Talk:Pokémon fan games

Potential move?

@Pokelego999: Would you have an objection to moving the page to Pokémon fan games to match the category? It also uses the more common term of "fan game" rather than "fan-made game". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm I do feel it would be a bit of a misnomer, as this article covers both ROM hacks of Pokémon games and Pokémon fangames, which are identified by sources as being two separate, albeit very closely associated, things. ROM hacks don't fall under the same label, and I feel it may be confusing for readers searching for info on ROM hacks to find it an article about fangames, which are considered separate things under the wider scope of fan-made Pokémon games. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: By that logic, a ROM hack would also not qualify as a "fan-made game". ROM hacks are merely video game mods that utilize an existing game as a basis.

Possibly, we could agree on Pokémon fan games and mods. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm ROM hacks are considered by the sources in the article to be produced and made by fans, so they very much still fall under the category of a "fan-made game". Either way, my gripe is moreso in the confusion with the title than it is anything else, as I feel some confusion may arise from the similar titles when someone is searching for this subject. If you feel very strongly about this new title's effectiveness (Fan-games and mods), then I am not outright opposed to it, but I do feel the current title is just more concise in its coverage of the subjects. The current title should also probably be kept as a redirect to the new page if it is moved. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable source in the Pokémon Infinite Fusion section

The section about Pokémon Infinite Fusion sources TheGamer as one of the sources [1], but this website states that you can download the game on IOS, and that the game is downloaded from a website, which are both not true (there is a fake website pretending to be the official thing that has a scuffed download), so I consider this an unreliable source. Is there some kind of tag that can be added to an unreliable source before a new source is found to replace it? --MystiiFlareon2 (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@MystiiFlareon2 a single mistake doesn't make a source entirely unreliable. This information is also irrelevant to the actual subject matter of the article, as the download information is not mentioned on the Wikipedia article, so I don't believe this is a significant problem. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 14 September 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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sennecaster (Chat) 01:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Fan-made Pokémon games → Pokémon fan games – Fan game is the main article. I could not definitively agree on a move with the article creator, so I am putting it up for discussion whether the page should be moved. The article creator mentioned that ROM hacks may not be technically known as fan games, so I am also open to Pokémon fan games and mods if necessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading of Beans 19:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment as nom. Won't argue my points again here since I've already stated them above, but I will link them just for transparency regarding my previous discussion with Zx. I understand that it's only a little bit upward on the talk page, but I feel it's helpful in case any voters happen to be coming here with no prior talk page context. I'll leave the rest of this discussion to consensus between other voters, since I don't have much of a preference as to this discussion's outcome. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm I have considered your proposal a bit more closely, and I feel it may be wiser to move to your preferred name. However, would it be possible to change the name from "mods" to "modifications"? I feel that is a bit more accurate, though if you feel it's egregious then I have no quarrel with the current proposed name. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind agreeing on "modification" if it means consensus. It would still be better than the current. Though the reason I suggested mod was that the main article is called "video game modding". With articles like Doom modding and Minecraft modding, "modification" is rarely ever used. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm My main suggestion for "modifications" was just in case of reader confusion over the "modding" terminology, but if other articles are using them, then I'm fine with the "mods" title as well. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• Pokemon fan games. Fan game seems to discuss how the games are made and certain legal issues, which is beyond the in-universe discussion of fan games such as how this article does it. In this case its more important to know how they interpret the franchise. Readers who are looking for this subject are already aware of Pokemon, which is probably how they'll wind up here in the first place. Panini! • 🥪 05:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Pokemon fan games as it is the common terminology in use for such things; I agree with Zxcvbnm upthread that "Fan-made game" doesn't encompass ROM hacks any more than "Fan game" does. Not opposed to Pokémon fan games and mods but the shortened name is fine with me even though it is a bit imprecise.  novov talk edits 02:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Support rename. Fan game is the consistent terminology. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:27, 26 September 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.

GA Review

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

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 20:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 18:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Legal issues

1. I suggest changing from "parent company," as looking it up, that's not a term I see used to describe the relationship between the two companies elsewhere.

Let me know if the current wording is alright or should be changed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

1. Regarding Tutty's comments, is he stating this as something he knows to be true, or is it just his opinion on why it is done?
2. Is Morrison a Nintendo/TPC lawyer, or an uninvolved lawyer?

On both Morrison and Tutty: Both seem to be uninvolved but both seem to be legal experts who would be qualified to comment on this, hence why they were consulted by WIRED and PC Gamer, so I don't see an issue with using them. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

1. I feel like "do not go after many games directly" and "Legal action is frequently threatened against both modifications of pre-existing Pokémon games and fangames" may contradict each other

Tried shifting some stuff around to clarify a bit. Both give conflicting accounts so I tried to reflect that a bit better. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cukie Gherkin: addressed the above comments. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Spotcheck

1. [2] - Gets the date wrong for Crystal Clear (typo I assume)

@Cukie Gherkin: Fixed. Good catch on the typo. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

1. [3] Looks good
2. [4] Looks good
3. [5] Looks good

Passing - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Pokémon Essentials Merge Discussion

Nearly every bit of information from Essentials' article is already covered in the fan games article. Its history and influence on the wider fan game scene is covered in the fan games' article's history section, and response to it specifically is covered in Essentials' sub-section in the fan games article, with nearly every source used in Essentials' article re-used there. The only source not used is the Eurogamer source, which can likely be added to the Essentials section in a sentence.

I did a search when researching this article for more sources for Essentials, and there are no additional reviews or coverage of Essentials not already used, and sources that do exist beyond that restate the exact same information about its takedown already communicated and covered by the pre-existing reliable sources. Per Wikipedia:NOPAGE, Essentials is far better covered here when coverage is so minimal in terms of its prose size and scope. Its wider importance is more effectively communicated in the fan games article, where its impact on the community is more easily conveyed, and any individual information can be communicated through its subsection. In its current state, Essentials is a repetitive fork of what is covered at the fan games article, and is better off merged to the fan games article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose While I see your point, there are multiple articles specifically about the Essentials bundle rather than fan games in general. Nor is Essentials required to make a fan game, and some have not used it. I think it distinguishes itself sufficiently to not overlap, and articles about game creation tools are not uncommon. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  There's no real content separation bar one additional source to be added, as its influence on the fan game scene is covered overall and any individual coverage is covered in the list later in the article. Per NOPAGE, "Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page." Readers get the wider context of fan games as a whole via Essentials' coverage here and vice versa, and the individual information on its shutdown here is also included in an article with a whole section discussing legal issues and information on other games that received shutdowns. There are individual sources, but there is no need for a split when this page adequately covers Essentials with more context that helps with a greater understanding of Essentials' content. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support. The fact that it uses so few sources is already a unfortunate; and then, once you interrogate the sources used, all but one of them are WP:ROUTINE. Hernandez's article is the only one that talks about it for non-routine reasons, and besides her article, the other articles were all posted on the same day, which does not suggest to me that this is a notable game creation tool. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)