Talk:Pokémon Gold and Silver

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Good articlePokémon Gold and Silver has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 6, 2008Good article nomineeListed

Merger proposal

The following discussion 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.



I propose merging

weighting problems in Pokémon Gold and Silver.~ Arkhandar (message me) 13:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Merge. Are we reading the same article? I'll quote: "The gameplay of Pokémon Crystal is largely the same as in Gold and Silver", "The setting and story remains largely the same as Pokémon Gold and Silver", "many commented that there were just not enough new additions and features to significantly set it apart from Pokémon Gold and Silver". Both
    "Sources must exist" is not a defensible position, given the evidence that already exists in the article. czar 08:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge per proposal and Czar. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is a clear
    WP:OVERLAP and I see no significant differences that merit a separate article. Most of the gameplay and plot is the same. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 13:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge per Czar. Sergecross73 msg me 13:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge per above, though without prejudice to future splitting for a more fleshed-out article, as I think there are probably enough differences to satisfy separate articles; they just aren't present yet (and I'm too busy to try and take them on at the moment). DecafPotato (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per DecafPotato and Czar. The article is exceptionally short. I, too, believe in the potential for sources to exist to expand this article, but they are not found as of right now, and no participant in this discussion has volunteered to do a deep dive to find them. Thus, it is best for the article and for the reader's understanding to merge as of now. If someone ever decides to revisit this, please incubate in draftspace and open a discussion before splitting. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Czar and DecafPotato as well. Czar's reasoning is extremely persuasive and it makes sense that these should be put together. Nomader (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge– nothing of value is lost by merging the Crystal article in its present state and it won't bloat the Gold and Silver article. No issues with it being split back into a separate article in the future if sufficient content is added. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Splitting proposal for
Pokémon Crystal and Pokémon Gold and Silver

The following discussion 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.


I propose the splitting of this article into

Pokémon Gold, Silver, and Crystal, and am happy to then work to split the articles. Thanks in advance for your help. Vrxces (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Support I think there is good content here, but it can be condensed a little more. Overall, it's still significant enough to stand on its own in my opinion. I personally would love more content regarding the development. I remember there was an interview talking about the choice to add a female option.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 07:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support distinct enough Yeungkahchun (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
Czar, Vestigium Leonis, Sergecross73, DecafPotato, Axem Titanium, Nomader, and Cyclonebiskit: Pinging participants in previous discussion that have not yet expressed views on the draft presented with the splitting proposal. Felix QW (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I think it’s better to split.It’s iconic and deserves it’s own attention. Basanaja (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Subjective, meaningless claims of being "iconic" and "deserving" have no weight in discussions like this. You have to make arguments related to Wikipedia policy and guidelines for them to be considered. Stuff like this is ignored. Anyone could say that about anything. Sergecross73 msg me 17:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Third versions don't have their own separate articles for the same reasons a lot of expansions/DLCs don't have their own separate articles. Third versions are almost identical to the main two games. The former is like DLC while the latter is like the base game. What is different about Crystal? One can't even count with five fingers what's different from Gold/Silver. Once you answer the question about what's different, one no longer has a case for a separate article. You just end up with a list and content that's superfluous to the content in the Gold/Silver article. This is like if every version of Windows 10 had their own separate article. It's just more work that needs to be done (for editors and readers alike). Trimming the fat is sometimes the way to go rather than adding filler to the encyclopedia. —Mythdon (talkcontribs) 15:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In regards to the opposition because there are insignificant changes or differences. I do not agree that should be a factor in opposing a split. If there is enough development and reception based on the changes/revisions whether they are praising or criticizing it, then that should be the only thing that matters when questioning notability or a split, In my humble opinion. Pokemon Crystal may not have had a strong reaction during its initial release, but in retrospect, has gained a lot of appreciation over the years that is unique to Crystal and not Gold/Silver verifiable. What I will admit is that there is barely a Development section.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.