameplay or Plot section, since most that will be said will be almost the same as Diamond and Pearl's, which was a strong reason why the other remake titles were merged. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, but it will soon be released, and it is a notable Pokémon game. Length is also not an issue because once the game is released, the article will expand. This article is inherently notable, and we will see how the plot and gameplay sections turn out. Give the article a chance. Artichoker[talk] 01:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I simply do not see why it can't become an article once we know if it can be. Being in DP won't hurt its chances, and what we've seen of it has shown a similar set-up - gameplay will be the same, plot will be the same, save for "new features" section and "new plot additions". - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Who is "we"? It is you, and being in DP will hurt its chances, because it isn't an individual article anymore. Right now it is quite well written and sourced, and if this can continue once the game is released it may be able to become a good article. We don't need to be so hasty. Artichoker[talk] 02:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it will become a good article, or rather, SHOULD become a good article before it gets an English release. There'll be too much instability in determining the proper translations for characters, etc. And once the English version comes out, I'm sure there will be much more to say, including more reception details, and much of the content will have to be modified and added to. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

And on top of that, like I've said many times, I just do not see why we should wait until it becomes big enough to warrant an article. Being on DP's article, I can't imagine how it would hurt its ability to expand. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, it already does warrant its own article as evidenced by the AfD. Also, when the game is release in English everything can be straightened out, the article can be expanded, etc. I will personally try to get this to Good Article status. So I think it should wait; really there's not much to lose. If it turns out you were right and I was wrong; it only takes a couple seconds to merge. Artichoker[talk] 02:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It takes more than two seconds to open the edit screen! But whatever, I can wait. But on a different subject, if you're interested, you should consider editing the simple.wiki. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Not for me :). But anyways, I could edit the Simple Wiki, if I get more time, but what does that have to do with this article? Artichoker[talk] 02:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing. Though I was reminded of the simple.wiki by remembering having made the four articles on the four main games with the remakes built-in, so I thought I'd canvas you to help expand the coverage of game articles there. It's also a much friendlier, harmonious place with little vandalism and a lot of opportunity for expansion. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've completed the merge to Pokemon Diamond and Pearl#Remakes and sequels. I agree that at this point, there simply isn't enough information to warrant a separate article for Platinum. A few new Pokémon formes, enhanced battle options and enhanced Wi-Fi Features doesn't really change the fact that 95%+ of the game is still the same as D/P. If there is enough Platinum content for a standalone article in the near future, we can recreate this one when the time comes. Wikipedian06 (talk) 11:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There hasn't been a decision made yet, however I won't revert it as I wouldn't want to mess up the edit histories. I also happen to agree with you on the merge though, it really doesn't warrant its own article as per the other remakes, and the points you raised. Saying that this article shouldn't be merged because the AfD didn't come up with that decision is a little silly. I'd have to disagree with you on the decision to merge quite yet though, as their seems to be no consensus. Metagraph comment 11:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from merging until a consensus has been reached. Again, give the article a chance. Once the game is release there will be enough information. If there isn't enough Platinum content for a standalone article in the near future, we can merge this once when the time comes. Artichoker[talk] 14:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the discussion and I still intend to merge this article. You're being outnumbered 6-2 right now:

Support the merge:

• Tezkag72
• Theleftorium
• MCP9999
• A Link to the Past
• Wikipedian06
• Metagraph

Keep the article independent:

• Ryūlóng
• Artichoker

WP:CHANCE only applies to articles that actually have the potential to be expanded -- and fast. I quote:

• editors create very short stubs with the intention of filling them out later
• don't PROD or AfD it until the original editor has had a chance--a week should be enough time--to add substance

Now, this article isn't one that can be expanded given a week or two; I've been closely following PP-related news and there simply isn't enough information to expand it to the size of a respectable standalone article. The article is comprehensive as is based on the information available in the public domain. PP's release is still over a month away, and that's well enough time to make a new one if the amount of exclusive content justifies its creation.

Also, note that we're not talking about a deletion as per WP:CHANCE, but a merge. All the info will be kept, just moved to a separate namespace. I don't know why you're so butthurt about this. Besides, I also noticed that you trimmed the Yellow, Crystal, and Emerald sections on their respective articles, instead of trying to enlarge them to produce their own standalone articles. Why the double standard?

Wikipedian06 (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, WP:CHANCE applies to this article because it does have the potential to be expanded (i.e. when the game is released.) This article will be expanded when the game is released and it is pointless to make such a drastic decision on the future of this article when we don't even know all the details or facts. Wait until this game is released, the article is improved, etc. and then we can see whether this needs to be merged. Also no personal attacks. I am not "butthurt" about this (where did you get that?), I am only trying to give this article a chance.

As for Yellow, Crystal, and Emerald, those are completely different situations. Firstly, they could easily become standalone articles (if anyone wants them to, I won't object) but were merged because the articles were not very good quality, and many editors thought they would be more manageable in the main games' articles. As you can see, I have improved both Pokémon Red and Blue and Pokémon Gold and Silver to good article status, so I think I was correct in trimming those sections. So, what have you done to help the Pokémon articles other than reverting my edits? Artichoker[talk] 18:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It has the potential, but it's not guaranteed. As I interpret WP:CHANCE, it applies to subjects that already have established notability, but the editor has not yet had enough time to write a full article. Yes, it will be expanded come September, but by how much? Just because it will be expanded doesn't necessarily mean it will have enough to justify a separate article. You're counting on the game actually delivering enough content after its release for a standalone, when in fact this may not be the case. What if it doesn't? Will you support a merge then, or will you still insist that this be kept independent? Wikipedian06 (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well we'll wait and see how much the article improves after the game's release. And as I have said countless times before, I will fully support a merge if Pokémon Platinum is later found to not justify a seperate article. Artichoker[talk] 18:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not support the merge and neither does Tezkag72, so Artichoker is not being outnumbered. I suggest you read the beginning of this section a bit closer, Wikipedian06. --TheLeftorium 18:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ehm, has anyone actually played this game yet? Shouldn't we just wait until it's released to see how everyone responds to it? For all we know, it might be a very different game. I think it's a bit too early for a merge, so I oppose, for now. Cheers, Face 18:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts, Face. Heh, so much for being "outnumbered". Artichoker[talk] 18:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

For the love of... This article has 12 unique references, 11 are Japanese, and 3 come from the official Japanese website (for really minor items nonetheless, and could probably be replaced by news sources). Since when are articles like these merged? Just because it happened with Yellow, Crystal, and Emerald? This article survived an AFD, has been built upon, and in a month's time will be released in Japan, after which there will be reviews, and indepth coverage by the Japanese video game news media. Right now, most of the information comes from the publicity, and as of now, it seems to be notable on its own accord. If I hadn't been involved in writing this article, and I saw this level of disruption, I'd block the editwarring parties.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be merged until there is a reason that makes it different from Diamond and Pearl in a large way? I'd support a de-merging after the game comes out and their is a large enough difference between the two to warrant its own article. Remember, this article falls well within the size for a section in the Diamond and Pearl article. Those independent sources are fine, they verify that the information isn't speculation. Using the example that just because they report on the game we should make a seperate article, no matter how subtle the changes, we should split every pokemon game article (Red/Blue, Gold/Silver, Ruby/Sapphire, Firered/Leafgreen, and of course, Diamond/Pearl (and all their remakes). While WP:OTHERCRAP is a stretch here, it does apply. This isn't an AfD, its a merge discussion however. The AfD is over, and the article survived. looking at it now it wouldn't have passed the AfD without the japanese pokemon site releasing information (I would have guessed no consensus), and the second biggest vote their was merge. What makes this game stand out more than Yellow, Crystal, or Emerald? Do they not have independent sources either? Metagraph comment 22:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you even read this entire section? The article should be given the benefit of the doubt and only merged when consensus is reached and it is clear that the action is necessary. As said before, the game does not stand out more than Yellow, Crystal, or Emerald, but those games have already been released and consensus has been reached to merge those mostly due to the poor quality the articles were in. However this article still has a chance. Artichoker[talk] 22:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

About time I chimed in again. First off, I oppose to the merge. Right now it looks to be 6-4 in favour of keeping the article separate.

As for the article itself, yes it may be small at the moment, but there is still several months before the game comes out in which information can be released. I know Serebii.net is not a reliable source, but if what he (Serebii) has posted is true, then there will be a lot of information coming over the next while. When the game launches in Japan, you can be sure there will probably be a lot of Americans (and some Europeans), who will be looking for info on the game in English, and their first port of call would probably be the Wiki. Seeing a full article for Pokémon Platinum rather than just a section of the D/P article, would probably be a lot better and show off the game more. Now give it a chance, alright? TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 23:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that policy is consensus, and right now policy says this article should be merged. There is no vote here, but a discussion. The size of the article is not the issue, its the fact that it should be in the D/P article due to it being a remake. There just isn't enough information that makes Platinum seem that different from D/P. By merging with Diamond and Pearl, the reader would get a much clearer image of the game as it is infact, a remake. How about we make a section on the Diamond and Pearl page for Platinum, and then link to the main article? Please remember, we are NOT trying to show off the game here. This article has been given a chance, and I really don't see anything that shows it shouldn't be merged. Metagraph comment 02:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Please point me to the policy you are citing. Artichoker[talk] 02:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus here. You are taking a majority vote (and a very small majority at that). Just because it should be part of another article doesn't mean it has to be. As it stands, it is much better to have this separate article than merge it where the content cannot be as easily updated or controlled.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Metagraph on this. Why don't we go ahead and create articles for the 2012 U.S. Presidential election (in the same vein as 2008 U.S. Presidential election) and then "beef them up" when the time comes? Of course not; we wait until we have sufficient information before we do so. Just because an article was created without meeting the minimum requirements for a new article doesn't mean it has the right to stay, regardless of so-called "potential" for future expansion. Wikipedian06 (talk) 04:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

But the content exists, and is here. We have an article here with a decent number of independent references, and just because it is an upcoming Pokémon game like Yellow, Crystal, and Emerald, it should be treated the same as the other articles which were merged for not having enough content to support a separate article? How many references did the Emerald page have before it was merged? How many for Yellow and Crystal? Stop making apples to oranges comparisons here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

And what would make it more clear to be a remake if it is just a couple of sections at Pokémon Diamond and Pearl more so than the lead of this article?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, this article is essentially about a Director's cut of Pokémon Diamond and Pearl. It's no different to Pokémon Yellow, Crystal or Emerald. They are all enhanced versions of the same game, and extremely rarely do enhanced versions warrant a seperate article. Usually only when the core gameplay has been altered significantly. Most articles, such as this and this incorporate such editions into the main game article as sections. In fact, all the enchanced Pokémon versions do this. I fail to see how Pokémon Platinum is the exception. In this instance, Platinum is the exact same game as Diamond and Pearl, with bells and whistles attached. No amount of citations make it notable enough to have it's own article as there can be virtually no content beyond differences from the original versions.

Also, Wikipedia does not operate on a "majority rules" basis. It doesn't matter how many people "want" to do something. Provided there are strong and entirely valid arguments for something, it can be done no matter how much opposition it faces. We work using consensus, not numbers. --.:Alex:. 13:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can't say this for certain until the game is released. Also, not every enhanced remake Pokémon game has been merged. In addition, the only one who has said that "majority rules", etc. is Wikipedian06. Artichoker[talk] 14:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am aware Wikipedian06 said that, which is why I wanted to point it out. Anyway, FireRed and LeafGreen is a weird case. It's a total remake for a start, not just the old game tarted up a bit. Built up from scratch, and the core gameplay has altered quite a bit from the original. I'm not entirely in favour of FR/LG being a seperate article actually, but it's in a different league to Yellow/Crystal/Emerald/Platinum, which is the exact same game that has been changed a little. My main concern is that this will end being the exact same as the D/P article with the only differences between the articles being the actual differences between the games, in which case there really is no point in Platinum having a seperate article. --.:Alex:. 14:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

And if it does turn out the way you say it will, I will fully support a merge. Artichoker[talk] 14:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we're mincing our terminology here. Platinum isn't a remake, it's an enhancement - an older game with new features tacked on the code. Games like FireRed and LeafGreen are true remakes, which I believe deserve their own article based on the sheer number of differences between them and the original game. If you think of it in movie terms, FR/LG is like the Adam Sandler version of Mr. Deeds, while R/B/Y is the original. Would you put these two movies in the same article on the basis that one is only a remake? No, of course not, and it's the same with these games.

Platinum, however, would be like the original film re-released on Blu-Ray with some added features - not enough to really warrant its own article. However, with the game not released in English yet, it's really too early to tell if it will be more of the "same ol', same ol'". For now, I say keep them separate until such time when we can determine if they truly are unique enough to merge. Going by past Pokemon re-releases, this very well may be the case, but I don't want to do anything drastic until we give this article a chance. Nall (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with Nall. Let's not rush to a merge of an article about a game not even released yet. Who knows, maybe it will have online functionalities, or more advanced connection possibilities with the Wii, something surprising. Small chance, but we can't be sure.
Another argument against the merge, albeit a weaker one, is that, unlike the other enhancements, Platinum is a new game which will attract quite some attention in the months before its release. I do think there is currently a need for this article. If the attention dies out after the game is released, we could merge it. Cheers, Face 07:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of the content that Platinum will likely have will, for the most part, NOT need much description. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

And this is based on what? Knowledge of what the content of previous articles contained? Right now, this article has more references than the Emerald article had, and this is before the Japanese version has even come out. It is very likely that there will be even more references once the game is released in Japan, including reviews from Japanese video game reviewers (Famitsu, etc.) and once it is released for the American audience, there will be English language references from IGN, Metacritic, EGM, etc. All of those other articles were poorly written. This one is not.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

1. An article that survives the AfD will have more sources than one that never had to worry about the AfD.
2. Emerald had unique development, mention of some of its features, and reception. The features, like every single Pokémon remake game, will not require an article for them. There's no precedence for it to have an article, or for a remake of Pokémon to have a significant, substantial content that wouldn't fit. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There were articles for Yellow, Crystal, and Emerald. This article was created while those articles existed. Those were all merged because there was consensus for it. There is no consensus here. Just claims of "precedence."—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

With the game now having been released, I still stand by my position. All this article can cover is the differences from Diamond and Pearl and the reception of the release, and that is not enough to warrant its own article. It should be merged with Diamond and Pearl, as they do cover the main game itself. This article seems superfluous. --.:Alex:. 20:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

→In response to your edited claim of superfluity: how so? Artichoker[talk] 20:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too sure, and it's still way to early to make a decision. I recommend we wait until a month after Platinum's US release. During the one month threshold I will try my best to make this a comprehensive, notable, and quality article. If it turns out that this simply is not possible, I would fully support the merge to Diamond and Pearl. Artichoker[talk] 20:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say that Platinum is notable on its own, as it currently is the highest selling DS game in Japan.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with waiting until after the US release before thinking about merging. Once it's on the way to release in the US, there will be better, English-language sources we can use. Until then, I think it has notability because of how well it's been doing in Japan. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 20:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The Game Sounds like a hoax off of one of those Box-Creator sites...

Could this game just be a hoax created by someone from a game-box website? That's my first conclusion, although I'm a fan of the series. Can an official source of information be found and confirmed by other trustworthy sources? Just wondering. Punk reader 18:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a hoax. There are enough reliable sources, particularly source number 3. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 18:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, although no Euro-American release is announced yet, it is almost certain that the game will be called "Pokémon Platinum", because it is called "platinum" in the url of the official site: http://www.pokemon.co.jp/special/platinum/index02.html. The box-art can also be seen there. - Face 18:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it's not. Thank you for providing the information and convincing me otherwise. Punk reader 21:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punk reader (talk • contribs)

release date in North America?

when will this game be released in north america? this may be a n00b question but i am one so i can't help it. yes i know its not even in japan yet but most other games have release dates for every region so i am confused. please someone tell me. 31306D696E6E69636B6D (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There hasn't been a release date mentioned other than for Japan. Maybe there will be one in a few months. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 19:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone put one for Nov. 12 or something on the article. I can't find the source for that date, it may not be true. Devrit 03:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay I checked Pokemon.com, it's currently only showing the release date for Pokemon Ranger: Shadows of Almia. Therefore, that date probably is wrong (who the heck added it anyways?!), so it should be changed. Devrit 03:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Curcuit city leaked the release on their website. The release date is March 22, 2009. It also says some of the details( they mostly talked about the new characters, which some of their names changed.) Look here for the leak —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pikachugal (talk • contribs) 23:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

New Pokemon?

Five new pokemon are coming out I think. Does anyone know about the one with the 2 pikachu tails? Go to youtube to watch the video. And by the way, i am not a guy. 76.188.55.76 (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Currently the "new Pokémon" are reported on sources that aren't reliable. Until a reliable source posts the information, then no info regarding new Pokémon and/or forms will be added to the article. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 19:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The guy is joking. A Pokémon with 2 Pikachu tails? Right... in Pokémon Plutonium perhaps. - Face 19:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

He's not joking, he's referring to this picture: http://serebii.net/new.jpg, which has been confirmed by the official site. TheLeftorium 20:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Woops, sorry, didn't took it seriously. Well, as it is official, you could add that bit to the article. Cheers, Face 20:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I added it to the article now. :] TheLeftorium 21:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh goody, a reliable source :) TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 09:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.55.76 (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This is purely speculation, but they look like alternate forms of Rotom, no? 152.131.8.131 (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah,good to know I'm not the only one who thought that they looked like Rotom forms.XLS724 (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

After reading an unreliable source (i.e. Serebii), it does seem that they are forms of Rotom (and very ugly ones at that). However, until we do get a reliable source, DO NOT ADD INFORMATION ABOUT THEM TO THE PAGE. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 13:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I think Serebii is just guessing like you guys saying it looks like Rotom though. The scanned images on there just says, "What is it?".. --staka (T) 21:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Here they are in full color.(YEah,I know the video can't be used,just for those who are curious)[4]XLS724 (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Its been confirmed due to the release of Platinum in Japan. It's Rotom, alternate forms. [5]

Battle Frontier

This new trailer confirms that the Battle Frontier and WiFi games will be in the game: http://www.pokemon.co.jp/special/platinum/special/index.html?1&0 Can we add it to the article? Also, does anyone here speak Japanese? Because there seem to be even more new information at the official site. TheLeftorium 21:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I think we can add it to the article. I don't speak any Japanese though. Sorry. Artichoker[talk] 21:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I can speak a little Japanese, but even I don't know what all the pages say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.55.76 (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I added to the article before you guys even read it... but it was removed, saying it's not notable enough to the article topic.. how dumb. (nearly the first time reading this talk page) --staka (T) 21:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

How come people are undoing what I write? I was just mentioning the new Battle Frontiers. Blueknightex (talk) 03:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Because you're adding unsourced information. We all know about the new Battle Frontier, the facilities, and those in charge of it, but without a reliable source to say so, we can't add it to the page. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 07:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

So what kind of reliable resource would you recommend? can I use an article or a game review like the one from Game Spot? Blueknightex (talk) 09:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ryulong talking about that dicussion not improving the article

Um, that section is talking about whether or not information on whether there are new Pokemon in this game or not. Whether or not a piece of information is legitimate in the article is legitimate is talking about improving the article. Kuro ♪ 00:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I really don't see why that section about improving the article needs to be removed. Artichoker[talk] 00:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It was not discussing an improvement to the article. It was discussing Rotom's new forms. Only two lines of it was actually discussing the article instead of the subject of the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point however, I only see a few comments that could POSSIBLY be considered irrelevant like "This is purely speculation, but they look like alternate forms of Rotom, no?". However the entire first half of the section is legitimate, as are the posts showing the Japanese posters. rather then delete the entire section why don't you just remove one or two posts? Kuro ♪ 04:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeez, I go away for the weekend, and all this happens... j/k

More to the point, based on what Ryulong has added to the article right now, does it not make sense to put two and two together and figure out that the special Rotom item has to do with the 5 silhouettes? Although I can't read Japanese and thus can't understand the source, it should say it in there somewhere... TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 06:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

View Source

Silhouette images of five unknown Pokémon have been released by the official website. They have been revealed to be five alternate forms of Rotom, with the new forms resembling an electric fan, a lawnmower, a washing mashine, a toaster and a refrigerator. The items to obtain them will be given away in stores and over the WiFi connection from September 28 to November 4, 2008.

It's item, not items. 65.186.85.42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC).

Why was the Rotom Forms thing deleted?

It's been confirmed that the Mysterious Pokemon are the forms of Rotom possessing different appliances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rouge2 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

We are not a standin for breaking news. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Ed, a cafe facade!)} 01:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Serebii.net found out that they were Rotom Forms, they even had pictures of the mysterious Pokemon unvailed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rouge2 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I reiterate, we are not a substitute for breaking news sites, fan or otherwise. Serebii revealing it does not matter in this instance. Why not bring it up at Rotom's section instead? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Ed, a cafe facade!)} 01:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And to add, Serebii is not a reliable source. DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 03:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but shouldn't there be a section for "What's new and different" from the previous 2? I think this information belongs in such a section. And if you're not sure, don't say it's gonna come, just say "a picture of this appeared on that site".--UltimateDarkloid (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The main issue at the time was the fact that Serebii was going to be used as the source, which is a no-no because Serebii's track record for verifying the stuff it puts on its site isn't very good. The main issue *now* would be cruftiness, but if you want to try and add it, nobody's stopping you - the game's been released in Japan and can be used as a source. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 08:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Protection?

Protecting the page seemed very over the top to me, the page was not "Subject to heavy and persistent vandalism." Wikipedia policy states that "In particular, it (page protection) should not be used to settle content disputes." The content being added by that anonymous IP was not vandalism remember to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Even if the edits do constitutes vandalism, seeing as it was only one IP address adding this in it did not meet "Semi-protection prevents edits from anonymous users (IP addresses), or from accounts that are not autoconfirmed." You can only protect a page after vandalism from multiple IP editors. Kuro ♪ 17:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you actually look through the article history at all? Several IPs were adding and re-adding the unsourced and not-notable information, not just the latest guy who was asking us to "trust him". I decided to file an RPP to see if it was worth getting it protected temporarily, to stop IPs adding the information back until a proper source is revealed. And it just so happens that an administrator granted the request.

And no, the fact that the administrator and myself are both Irish and Gaeilgeoir dúchasach is not a reason why it was granted. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 21:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

1 million?

"Platinum sold 1 million copies in its first two days on the Japanese market." No it didn't... It sold 967,000! ~m190049^{~talk 01:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)}

A source for this would be greatly appreciated, so I could make the relevant changes to the article. Artichoker[talk] 01:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That's funny because we have a source that says that it did sell 1 million copies in its first two days.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It was from Enterbrain/Famitsu... It was on Yahoo! Japan.... Heck, just do a google search of it and you'll a bucket load of pages reporting on the news. G4 must have rounded it up. If you don't believe that still, think to yourself. What sounds more logical? 967,675 copies, or exactly 1 million? ~m190049^~talk 23:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

967,675 is a specific number, as is the number 1,000,000. Statistically, the probability of picking each individual number out of an arbitrary 1 billion numbers is exactly the same. The only reason 1 million is special and could be perceived as a coincidence is because is it an exponent of 10, which is the base of our number system. In any case, the link you provided does not seem to work. Artichoker[talk] 00:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That's why I said was. Anyway, at least put an "about" before the 1 million...~m190049^~talk 06:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge request (redux)

Now that the game is out and it's been proven that there isn't enough content to warrant the creation of a new article, I think it should be merged into Diamond/Pearl. An enhanced remake that sells itself based on three Pokemon with alternate formes and a Battle Frontier (not even a new concept; already done in Emerald) should not have its own article.

All of the other "third versions" have been merged, so there's no reason for this one to be any different.

Wikipedian06 (talk) 02:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding two arguments:

(1) "We should wait until the US release": Every piece of info there is to know about the game is already known at this point. I beat an import copy myself reading Japanese and I can personally verify everything that has been posted here. Everything that's important (Ruined World, new formes, Battle Frontier, i.e. Emerald rehash) has already been mentioned here at an inflated word count and STILL it's only three paragraphs.

(2) "Strong sales in Japan make it notable". Its three-week total of 1.4 million is less than Diamond/Pearl's. Besides, the other "third versions" sold remarkably well--in some cases better than each of the two original versions--and none of them have their own articles. Strong sales alone do not make a legitimate claim to a separate article. Wikipedian06 (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

However, this is the new article and there is certainly enough information within it as a new article to exist on its own with its own notability. The game has been out for a little under a month and it is clear that more news may come about (seeing as that first million copies sold came about in its first two days of sale, according to G4). Just because there is no other article for every other version (they were all merged) does not mean that Platinum's article should not exist at all. Essentially, your argument is just a rehash of the old argument you put forth prior to the game's release :P—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What new news exactly? More sales figures? More reviews? Neither warrants a separate article given what little else this article -- and the game -- has to offer. You guys have been using this tired "new news" argument for months, and nothing has come out of it. Instead of pointlessly speculating, why don't we merge the article NOW and split it off LATER if there really is some unbelievably shocking new development? We agreed that we'd give it until Platinum's Japanese release for assertion of notability, and now you guys want it extended to the as-yet-unannounced American release! Quite frankly, I don't understand why some people get so butthurt about the idea of merging an article for the good of this site -- it's not as if the content is removed as in the case of an AfD, but just relocated. Wikipedian06 (talk) 08:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Is the article so short that a page for it makes no sense? No.

2. Are there very few references to back up all the article's facts? No.

Therefore I must say that we Keep the article as it is. Who knows what Nintendo could announce in the future for the game. Remember that they've just started giving out the Secret Key for unlocking Rotom's forms via Wi-Fi. They could very easily unlock other features, or possibly add new ones entirely. Maybe we could revisit this when the game does get a release in a different region, and then if there's nothing new to add to the article from that, then we can merge. Until then keep it as it is! TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 11:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I doubt there will be changes (if any) significant enough to warrant an entire article on them. Plus looking at the bottom line, this article only talks about the changes of the game from the other two. It doesn't go into the basic mechanics of the game (trio), while the Diamond and Pearl article does. Therefore, it makes sense to merge. --.:Alex:. 15:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I urge that we wait until the game's release in North America. That is when all of the English reviews and sources will become available, and I will use them to source this article and prove its notability to warrant an individual article. However, if it turns out that there just simply isn't enough information, then I will agree to a merge. Hmm... I believe I have said this before. Just be patient guys; no need to merge so quickly. Artichoker[talk] 21:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Um-hmm. An American release, if it comes, is still a long time away. As of today, the game hasn't even been announced in regions outside of Japan, let alone street-dated. Up to this point, you and your cronies have given NO logical argument that supports keeping the articles separate at this point in time. (It's not just about the number of people on each side, but the quality of arguments presented.) You initially asked for the articles to remain separate until Platinum's Japanese release, and we (the pro-merge people) agreed. Now it's been a month since the JP release and you're asking for an extension to an as-yet-undetermined date. This is not how Wikipedia works. Why not make this article worth something right now instead of putting it off until later? I've beaten the Japanese version; I can read it and I've done what I could to make this article longer than three paragraphs. The unfortunate fact is that this is all the game has to offer, and postponing the merge will not change that. Wikipedian06 (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of the discussion, you do not have consensus to perform this merge.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Nor is there consensus to not merge. The debate continues. --.:Alex:. 15:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

True. But still, when there is no consensus, you do nothing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hence why the debate continues. --.:Alex:. 10:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No, this is why we should wait.--MCP9999 (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why it needs to be merged. Accord to WP:SIZE, articles under 1 KB should be merged into relative page. This article is well 10 KB, and I see not reason to merge. Just because it isn't too large doesn't mean it's small enough to be merged. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 04:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability. Pokémon Platinum is just an enhanced remake of Pokemon D/P, like Pkmn Crystal and Pkmn Emerald.--MCP9999 (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

wow, you people must not really like small pages. anyways, I guess you could merge it. All of the same text will be there, just in a smaller section. Oh, and please make searching for "pokemon emerald" actually redirect to the Pokemon Emerald section of the Pkmn R/S article? Thanks. Devrit 21:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Artichoker[talk] 21:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

After looking more into it, and the light shed by MCP9999, I now agree that the article should be merged into Pokémon Diamond and Pearl. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 21:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I support the merge completely. It's a "third version". Hpfan9374 (talk) 08:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Wait until North American release before merge. After this, the game may very well prove to be more notable compared to Diamond and Pearl than Emerald was to Ruby and Sapphire, etc. Tezkag72 (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(1) "We should wait until the US release": Every piece of info there is to know about the game is already known at this point. I beat an import copy myself reading Japanese and I can personally verify everything that has been posted here. Everything that's important (Ruined World, new formes, Battle Frontier, i.e. Emerald rehash) has already been mentioned here at an inflated word count and STILL it's only three paragraphs. Wikipedian06 (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge: Its the same game with a few minor variations. Keep this as a single article and we may as well split Pokemon Diamond and Pearl into Pokemon Diamond and Pokemon Pearl articles on the basis that those two games have minor variations from each other (i.e., the Pokemon you can catch in each version is different). MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This comparison is flawed, Pokémon Platinum is a remake; Pokémon Diamond/Pearl are alternate versions.--MCP9999 (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not a true remake, in the sense of an entirely new game structure made to be like an older game (like FR/LG), it's essentially another slightly modified version of the exact same game with some additions. I agree with Wikipedian06,I also fail to see how a US release will change the significance of this article and coverage of the game.

I believe it should be merged. I don't see any significant difference between Emerald and Platinum. Emerald had a strong reception section, but was merged because it could only sustain reception, development, and a list of new features and changes. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

I've given this article a promotion to start-class because I'm quite impressed with the real-world analysis of a fictional subject. Good job. I would try and find more critical reviews for the game; perhaps Japanese publications will have some? Also, a table ((tl|VG Reviews}} would be useful for visual appeal.

Additionally, a standard Video Game article has Plot, Gameplay, and Development sections. Gameplay may seem redundant with other articles at times, but you may use Gameplay of Pokémon as a starting point.

If you can find verifiable references; then you're all set.

At this point of the article's life, I don't have any more suggestions. Once the improvements have been made, I will respond to any requests for an additional assessment. --haha169 (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

How is analysis of content of an existing video game analysis of a fictional subject?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

What is currently on the article is non-fictional. But the content of the video game itself is fictional, and therefore needs to be mentioned in the article. Oh, and a language parameter needs to be added to the Japanese references. --haha169 (talk) 04:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Giratina's Forme Name

So according to pokemon.com Giratina Another Forme is now called Giratina Altered Forme. I'm going to change it to this but I don't know how to add a reference so here's the link, http://www.pokemon.com/#news_/XML/news_335.xml Hopefully someone can add it in before people start thinking I made it up. Rosario lopez (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added this into the article proper.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Forme vs. form

I see there seems to be a battle over spelling. I think we should all take a look at the official site, where it's spelled as forme, not form, regardless of proper English spelling. DiverseMentality 22:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

And I accidentally pressed save before I could change the edit summary. And the "Forme" spelling has been in use on this page for months now and I persistently revert changes to "Form" whenever they come up and no one seems to have a problem. I've BlackGT a fuller explanation on his talk page, and I'm fairly sure that we've gone over this on this talk page already.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was just concerned over the unexplained revert of a user who provided a clear reason for his edit. Artichoker^[talk] 00:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Updates to event Pokemon

I noticed that the article mentions the Japanese Shaymin and Regigigas, but there's no mention of the Shaymin that will be given away at Toys R' Us from Feb. 8th-14th, or the Regigigas that will be given away from March 8th-21st, that will allow the capture of the 3 other Regis (Registeel, Regirock, and Regice). Should we add this information to the article?

In case it's need, here are two sources (posters from Toys R' Us)

Here Here Also, PokeBeach: And here --GreenAiden555 (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Then either add it or removed the japanese info of the events.--CoolPikachu! 21:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Australia's Release Date?

Does anyone know when the Australia's Release Date is? I believe we should add Australia's date as 2009 since it's going to be released in Australia. I'm pretty sure it will be released before Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.181.31 (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

See i thought that too, but have been unable to find anything about the RD for AU. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge Discussion, Again.

I never thought I would be for a merge but this article is not only a big mess but I own Pokemon Platinum and it features way to little changes to warrent it's own article. Pokemon Yellow featured more changes than this game. That and every other third game has been merged so far I don't think this one should be any different. So I say merge it. But I'm not the only one here, what does everybody else think?Zabbethx (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I actually agree, now that the game has been released in the US. It is quite similar to D/P and as a result, and individual article would hold too much redundant information. I support the merge. Artichoker^[talk] 18:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support per both previous rationale. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support: I don't own Platinum, but merging seems to be the accepted method for this type of Pokémon game. -Sesu Prime (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The argument in the past was that the article had potential to grow. Now that the game was released, there not much else to add. In this case, a merge is necessary. DiverseMentality 20:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I daresay this move will draw enough support from editors, best to get it out of the way before the fanboys come and make a nuisance out of themselves trying to stop it. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 11:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of changes including the new characters, the torn world, ummm... I got nothing else. Nevermind then. --Blake (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, after playing through all three I see that there are few changes to platinum, enough to fit in a seperate article on the Diamond/Pearl page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.158.2.129 (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, please read the dates on this discussion. It took place over four years ago, and since then an editor found significant Development and Reception setting this game apart from its originals. If merged, it would either have to be cut down in size, or be Undue Weight. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.109.208.177 (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)