Talk:Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow

These parts were removed from Pokémon

NB: I've also left a note about this at Talk:Pokémon.

He everyone.

I just removed the following from Pokémon#History:

It is commonly stated that development of the first Pokemon game took six years.[10][93][94][95][96] However, this is in fact the total time passed from planning to finish: GF did not work on the game for six years straight.[97]

I originally added this to combat the widespread misconception that GF worked on the game for six years continuously. They did not. However, we don't need to explicitly state this, because the rest of the text already makes this clear enough. The above bit would be more suitable at Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow#Development, which I note should be completely revamped, as it is poorly written and at times inaccurate.

I also deleted this paragraph:

Both Tajiri and Ishihara sought to 'individualize' the player's experience, to make each game slightly different so that every playthrough would be unique.[107] At an early stage, Tajiri had the idea of having the software generate a random number when first booted, ranging from 00001 to 65535 (the highest possible value of an unsigned 16-bit integer).[108][109] When a player then catches a Pokemon, it is assigned both the game's ID and the player's name, which stick with the creature even after it is traded.[110] Furthermore, based on the unique ID, GF wanted the game to render slightly different landscapes and present the player with different Pokemon.[96][109][111] This idea proved infeasible, however.[e] When Tajiri discussed his thoughts of individualization and the ID system with Miyamoto, the latter noted that it was a bit difficult to understand. Miyamoto then suggested using different colored cartridges, which would make the differences between versions more visually clear.[112] According to Tajiri, "five or seven colors" were considered,[113] but they eventually settled on two: a Red version and a Green version. Both games were identical, but each had Pokemon not found in the other, encouraging players to socialize and trade to complete their collection.[107]

I added this because it explains how the idea for the dual versions came about, which became a hallmark of the Pokémon RPGs. Looking back at now, though, it is excessively detailed, and it should be at Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow, not here.

Here is the diff of my edit. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 09:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Potential GA demotion

An "empty section" tag is unacceptable for a GA, and it has been there since 2022. This article would therefore be quickfailed if nominated today. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I have now also tagged a few other issues with the article. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR: Have you tried fixing these issues on your own?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I've just started work on the related games section and merged the music-related information to the music section. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 7 May 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Speedy keep/WP:SNOW. I also think the nom has withdrawn. (non-admin closure) JuniperChill (talk) 10:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow → Pokémon Red, Blue and Yellow – The second comma is unnecessary, so we can remove it per WP:CONCISE. Popcornfud (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose For me, I find the second comma to be necessary (see Oxford comma), but more importantly, removing the comma does not actually make a meaningful difference. CONCISE is not a great argument for such tiny changes. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  Per the Wikipedia MOS (MOS:OXFORD), editors can use or not use Oxford commas, but articles should be consistent about using one or the other.

  The article does seem to use Oxford commas at least some of the time (eg in the sentence a comprehensive Pokémon encyclopedia, by capturing, evolving, and trading to obtain all 151 creatures), so that might be an argument for preserving it in the title.

  I ordinarily don't care either way about Oxford commas — but I personally think brevity is important enough for article titles that even the removal of a single character is a worthwhile change. Popcornfud (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'll add that this is not a case where the comma removes any ambiguity, though. Popcornfud (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - The removal of a single character is not a degree of brevity that makes a difference in any way that matters in terms of WP:CONCISE and is in contravention to MOS:OXFORD which allows for either convention. - Aoidh (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose move. That's not a valid reason to remove the Oxford comma. O.N.R. ^(talk) 23:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - stretch to interpret WP:CONCISE in this way. Stick to the current usage. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 01:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - per MOS:OXFORD. (Oinkers42) (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - as per MOS:OXFORD 1432423132Atalk 06:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• This is clearly a WP:SNOWBALL situation so if another editor wants to close the discussion I'll support that. Popcornfud (talk) 10:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.