Talk:Pokémon Pinball: Ruby & Sapphire

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pokémon Pinball: Ruby & Sapphire article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find video game sources: "Pokémon Pinball: Ruby & Sapphire" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

Pokémon Pinball: Ruby & Sapphire was one of the Video games good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 6, 2010	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
October 15, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
December 24, 2019	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Video games: Nintendo Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the Nintendo task force.

This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Bejeweled Stars (1 participant)
Melee (game terminology) (2 participants)
Solo leveling: Unlimited (2 participants)
Game Sack (4 participants)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Godzilla: Monster of Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Araya (video game) (3 participants; relisted)
Chao (Sonic the Hedgehog) (8 participants; relisted)
Crazy Bus (11 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Fair use rationale for Image:Pokemon.jpg

Image:Pokemon.jpg 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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject: Video games assessment

Overall, the article is an easy pass for B-Class, so I thought I'd point out some quick potential GAN issues instead:

File:Pokemonpinballrubyandsapphire.png can be shrunk to 256px wide to help further comply with WP:NFCC
Two paragraphs in the Gameplay section seems a bit daunting, as both paragraphs are several lines long. If possible, split it into three even paragraphs for readability.
There are a few disambig links
There is one dead link. You might be able to get away with it per WP:LINKROT, however I would use the Wayback Machine to grab an archived version.

Great work! --Teancum (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankya for the kind words and the assessment. I'd follow up on your favour, but I must depart. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pokémon Pinball: Ruby & Sapphire/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Well-written-Passes

Factually accurate and verifiable-The gameplay section is skimping on references but all of it seems consistent with a pinball game, no really controversial thoughts presented there. And there are a couple of things missing for references, I'll mention them below.

Broad in its coverage- Development is a bit small, but I don't believe that you could even find that much for as an obscure (though notable) game as this. Passes

Neutral- Passes

Stable- Passes

References

6 needs a title and an accessdate
14 needs a publisher (It is Edge but I believe it should be stated separately).
15 needs a publisher as well
19 needs an author and date of publication.
20 goes to the second page of the article, needs to specify that.
33 needs a publication date
34 needs a publisher
35 needs a publication date

I'm putting this on hold merely for the references, other than that, i've been able to learn a great deal from this article. Reviewer: Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accomplished all but 15 and 33; with 15, unless I'm mistaken, Ziff-Davis is the publisher for 15, and with 33, the date is January 1, 2000, which is a placeholder date considering the game's release date. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Larry Flynt publishes Tips and Tricks, so i'm not going to get you on 15. And with 33, I've looked at it and considering your logic about the release date, i'm going to let that slide. Good work on the article, didn't think an article could become GA this fast. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliments and the speedy review! Glad to have my first Pokémon-related GA. :> - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Pokémon Pinball: Ruby & Sapphire. 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: 5 June 2024).

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)[reply]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Pokémon Pinball: Ruby & Sapphire/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This page was nominated back in 2010, and I do not feel it meets the GA criteria by any means now. Even just briefly skimming through the article I notice plenty of things that make this fail the criteria.

The gameplay section has absolutely zero sourcing and a nice "additional citations needed for verification" template to go with it
Noticeable lack of any kind of development section
Uses unreliable sources, such as GameFAQs
The reception section is a complete mess. It's just a hashed-together laundry list of "[x] said [y]" with barely any attempt at trying to weave them into sentences.
The page was also filed under Sports & Recreation, which doesn't make any sense.

This article does not meet the criteria, and as such I vote to delist. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 20:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delist I have removed the GameFAQ ref/GameRankings because we have Metacritic instead, but gameplay being a complete WP:V failure is unacceptable for a GA and a major deal-breaker for me. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The entire Gameplay section does no contain any references and the article has other issues. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 23:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna be busy for a little while, mind holding off so I may fix the issues? Thanks. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 04:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, how long do you think you will be busy for? Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 04:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Will be free by the 30th. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 04:48, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Namcokid47: Hey, you can go ahead with it. Will probably still be busy, plus I'm just having trouble getting into Wikipedia editing at the moment. Also, in the future, please inform me when you nominate an article I brought to GA for removal. Thank you. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Why? Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 20:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Why what? - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        @Namcokid47: - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 22:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd be interested in knowing why I'd have to specifically contact you when I intend to assess a GAR on one of your GAs. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 22:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        @Namcokid47: At one point I'd have said it was common courtesy to give the relevant editors a heads up so they can participate in the discussion and possibly fix the issues presented, but right now I'd point out that it's literally the fifth step of nominating an article for reassessment. The GAR page also suggests measures before taking things to GAR, such as letting people know about the issues. For example, if you had brought up the issues with Donkey Kong Jr. Math to me before nominating it to GAR, it could have been fixed. I understand that you've not done much with respect to GAR, but it is really off-putting that you didn't read the steps to nominating an article for reassessment and got defensive about simply being asked to do an easy, courteous thing. I have the right to participate in a GAR of an article I participated in, and if it is too much to inform me of its existence, you shouldn't be making these nominations. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 22:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I made a discussion about this GAR before nominating this and was told to simply go ahead it, but okay. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 23:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        (btw, you can stop pinging me to this discussion thread. It's in my watchlist which I check constantly, so I already get notified when there's an update to it. Plus it's generally annoying.) Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 23:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Dawg, making a discussion that does not in any way involve involved editors of the article does not fulfill step 5. Again, if you're not interested in following the appropriate steps of GAR, don't bother doing it. I have absolutely no idea why you are so opposed to doing a simple, reasonable, expected task. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 23:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        What if the nominator hasn't been active on Wikipedia in a while? What if they left the site entirely? What would I do then? Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 23:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        You message the nominating user. I'm also unsure why you're asking me what you should do in a hypothetical situation that doesn't apply to this situation. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 23:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        The point I'm trying to make here is that I don't see how this automatically invalidates a GAR, that it somehow makes the page okay and follow the criteria. If an article fails the GA rules, which this page you made clearly does, then I'm gonna start a reassessment for it. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 23:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not invalidating it?? This conversation is occurring because I asked you to do something that is not only basic courtesy in the future, it's mandatory. Why are you being so combative over being asked, politely, to do something so simple? This conversation has no reason to be going on this long, and could have ended a lot sooner if you said "whoops my b." - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 23:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        You asked me something, I asked for you to explain why, and you gave me a reason for it which I didn't agree with. That's not being combative. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 23:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you disagree with the instructions, or you disagree that the instructions mandate informing editors involved in the article? - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 23:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I disagree with having to specifically notify the editor about the page and just delay the entire process when I should just be reassessing it. This discussion is going nowhere, the page has already been delisted, and I have better things to do with my time. This is the end of the discussion for me. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 23:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Namcokid47: Every time, 100% of the time, when you nominate an article for reassessment, you HAVE to tell the involved editors. I'm not talking about it being mandated to inform people of quality issues, I'm telling you that it is courteous. But I am telling you that it is incredibly improper that, twice in a row, you have failed to inform me that you nominated an article for reassessment that I nominated for GA. If you fail to inform me of a GAR again, I will be informing an administrator. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 23:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Abryn has a point. Point 3 of WP:GAR (before initiating a reassessment) states: Notify major contributors to the article and the relevant Wikiprojects. Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it. Point 5 of WP:GAR (The instructions for individual reassessment) also states: Notify major contributing editors, relevant WikiProjects for the article, and, if recently GA reviewed, the nominator and the reviewer. The {{GARMessage}} template can be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. I am suprised how quickly this article got delisted, we need to give contributors time to fix outstanding issues to GA articles. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 01:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fine, I will notify the nominator before attempting a GAR. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 01:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 01:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]