Talk:Pokémon Diamond and Pearl/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

A third archive made

Old page got stuffed again, so moved it. Maybe now we can focus on a major issue I think needs further addressing. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 09:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheat Codes

Does any body have cheatcodes for D/P Cbkoala (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Page move. Again.

The page move was not discussed. Why was it done? What can be done to move it back? It wasn't discussed either. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 09:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)confusion on my part

Fair use rationale for Image:Diamond and Pearl Japanese PokéDex View.gif

Image:Diamond and Pearl Japanese PokéDex View.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Third Game?

The Wikipedia page for Pokemon Platinum has been made: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pokemon_Platinum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.128.65 (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


There's a rumor floating around that an interview with a dev team member revealed a third game in the 4th gen trilogy: allegedly named Jade. Should we address this? ProjectPlatinum 16:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No, because it's a rumor. Rumors do not belong here. -Sukecchi 16:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's never gonna happen. 67.182.178.220 02:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Jade is a hacked game and is not official. Its Pokemon are weird too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willythechilly5 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if this rumor (if it exists) originated from the fact that there were two bootleg GBC games, Diamond and Jade (has nothing to do with Diamond/Pearl for the DS...the fact there are two games named Diamond is a mere coincidence). These bootleg games are hacks of the Power and Speed versions of Keitai Denjuu Telefang (which is a completely different series), respectively. TanookiMario257 23:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure they'll eventually do a third game, in the spirit of Emerald, Crystal and Yellow, but for now we just don't have any information. Master Deusoma (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Serebii.net mentioned that in a japanese magazine (CoroCoro?) there is a 2008 release date that says ??? near yellow, crystal and emerald. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.213.198 (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's called Pokemon Platnium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ViolinDude (talk • contribs) 23:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

THE THIRD GAME HAS BEEN ANNOUNCED ON THE OFFICIAL JAPANESE POKEMON SITE! here is the link to (the japanese) site: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.128.65 (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Pokedex?

This page could be more useful with an accurate pokedex for viewers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.22.196 (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 00:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Number of species

Do we REALLY need to mention how many species their are when you count all UNown forms, Shellos and Gastrodon, forms, Deoxys, Arceus ect...? It seems rather trivial. The Placebo Effect 01:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It is trivial, and completely unneeded. If all of the different forms are going to be included in the numbers then it may as well just be doubled when shinies are taken into account. MelicansMatkin 04:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, you don't count the different breeds of domestic dogs when counting all the mammal species.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 05:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


Suke, or w/e the hell your name is, we should be able to list that part as I do not see wtf the problem in doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by V-Dash (talk • contribs) 22:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because you don't see a problem, it doesn't justify that you should start an edit war on it. There are numerous policies and guidelines, a few summarised in WP:NOT, that allow us, the editors, to seem what you keep adding back in as "unnecessary". - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 22:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
My name is Sukecchi, buku. The problem is: there are 493 species of Pokemon. Not 526. Unown is one species, Arceus is one species, Gastrodon is one species. Get it now? They are variations. Not separate. The Pokedex shows you their variations. -Sukecchi 23:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break. If you're going to whine about it, then fine. But don't get mad at me for showing your hypocrisy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by V-Dash (talk • contribs) 22:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC) This is getting rather bothersome and it needs to stop. I am no longer reverting it to avoid 3RR. V-Host, an IP, and another user insist on adding this. Me thinks some trickery is going on, buku. -Sukecchi 15:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This game is an RPG

Console RPG? BS. It's either an RPG or it's not.V-Dash 04:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, here's the difference. A role-playing game happens in the real world. A simple description would be "acting with a system," since it's acting out your part with a more often than not completely original story, documentation, written-down stats, etc. A console role-playing game, on the other hand, is a video game, which does all the stats and storylines and everything for you automatically. It's a video game with statistical systems derived from "pen and paper" (the "traditional") RPGs. Now, in the context of video games, which your websites will always be in the context of, "RPG" is a nice blanket term that will cover every derivative of pen-and-paper RPGs (console RPGs, computer RPGs, tactics RPG, action RPGs, what have you). Now, the thing is, we actually have to differentiate between all of that and assign a game the most accurate RPG genre. Now, Pokémon can't be called a real life RPG where the players actually act everything out, but it's definitely a video game that includes game mechanics and, frequently, settings derived from those of traditional role-playing games; the Pokémon series is even presented as the best-selling CRPG series worldwide. So could you please not see in black-and-white and raise a stink over us including one more word for the sake of accuracy?—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 05:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you quit making this so damn complicated. Every mainstream site has Pokemon D/P listed as RPGs. Hell, even Nintendo called them RPGs. Face it, it matters not what kind of RPG it is, an RPG is still an RPG.
And going by your logic, RPGs can't be called RPGs either because they're associating with the weapon used in the military.V-Dash 05:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Can i ask what the problem is with being specific? The Placebo Effect 05:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Because, it's silly. The article reads it as an RPG, so the table should do the same. V-Dash 14:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you not read? A role-playing game takes place in the real world. It's people that are actually role-playing. A console role-playing game is a video game with those elements. Or is it just that everyone is wrong but you?—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 14:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Do I have to use logic again? An RPG is still an RPG. RPGs started out as tabletop games, but they evolved into the RPGs you see today. Calling Pokemon a console RPG is just plain out stupid. V-Dash 14:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
No, we are using logic. You are starting a revert war over ONE WORD that has been decided on inthe past and now as a better word to use because it is more descriptive. And BTW, the reason other sites just call it an RPG is because a) it easier to call it an RPG than a console RPG, and b)They aren't encyclopedias, we are. And did you even read the other arguments? Because your arguments read like you didn't or are ignorant of them. The Placebo Effect 15:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
POKEMON DEMONIC PLATINUM 103.150.254.226 (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

No, if you were using logic, you would have a more thought out reason why Pokemon isn't an RPG. No, what you guys are using is called strawmen. And before you get your pants in a bunch, a strawman is an illogical statement for a simple description. I am not calling you guys strawmen. I am referring to your statements. Thought I'd explain myself before you get all bent out of shape. Anyhow, major sites list Pokemon as an RPG because IT IS A FUCKING RPG. Even Nintendo says so.

Pokémon Diamond Category: RPG, System: Nintendo DS, ESRB: E, Release Date Apr 22, 2007

Screenshots | Artwork Accessories | Download Manual

Taken from: http://www.nintendo.com/search?query=pokemon+diamond&category=all

According to you lot's statements concerning Nintendo and Zelda, if Nintendo says what their games are, then that's the official genre. Well Nintendo says it's an RPG. Looks like you lost this argument.20:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with using the appropriate sub-genre? Do you just like engaging in edit wars? And we aren't saying "Pokemon isn't an RPG"< we are merly describing what type of RPG it is. The Placebo Effect 20:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hasn't this violated WP:3RR yet? I would be honestly shocked if it hasn't by this point. MelicansMatkin 20:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, V-Dash has, if you want to report it, go to WP:AN/3RR/ The Placebo Effect 20:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I double-checked; he still has two more revision to go before he violates 3RR. 3RR doesn't include the first revision made. MelicansMatkin 20:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, he has. See this 3RR report I compiled. The Placebo Effect 20:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Whoops, my mistake. Looks like I missed an edit in my scouring. Thanks for the correction, Placebo! MelicansMatkin 21:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I was wrong, it was one edit and three reverts. The Placebo Effect 21:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Give it up Placebo. This argument has turned against you. Nintendo calls it an RPG, NOT a console RPG. Of course, you'd accuse me of MP w/e the hell that stands for just because my link had more evidence than any of your words. What's wrong, going to get Wikipedia to block me because I just gave supporting evidence, or are you trying to call Nintendo wrong on their own franchise?V-Dash 20:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, NIntendo calls Phantom Hourglass an Adventure, not an RPG. You can not use an argument once and then ignore it some where else The Placebo Effect 20:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

And a cop out won't help. You just don't want to admit that Nintendo has proven you wrong. V-Dash 21:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That's some real faulty logic. As should be stated for this entire edit war you've started, editors have frequently disagreed with your edit. This basically outnumbers you, and the argument that "Nintendo is proving us wrong" is none of our concern. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 21:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Faulty logic? Compared to the self contradicting statements here, that's more of a plus. It's not my fault if Nintendo proved you all wrong. V-Dash 23:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What part of "Conole RPGs are still RPGs" don't you understand? The Placebo Effect 23:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
More sources point to calling it an RPG. Unless a source arises saying it's a "Console RPG" which I've personally never heard of, than it can be added, but at this point, it seems that the way it is officially labeled, it is an RPG, plain and simple Balladofwindfishes 01:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. If Wikipedia is all about sources, then why isn't Pokemon D/P called an RPG? ALL sources label it as an RPG. It's the same as Dragon Quest Monsters. They are RPGs. If you guys aren't going to pay attention to the sources, then why in blue hell are they on the page? Deny it all you want, but you lot, Suke and Placebo, have lost this time. Nintendo themselves label it as an RPG evident by the link I provided. V-Dash 01:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Gamespot calls it a Console RPG, never use the word "all". The Placebo Effect 01:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Gamespot =/= Nintendo. V-Dash 03:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Nintendo only calls it an RPG because the main subject matter of their site is video games. Therefore, for Nintendo to say "Console RPG" is redundant because what other kind of RPG does Nintendo make? However, Wikipedia is by anyone, for anyone, is supposed to be written so that anyone and everyone will understand. So here, we need to get more specific with "Console RPG" whether or not Nintendo does. Ya dig? -- POWERSLAVE 04:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the brass tacks - both "RPG" and "CRPG" are correct, since the former term is used to describe both video and paper-and-pen role-playing games, more often the former than the latter. In fact, in a similar discussion over at Talk:Dungeons & Dragons, someone brought up that it's more confusing to use just "RPG" when referring to P&PRPGs because the video game industry has coopted the term. If you were to go up to a layperson and ask them to describe "RPG", nine times out of ten you'll get "Final Fantasy" or "Pokémon" in response. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 04:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I have a feeling that this is going to end up on WP:LAME. Marlith T/C 05:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I applaud your omniscience. east.718 at 06:40, 11/6/2007
ITs not lame, its just one disruptive user. The Placebo Effect 06:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's an infobox dispute, isn't it? We should use more specific terms for the infobox. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 08:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

!vote

opening up a !vote to see where consesnus stands.

RPG

Console RPG

  1. The Placebo Effect 07:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. This seems ludicrous, but what the hell. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 08:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. This wouldn't be necessary if a certain someone would have discussed this here rather than going on a wild revert war. -Sukecchi 10:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Way to blow something out of proportion. I don't see how the word "Console" could offend someone so much. -- POWERSLAVE 12:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. This is probably the most ridiculous edit war I have ever seen. V-Dash, I suggest that you read WP:Consensus. MelicansMatkin 18:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with you guys (Placebo Effect, Sukecchi, POWERSLAVE, and MelicansMatkin) about the whole rpg argument, don't take V-Dash and his arguments personally. He's like certain people I know, where if they think you disagree with them, they refuse to listen to any opposing arguements. That type of person is also often ano-retentive. Thought I'd give my opinion. Jds500 (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Other

<Carlin>The whole thing is fuckin' pointless!</Carlin> To the layperson, "RPG" means the likes of Pokemon and Final Fantasy and Breath of Fire, et al. Say "Console RPG", and you'll more likely than not get the response "You mean there's more than one kind?" While P&PRPGs are popular, they're relatively unknown to the layperson, and thus the term "RPG" has been more-or-less taken over by the video game industry. That's the truth of the matter; Urutapu's assessment at the top is misguided at best and uninformed at worst. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 08:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This is stupid. Ok, first of all, Nintendo called it an RPG. That's it, it's Nintendo's word against yours. If Nintendo said Pikachu was a rodent, then it is a rodent. Nintendo owns Pokemon, not you. Nintendo funds Pokemon, not you. Nintendo license Pokemon, not you. It's just like you were saying about Zelda PH. Nintendo said it was an Action Adventure game. Ok. Nintendo said Pokemon is an RPG, but yet you want to argue it down that it isn't. This vote thing is just plain out stupid and ridiculous. You guys are contradicting your words big time. It's a load of bs. V-Dash 17:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again, we ARE saying it's an RPG. The reason Nintendo doesn't call it a Console RPG is because that would be redundant. And Console RPG is more specific. If you don't like it, you don't have to edit this pge, but as the fact stands, consensus is against you. And we are not contridicting are words. BTW, look at Final Fantasy articles and other Portable Pokemon Game articles. Every Video game that is an RPG is called a Console RPG. So unless you are going to change all those articles, leave this one alone. The Placebo Effect 17:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Nintendo doesn't call it a Console RPG because it is an RPG. You just hate to admit that Nintendo handed your ass to you. Remember Place, Nintendo's word > your word when it comes to THEIR own franchises. Simply put, Nintendo knows what the hell to call their games...as yo lot have stated countless times on the PH talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by V-Dash (talk • contribs) 01:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be against you. WP:Consensus. -Sukecchi 01:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Like you would know what that word means...V-Dash 03:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

General agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision making and follow-up action. We've discussed this, and you alone don't overturn everyone else and ...well, rationality.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 03:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Be careful...none of you would want to violate WP:POINT either. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 09:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Too bad Nintendo shot your pathetic ideas down on Pokemon D/P being console RPGs. V-Dash 18:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

V-Dash, did you even read what A. Exeunt posted? It applies to you too. Just accept that consensus is against you. Stop attacking other editors. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, the first step is in treating other editors politely. I suggest that you read WP:Etiquette, WP:POINT, WP:Civility, WP:Consensus, WP:NPA, and WP:DR. You have gone against every single one of these policies, and if you expect anyone to respect your opinions you need to follow them first. MelicansMatkin 20:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I think you're just ticked that Nintendo disproved your "Console RPG" point.V-Dash 01:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I honestly have no real opinion on whether to keep it as "Console RPG" or change it to "RPG". My concern is with your conduct towards other editors. MelicansMatkin 01:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

the games is an rpg to end the discusion because its right on vol1 of the pokemon dimanond& pearl.cyberwolf (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What if Nintendo had called it a FPS or a RTS, would that mean it is neither an RPG or a Console RPG? Dannysjgdf (talk) 08:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Just call it a "Nintendo DS RPG" and be done with it. Everyone's happy. 203.211.74.185 (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, this argument was finished ages ago and secondly, Nintendo DS RPG isn't a genre, as opposed to Console RPG. YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 16:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
No, but "RPG" is a genre and the 'console' prefix is just assigning it to a sub-genre. Unless the games are going to be released on other platforms, "Nintendo DS RPG" is a perfectly valid sub-genre too. 203.211.74.185 (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
You can't just declare "Nintendo DS RPG" a new sub-genre, you'd need reliable sources that use that term before we can even consider adding it to an article. Cheers. -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 09:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Is this discussion still going on? Jeeze, I can't believe it. MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved?

I would like to know if this issue on whether it should be listed as a Console RPG or just plain RPG has been resolved yet so that unprotection can be requested. Are we agreed that it remains as Console RPG (as consensus seems to currently suggest), or do we need to take this a step further and request for mediation? MelicansMatkin 02:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say request unprotection and if V-Dash continues to change it, he can be Blokced for disruptive editing. The Placebo Effect 02:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

...we don't have to resort to taking off every 'ArbCom' here, do we? -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 05:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This should not need to go to Arbcom.The Placebo Effect 05:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Since there seems to be a healthy discussion with a consensus reached, I've unprotected the page. east.718 at 05:31, 11/9/2007

Continued Edit Warring Warning

I would like to quote this from the 3RR warning that is placed on a user's talk page: Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. This is a warning to all who are involved in the current edit warring, and who are not technically violating 3RR. MelicansMatkin 01:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Please report me at WP:AN/3RR as I broke 3RR The Placebo Effect 01:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I am blocking both V-Dash (1 week) and Placebo (24 hrs) for 3RR. V's blcok is much longer given as he has a history of edit-warring. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 02:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This should be nominated for the lamest edit wars. The entire point of this site is to be descriptive and hell even a fanboy such as myself can see the difference between real role playing and console role playing games.--MrBubbles 22:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it qualifys because it was started by one consistantly disruptive user. The Placebo Effect 22:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


I think you are all wrong. Dash is right. Pokemon D/P are RPGs, not console RPGs. DOTEmerzon 22:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong; it's either/or. Both are acceptable. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 22:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
NOTE: DOTEmerzon's edits link with V-Dash's. I've filed a checkuser request; if it's him, he's evading his block. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 22:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
CU came back Possible that V-Dash = DOTEmerzon. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 22:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there is any doubt. DOTEmerzon has been editing in the same style as V-dash. It's definitely a puppet. RegalStar 00:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that V-Dash is ri-- Wait ... what am I saying? He's wrong as hell about it. :D Action (05:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Action22579 (talk • contribs)

An IP seems to want to restart the Console RPG bull crap. -Sukecchi (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

AND the number of species line too. The Placebo Effect (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
As a side note, V-Dash is 48 hours away from the end of his block (lengthened once for puppetry as DOTEmerzon (I lengthened it again, but reversed that)). During his block, there have been no less than four accounts trying to impersonate him so his block will be extended; treat him with kid gloves and keep an eye on his userpage and any pages or posts involving a "Dash Jr.". -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 05:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Pokemon could be accepted as both RPG and console-RPG. In my opinion, the term RPG applies to those such as Dungeons and Dragons, as well as those like Final Fantasy because they both have the same type of stucture. --Darkdemon90 14:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkdemon90

Japanese cover artwork

Whatever happened to the Japanese cover artwork?

I think we should also include Japanese cover artwork on Pokémon video game pages. Is there any way we could do this?

(Just because they were made in Japan and sold in Japan, it seems to be...original unlike the US cover artwork.)

76.233.81.56 (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason, since there's only one difference between any US and Japanese artwork – whether the logo is in Japanese or English. And did you have to post this on every single game article?—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 00:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Remember, anything that seems cool and unique is not allowed. Hence why they still think Pokemon is a Console RPG despite Nintendo proving them wrong. V-Dash (talk) 05:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Either/or, V-Dash. Explain Dungeons & Dragons, more specifically all its video game adaptations. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 07:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
(What do genres have to do with being cool and unique?)—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 14:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not genre. Something is only cool and unique if it goes against consensus. RegalStar (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Reason enough to discuss info on the 3rd title

If Serebii found out info about a third D/P title, how can we handle that?V-Dash (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

We ignore it. Serebii.net is a fansite, and is not a reliable source. Information will be added when (and only when) there is an official announcement from Nintendo, The Pokemon Company, or another reliable source such as CoroCoro, regarding the release of a companion game to Diamond and Pearl. MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
One could have merely asked WP:PCP - they (and I) have had enough experience with Serebii to know that they aren't always right (legendary Blaziken, legendary Lucario, etc.) and that even hardcore fans take a dose of Serebii with a pinch of salt. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 04:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

True, but Melican, Coronis is a documented and official source. Of course, no one is perfect and Serebii is far from being the best Pokemon site. But you have to remember that Wikipedia isn't official, but more official than Serebii.V-Dash (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia IS official cause we get our info from official sources only. The Placebo Effect (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Not necessary. True, you get your info. from official sources, but does that make Wikipedia any more official than Serebii? To some extent maybe, but not enough for Wikipedia to be 100% official. Why? Free editing. A properly done research paper with documented sources isn't official despite getting info and documenting it from official sources.V-Dash (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a big difference between Serebii and Wikipedia, V-Dash. Serebii.net is a fansite, while Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. They are two very different things. When new information is added to Wikipedia, sources are cited in text. That is not the case with Serebii, or other fansites. Two people does not a reliable source make. This has been discussed to death many, many times before. If you want further answers, take it to WP:PCP and they will explain it better than I can. MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

One more thing...the use of Serebii.net in citations may violate WP:SPS, so bear that in mind. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 07:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is the article smaller in size?

It used to be a lot bigger than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by V-Dash (talk • contribs) 15:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, not really. The article has been within 1K of 29K throughout its history. If anything, it's grown larger. Check the history of the article. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 19:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
It still feels a bit smaller.V-Dash (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
And...what are we supposed to do about that? Do you suggest quantity is quality?—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 01:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, this is an encyclopedia right? Albeit, a biased one, but still an encyclopedia right?V-Dash (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
If you can expand the article with meaningful content and source it properly, please do so. Don';t complain that it seems short when you are perfectly capable of expanding it. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I was attacked when I expanded the article.V-Dash (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
You didn't expand the article; you blew the bugle and led the 7th Cavalry. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 04:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Your last edit to the article was November 11th, and all you had done to the article in the entire week before that was change it from CRPG to RPG. That is hardly an expansion. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is he still following me? Anyhow, I also added some tidbits about the species. And btw, this game is an RPG as stated by Nintendo. If DQM Joker is an RPG, stated by its article, then Pokemon D/P are RPGs. But don't even think about messing up the Joker article.V-Dash (talk) 08:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is following you, the page happens to be on both of our watchlists. Stop being paranoid. And don't even think about trying to start that CRPG/RPG debate. MelicansMatkin (talk) 11:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not. It seems like everywhere I turn, Jeske is right there behind me.V-Dash (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That's because this page and Dungeons and Dragons are on my watchlist, as is your TP, AN/I, etc. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 21:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

So? Women's restroom is in the same bldg as a men's restroom, but does that mean for you to waltz right on in?V-Dash (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Please take disputes between users to user talk. This page is for discussing the article. Friday (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Lengthening the intro a bit

It's… a little short. Last time I put effort into it, it still had a bit of a summary of the rest of the article - in its current revision, it lacks this. Allow me to stress that the guidelines have stressed that it'd be a summary. What could we do to lengthen it again? (And subsequently allow it to apply for FAC.) - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 08:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibility of a 3rd game

Shouldn't there be a discussion on the possibility of D/P's enhancement?V-Dash (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can find sources that mention it that are from a reputable source, then yes, we can. The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are you so stubborn that you keep bringing this up? -Sukecchi (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Well it could be a very relevant thing to add the this page. I think there will be another classic Pokemon game on the DS, as Nintendo has stated that they want it to last. But, I'm not a source and Wikipedia isn't for speculation. -Anthony- (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

True, but even Wikipedia's contradictory state can tell that Nintendo will plan a 3rd title of D/P. Suke, I am not being stubborn.V-Dash (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are. This has been discussed and removed over and over again, Why do you keep bringing it up? Nothing is going to change until there is physical evidence of a third game. -Sukecchi (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.--DarkFierceDeityLink 02:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You poor guys, facing fact over fiction. Too bad past evidence proves to be the latter.V-Dash (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS. Learn about it, V-Dash. I will revert any more resurrection of the JRPG vs. RPG debate as disruption to make a point. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 21:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
WE agree that there will most likly be a third game. However, we need an offical source to add this to the article. The Placebo Effect (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought he was referring to the debate. I also agree there will likely be a third game. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 01:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can't make a point if an Admin's breaking the 3RR rule.V-Dash (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Your point has been brought forth, debated, and it has been decided that until information on such a release is announced, there is no need to include it here. What Nintendo has done in the past will not necessarily affect the present. Lets not forget that Gen I originally had four games, Gen II had three, and Gen III had five. If you glorify the past, the future dries up. MelicansMatkin (talk) 10:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Daily events

Okay, I always do the daily events in the game. Why aren't they listed in the article? Slapmeorelse (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Listing every single one would be really crufty. It's one thing to mention different things happen one day and mention one or two as examples, but listing all of them is too much.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 02:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe they could be listed in a separate article? Truth be told, such a thing would be pretty handy. Hanii Puppy (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh?

Resolved

Would someone please explain what the hell the difference between the two games is? Scanning over the article I have no idea. +Hexagon1 (t) 07:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That's something for Gamefaqs. Any information like that would turn the article into a game guide. -Sukecchi (talk) 11:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, yes, because as an encyclopaedia we shouldn't distinguish between different games! I know, let's merge Tetris with Halo 3. I think this is a pretty bloody fundamental thing, just like Samneric these games are treated as 'Diamond and Pearl'. Why are there two games? What's the difference? This article treats them basically as a single entity. +Hexagon1 (t) 13:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
For our intents and puposes, the diffrences between the two games it trivial. Both games are the same except for a few pokemon you don't find, and we don't mention that kind of stuff The Placebo Effect (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, perhaps THAT should be mentioned? A nice "The differences between the games are trivial" sentence? It's (probably) not going to kill anyone. +Hexagon1 (t) 14:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
it is and try to be more civil Blue-EyesGold Dragon 16:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I am civil. I am also forceful, and you may have misperceived that as incivility. The deteriorating levels on Wikipedia are shocking, and I am doing my best not to murder the other editors. Scanning over my posts I don't see anything offensive or contrary to policy, although if you feel offended you have an apology, but I don't believe myself to be at fault here. +Hexagon1 (t) 14:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC) PS: Where is it mentioned? That should be fairly prominent, most likely something for the introduction. +Hexagon1 (t) 14:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
It may just be me, but I don't think he was acting uncivil...but the point still stands that that kind of information is trivial. -Sukecchi (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think it needs to be mentioned why two games exisist that are almost perfectly the same. I would support a statement in the article that mentioned this fact, without naming all the pokemon. The Placebo Effect (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
That's what my edit was doing, though I don't think my citation was the best one in the world. While the difference is very small, I really don't see why it hurts to at least summarise it in one sentence. I know that Wikipedia is not a guidebook, but an one-sentence summary is not going to count as a guidebook to anybody, and there's no other counter-argument to it so far on this page. I'm interested in knowing exactly why it's "going to kill anyone". RegalStar (talk) 07:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It could easily confuse a casual gamer who has little knowledge on Pokemon. Well, purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide accurate information, and that my friends is very accurate information to be told.67.33.234.248 (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You guys need to stop being one sided and stuck up about this article and make it more indepth for people who do NOT know much about Pokemon. Just because you know the differences doesn't mean someone else will.V-Dash (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia. All we'd need to do is state that there is variance in the two games and that would satisfy the concerns. I'll add it in right now. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 22:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

People seem to have misinterpreted what I want, I don't want a massive comparison section, I want one or two bloody sentences that tell us why there are two games, instead of treating the subject as Diamondandpearl. And all I am greeted with is obnoxious users shoving irrelevant policy in my face, assuming worst faith possible. Good god, what happened to WP:IAR and friendly good-faith editors? It's irrelevant what the policy says, if it fits in the article, is topical and causes no harm, why the hell not? For the record we're not all Pokémon fanatics and I've never played a Pokémon game, could we bloody well get a simple explanatory introduction? I am warmly expecting your responses and references to policy 44.2 §4a sub§§k-x. The only people left on Wikipedia are bureaucrats. +Hexagon1 (t) 14:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Such is what many unfamiliar with Wikipedia think it is; I only added a short one-or-two sentence paragraph under the "Connectivity to other games" section. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 03:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Wha? You're assuming I know what you're assuming I'm assuming. Please clarify. And I am not unfamiliar with Wikipedia, I came, I saw, I left. +Hexagon1 (t) 08:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm actually referring to the general attitude of anons who want to improve any article related to video games en generale. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 11:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
"And all I am greeted with is obnoxious users shoving irrelevant policy in my face, assuming worst faith possible." your not talking about me are you O_o --Blue-EyesGold Dragon 00:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I actually didn't mean you. But please don't mistake other things for incivility, although if you're offended I again extend an apology, I see no need to make enemies but don't hide my views in order to make friends either. +Hexagon1 (t) 08:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I dont remember posting that here, and i dont see any reason that it should of been posted, sorry ^_^ --Blue-EyesGold Dragon 21:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Um. Last time I checked all they did was saying something that counters your suggestion, and you responded with a large paragraph filled with sarcastic comments. You got your wish - a sentence was added to signify the difference between the games. Can you please stop attacking now? RegalStar (talk) 07:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not attacking, sarcasm, you may have forgotten, is a form of humour. The sentence is by far insufficient, I find our little break-down in communication ridiculous, let me provide an analogy with what my problem with this article is. Imagine the clock and watch article were merged into "Clock and watch". The intro would just say a 'Clock and watch' is a time-telling device, and would treat them as a single entity all the way through. Then someone posts on the talk, but what's the difference between the two? And he gets yelled down for trying to turn Wikipedia into a watch-making website. Get it? I know next to nothing about Pokémon, and as such am bewildered by why this article treats two, wholly separate, if similar, games as a single entity. I don't mind a single article, but can we at least acknowledge they exist separately? A nice "The games are distinguished by the presence of blah in Diamond, and with limited connectivity to blah in Pearl" (as an example) sentence in the intro would be great for a start and perhaps a bit on the twin games phenomenon in the history section, but if many here struggle with the concept of a single sentence I am loathe to suggest a whole new subtopic for the history section, lest I be eaten alive. +Hexagon1 (t) 13:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Diamond_and_Pearl&diff=181280889&oldid=181070573 Why are you still on this, then? RegalStar (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone even read what I post anymore? I should highlight key-words for some people. Notably, introduction, read the analogy, and possibly, history section. I am on this because I just made a last attempt to explain I did not come here in bad faith, I came here bearing daisies and dancing in the meadows (kind of, anyway), and was dismissed as a crackpot from the start. (You can't be crazy if they really are after you... *shifty eyes*) I am, however, appalled if this is the standard on Wikipedia these days. Then again, I'm on a Pokémon article, so what do I expect... If you want, I'll go away, but think about what you've done, unless you're preoccupied by your Pokémon's latest mutations and have lost the ability to think (perhaps in exchange for fire-breathing or something). Your collective lack in social skills is sad, this all arose from an extremely simple breakdown in communication. I don't think what I've said constitutes a personal attack but if you feel it does you have an apology. +Hexagon1 (t) 05:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


Why not just add a section detailing the differences between the two games? You guys can not assume that everyone will already know, and you can't go off saying there's sites like GameFAQs and such... If you don't like it, then don't read it, but the article is for everyone's benefit...not just yours.V-Dash (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what is called cruft and is disallowed. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 21:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Again you speak in a tongue different from the masses...V-Dash (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

With what word? Disallowed? He gave a link to the defention of "Cruft". And V-Dash, all you do is complain about things on talk pages. Why do you still come here if nothing we do will make you happy? The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because you are all trying to speak for everyone. Not everyone knows the difference between D/P. Not everyone can go through GameFAQs and find the answer. Some people dislike GameFAQs. If this encyclopedia is too damn uppity to at least state the differences between D/P, then there's really no use to suggest people to come here because it is really a load of contradiction.V-Dash (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There are short summaries of the game's differences in two separate places on the page. This is a nil issue now.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 05:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
With that small sentence, I know EXACTLY what the difference between diamond and pearl is - Different Pokemons are available in different versions. I don't think that can be made plainer. If you're looking for an exact list, then too bad - like it or not, Wikipedia isn't a place for that. Sorry if we're not your idealized version. Go create your own or something. RegalStar (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Or he can just go to Bulbapedia, which has that sort of info. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 04:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Bulbapedia is a good Wiki, but it is still not a good tool for people who aren't familiar with areas like Bulbapedia. It'd be much easier to give them a general idea of the differences.V-Dash (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Which we have already done. Stop pressing the matter, V-Dash. The one sentence I added is enough. Too much detail is a violation of NOT. Further, aren't *we* a wiki and thus not a good toop for people who aren't familiar with them? -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 15:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
A sentence doesn't do much justice Jeske. And yes, I am aware this is a Wiki. BUT, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia that *claims* to use official sources.V-Dash (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Sources have absolutely no bearing on whether something sourced deserves more than one sentence on Wikipedia, V-Dash. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 17:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

And you can't send everyone to Bulbapedia regardless if it's a Wiki or not. This article's sole purpose is to give general information about D/P. Well guess what, the differences is general information Jeske.V-Dash (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

And thus the sentence there stating that there are differences suffices. Going any further into it is game guide, which is explicitly disallowed. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 19:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Look, V-Dash, the point is the article does explain the difference between the two games. Putting lists of what Pokémon are in what games is nothing but a game guide, which Wikipedia is not.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 19:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok... Then going by that logic, the Pokedex entries should be removed to. Remember, this isn't a game guide.. But seriously, you guys aren't helping much in improving the article.V-Dash (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
No, by that logic we're fine. All we said is that trading between languages will give you that Pokédex entry.
How are you helping, anyway? All you do is instigate conflict.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 20:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Which is a pisspoor explanation detailing the differences between Diamond and Pearl.V-Dash (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
There are few differences, V-Dash, and the difference are all listed. Instead of trying to instigate conflict, why not try editing the articles without trying to engage in an edit war? MelicansMatkin (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fine. I will add in a differences section that will only be general info. But don't come giving me any toss about Wiki this and Wiki that.V-Dash (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Pokemon 0____0 pokemon are the difference.Wolfmonkeyy (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
This thread was resolved almost three months ago. -Jéské (v^_^v Detarder) 07:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

the diffrence is only certain pokemon show up in dimanond & pearl. ex bonsly in pearl, and mime jr in dimanond.cyberwolf (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Soooooo going on WP:Lame

24.99.126.113 (talk) 06:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The war was LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO(breath)OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG over by the time you posted, 24. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 22:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

Just a reminder to everone currently involved in removing or restoring allegedly unrelated comments from this talk page: Be mindful of the 3 revert rule. These comments don't look like they fall under any exceptions to the 3RR like "obvious vandalism", so be careful because you might find yourself blocked even if you think your edits are constructive — TheBilly(Talk) 06:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sales?

Does anyone have the data for the sales as of March 2008? It seems that we are approaching the one year date for the US release and it might be relevant to update the reception info again. Just a thought. Duct tape tricorn (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Too much Bickering

Could we try and keep this talkpage free of so much arguing! It's cluttering the whole page.

When you want to discuss a point, look at all the previously said points, and try to only mention new points. Saying the same thing over and over again isn't going to convince someone that your right and they're wrong. - Jezzamon (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Tell that to 4channers... -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 09:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Cyrus's Intentions

It says in the article that Cyrus wanted to destroy all life on Earth, but from what I gathered, he wanted to create a new Earth, by either using Palkia to create a new earth, or Dialga to create a new time where the earth would be alone. Is this right? - Jezzamon (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

yes that is right becuase if he used the power of the 3 lengendary pokemon from the lakes in to the orb he could use palkia or dialga to make a new earth but it raged the pokemon instead.cyberwolf (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Dialga/Palkia was creating a new dimension in the same location as the main one, which would destroy it.

--24.99.126.113 (talk) 06:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Just to present an opinion here (I don't need to be caught up in another arguement like the previous one about the console rpg/rpg), I thought Cyrus just wanted a new universe to rule, created by Dialga/Palkia. I don't recall anything about the location, just the portal being in front of him at spear pillar. Jds500 (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Page Prot

I have fully-protected the page for three days in an attempt to stop the edit-war over a sequels section (which appears to me to be this; apologies for bad link in prot summary). As it sits, the article with details on the section is up for AfD; the prot will end within a day of the AfD, for better or for worse. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 18:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Pokemon Platinum

A third game for Diamond and Pearl. There's a scan in CoroCoro magazine. --71.246.238.88 (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

See Pokemon Platinum. --Silver Edge (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Pokémon Diamond and Pearl/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.


This article has a few things that needs to be fixed, otherwise it will lose its good article status.

  • Fix the one [citation needed] tag
  • Development section needs to be expanded; it is too short
  • A lot of information is uncited:
    • Most of "Connectivity to other devices"
    • The "Awards" section
  • Remove the external links in the article's body; there is one in "Awards"
  • Article needs a copyedit

Please keep this page updated with the article's progress. Gary King (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I fixed most of the cite problems, except for the one with the citation needed tag. If anyone has the relevant magazine, please source the article, otherwise the sentence can be removed. Also, are you sure that the development section is too short for GA standards? In any case, I shall start copyediting. Artichoker[talk] 22:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC) Found a cite. All sourcing problems have been addressed.
Some of the other Pokemon good articles, such as Pokémon_Red_and_Blue#Development and Pokémon_Ruby_and_Sapphire#Development, are longer. Ideally, of course, this should compare to a FA article, such as The_World_Ends_with_You#Development, another DS game. Gary King (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'll try to find some development information. Artichoker[talk] 22:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I have slightly expanded the Development section. I'll try to find some more information still. Artichoker[talk] 16:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Any updates on this? Gary King (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks a lot better. Keeping. Gary King (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed a cover

Per the suggestions of David Fuchs at Ruby/Sapphire's PR, I removed the cover of Pearl from the infobox. It was an arbitrary decision (which cover to remove, I mean), and if anyone would prefer the cover of Pearl, go right ahead and replace it. Ink Runner (talk) 06:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the Pearl cover should at least be put back somewhere in this article SilverYoshi95 (talk) 09:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the reason we only use one game's box art is that it would be pretty redundant to have both. And all the other main Pokémon games only use the box art of the game that comes first in the title. -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 10:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
It's also down to the images licensing; Wikipedia aims to use as few non-free images as possible, and having both covers would not be in keeping with this. MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Pokemon platinum should be a seperate article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sporetox (talk • contribs) 19:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Rename/move article

I propose renaming the article Pokémon Diamond and Pearl versions or Pokémon Diamond and Pearl Versions. More discussion has occured here. SharkD (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Difference?

What's the difference between Diamond and Peral? Different Pokemon? --[[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

In a nutshell, yes. Ink Runner (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Redirect issue

Is anyone else having a problem with the Platinum redirect? When I click on a wikilink that leads to "Pokémon Platinum", it redirects me to the very bottom of the Diamond/Pearl page, not to the "Pokémon Platinum" section of the D/P page. The "Pokémon Platinum" redirect page seems fine, so I can't figure this out. Is anyone else having this issue? -Sesu Prime (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the exact same thing happens to me, and I have no idea what the problem is. Artichoker[talk] 01:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Strange, I'm not having that issue at all. It takes me straight to the correct section when I click it. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Redirect works fine for me, in both IE8 and FF-whatever-version-this-is-on-internet-cafe-computer. What browser(s) are you two using? And which wikilink in particular, if any? TheChrisD Rants•Edits 03:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems to be every Platinum wikilink. And I use Firefox 3.0.7 (the most recent version). -Sesu Prime (talk) 06:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
This has been done on purpose. The article has been merged. I have no idea why though... I'm going to investigate... --Meph (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
It still does it for me when I type in pokemon platinum into the search bar. I use FireFox 3.0.8 (the most recent version). Artichoker[talk] 16:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
We know the Platinum article was merged, Meph. In fact, we all participated in the discussion that lead to the merge. Anyway, searching for "pokemon platinum" or something similar brings me to the bottom of the D/P page, too. By the way, I now use version 3.0.8 of Firefox (thanks for pointing out the update, Artichoker). -sesuPRIME talk • contributions 00:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I clicked on the link supplied by Artichoker and it still took me to the correct section. I use Internet Explorer, so it must be a Firefox issue. MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it would seem to be Firefox, but every other [[Article name#Section name]] type of wikilink I've encountered work just fine for me. Strange stuff. -sesuPRIME talk • contributions 01:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've tried retyping the redirect in Pokemon platinum to see if that does anything to help. Bizarre though this may be sound, if anyone is having issues with the Pokemon Platinum redirect (note the capitalization) I'm wondering if it's because that page is locked. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just tried the links above in Chrome, and I'm seeing the issue where it's being sent to the bottom of the page. I can only think it's a browser thing, as IE(8) has no issues. TheChrisD Rants•Edits 08:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I tried a temporary fix of redirecting to the "related games" section, but it still redirects to the bottom of the page. --Xaliqen (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Mine goes to the right bit, then jumps to the bottom.. wtf is this? I honestly see this as a sign to split the articles back. Makes sence. See request below.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It is still jumping to the bottom. Does anyone actually know what is wrong? Dude1818 (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Why am I being redirected?

Since when did Pokemon Platinum and Pokemon Emerald become part of their main games page?Weapon XXY (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Emerald has been that way for at least a year, but Platinum was just recently merged to this article. Don't worry though, not much information was lost in the transition. Artichoker[talk] 20:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Here are the relevant discussions, in case you're interested: Platinum, and Emerald. Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
This is such a stupid and ridiculous thing to do. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The basic discussion was over whether the third games differed enough from their counterparts to warrant their own article. The general consensus was that no, they do not, and so they were merged. All of the differences are noted in the respective sections. Everything else that the articles could contain would be exactly identical to hat is in the Ruby/Sapphire and Diamond/Pearl articles; in other words, not enough to justify having their own article. MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
But there separate games, there even split up by like 2 years. Mario Kart games are very similar over time, but they still warrant their own article. And i strongly think these games should have their own articles. Do you atleast get where i'm coming from. Plus i think they're different enough. Plus shouldn't the article be titled Pokémon Diamond, Pearl and Platinum?IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The Mario Kart games are released on different consoles, and the only similarities between games are that people race. Apart from that, every game has different characters, different tracks, and additional features that set each game apart from the last. Mario Kart games can hardly be said to be "the same thing". Finally, the Mario Kart games are not "remakes" of the prior games. Yellow, Crystal, Emerald, and Platinum however are essentially the same games as what was previously released in their respective generations. The basic plot is the same, and the characters are the same. This is not enough to warrant their own articles. See also, WP:OTHERCRAP for comparisons with other articles. MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I still support the merges, but you do bring up a good point about the titles, IAmTheCoinMan. Why aren't Yellow, Crystal, Emerald, and Platinum included in their articles' names? -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 00:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

See here for a previous discussion on the article titles. MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I understand now. Thanks for the link MelicansMatkin. -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 01:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
No problem; I'm glad I was able to clarify it for you =) MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
idno..... i hardly think these games are remakes. But more part of the series that was released a little later. It's quite genius from sales pov, and successfull too. Hence, i still think name should be changed IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 07:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't call them remakes either. They're enhanced re-releases more in line with a director's cut than a remake. But back to the topic at hand; if you haven't already, you should read the discussion Melicans provided. -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 08:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
i still dno about their final conlusion there but...IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 04:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
What the fuck? I mean come on, can Wikipedia get any more ridiculous than this? Pokemon Platinum, while still a version of D/P, it has waay to many new things for it to simply be merged into the Diamond/Pearl articles.Weapon XXY (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
You can check the above links for the relevant discussions in question. Can you name any changes that aren't already covered in the article? If so, feel free to open a new discussion here or at WP:PCP. MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Fabricated Plot Point (Platinum)

"The storyline involves a disturbance atop Mt. Coronet, as a portal to the 'Distortion World' is opened and Sinnoh's climate becomes colder. The trainers have been given new outfits to suit the colder climate." Perhaps I missed it, but I don't think that the portal was ever the reason for the weather...I think it's just winter in the game. For example, there is snow outside the player's house when you walk out for the first time -- long before the portal atop Mt. Coronet is opened. Shall I go ahead and remove that? 76.112.239.251 (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If that's true then yeah, feel free to fix the article. -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 03:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What the **** is this ****?

Wikipedia has reached an all new low. Why in the **** is Platinum reserved as a sub section now with only two paragraphs about it? Are you people that damn formal that you have to follow every f ucking rule to the teeth? This is an outrage.MR KennedyDX (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for improvement, or are you just ranting? BOVINEBOY2008 :) 15:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


Oh I see, Wikipedia gets to shit in our Wheaties with these policies, yet you guyds get free reign to bastardize articles to your liking? Oh I know, why not combine ALL pokemon games onto one page. Oh yeah, that reaaallly helps out, doesn't it?
Instead of making straw man attacks, why don't you take it up with the policymakers, Mr. Kennedy? Ink Runner (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Platinum merge discussion. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 22:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
If the policy called for you guys to wear pink, fluffy ear muffs, then would you do it? No. And there is no strawman. I am sick of you guys tearing down good articles just because "Wikipedia" has a policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MR KennedyDX (talk • contribs) 01:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
All of Wikipedia's policy come out of a consensus from users to abide by some core policies, three of which apply to these kind of articles, verifiability, creating and maintaining a neutral point of view, and avoiding any original research. If you don't want to abide by these policies, I suggest you go to a fan site or a wikia where writers have different goals. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 01:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The decision was that Platinum is so similar to Diamond and Pearl that it did not warrant it's own article. I challenged several users above to name what made Platinum substantially different enough from D/P that it could stand as it's own article, providing reliable references to back that up. Nobody was able to reply. If you're going to continue being abusive in this manner, I really see no point in attempting to continue this discussion. If you're going to be civil, that's another story. Feel free to continue ranting and acting abusively if you wish, but I warn you now that it will be taken as bad faith and subsequently reverted. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
It deserves more than just a mere few paragraphs, Melican. I believe this ordeal was your idea. Going by that wonderful logic, why not combine all of the Madden games into one article or Dynasty Warriors into one article since they are more of the same than Pokemon Platinum is. I find it hard to be civil when editors like you ruin articles just because you think it's cool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MR KennedyDX (talk • contribs) 23:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Chummer, given your behavior it works both ways. In any case, all of us here are acting in good faith; the only difference is that you're more vociferous. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 23:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, MR KennedyDX, if you'd read the original discussion I provided for you, you would have seen that it was Artichoker who put forth the suggestion. I was merely the first person to support it. Another editor made the exact same argument you have just made, only using Mario Kart as an example instead of Madden. My response is identical: The Mario Kart games are released on different consoles, and the only similarities between games are that people race. Apart from that, every game has different characters, different tracks, and additional features that set each game apart from the last. Mario Kart games can hardly be said to be "the same thing". Finally, the Mario Kart games are not "remakes" of the prior games. Yellow, Crystal, Emerald, and Platinum however are essentially the same games as what was previously released in their respective generations. The basic plot is the same, and the characters are the same. This is not enough to warrant their own articles.
In any case, you cannot compare one series of articles with another. Read WP:OTHERCRAP for why. Finally, I have a hard time believing that you have even tried to be civil, given the content of your posts and the way you have spoken to other editors. I link again to WP:CIVIL in the hopes that you read it and understand what proper conduct towards other editors is. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
(unimportant, but it was actually User:Zabbethx that proposed the merge, and I was the first one to support.) Artichoker[talk] 23:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Figured you lot would fall for my trap. You can't even tell me who was the first to support. I merely said Melikan's to test my theory, and it worked. And you call this edit good faith? And why can I not compare two series? It makes logical sense. And the MK games are no different from each other. Perhaps you guys need to realize what a remake and port is because last I remembered, PT was its own game. And don't call me chummer. It goes only one way here at Wikpedia it seems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MR KennedyDX (talk • contribs) 00:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Bullshit. Every Super Mario Kart game has either added on or subtracted from previous games in the series. I find it disingenuous one would dare call Double Dash alike to Super Mario Kart because Double Dash introduced new concepts to the game. Platinum does not do this. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 01:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
What contemptible nonsense are you trying to pull? Stop beating this dead horse and attacking people. Discussion archived. Artichoker[talk] 00:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
All right, to be serious, this isn't an individual Pokemon, but a whole game. IF it was a third version released along with D/P, maybe so, but to call it the same is not fair.01:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MR KennedyDX (talk • contribs)
The plotline and characters are virtually unaltered (unlike the MarioKart references you keep making). The only, ONLY Pokémon third-leg in the trilogy that might deserve its own article is Yellow version, and even then it's superceded by the anime. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 01:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Umm Jeremy, MK doesn't even have a plot. And no, Pt's plot is significantly more different than DP.MR KennedyDX (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I call BS on that, chummer. Adding more questing areas does not a new game make unless the new questing areas are central to the story. Compare D2 and LoD. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 01:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: MR KennedyDX will not be participating further in this discussion as he has been blocked indefinitely. -sesuPRIME 01:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Pokémon Diamond or Pokémon Diamond Version?

I looked through the archives and i couldn't find this. Is the official title of the game in English "Pokémon Pearl" or "Pokémon Pearl Version"--Jim88Argentina (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, they're both acceptable.Jds500 (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Sinnoh Map

The Sinnoh Map image doesn't include Fullmoon Island, Newmoon Island, or Flower Paradise. Dude1818 (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can find an official map that includes said locations, feel free to swap that for the current one. Ink Runner (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

How do they differ?

Unless I missed something, the article currently does not discuss how Diamond and Pearl differ, other than saying they have "largely the same plot". Could a knowledgeable editor add a paragraph about the differences? I think this is necessary for an article discussing 2 games. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The only differences are the available Pokemon. While it is mostly things like Seel is only in Diamond, and Slowpoke is only in Pearl, the main Legendaries are different. In Diamond you get Dialga, and in Pearl you get Palkia. The plot is only different because Cyrus tries to capture one, and you foil his plans and end up capturing it. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

where do u buy gba cartige slot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.231.23 (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinion articles

How exactly do opinion articles work for sourcing? I came across this one from Game Informer (a reliable source according to WP:VG/RS) which has some good information, but since it's an opinion more than anything else, I'm not entirely sure how we could use it. Thanks, Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 05:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Pokémon Diamond and Pearl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pokémon Diamond and Pearl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pokémon_Diamond_and_Pearl/Archive_4&oldid=1176033028"