# Talk:Pokémon Stadium

https://web.archive.org/web/20000312150420/http://headline.gamespot.com/news/98_04/17_long/index.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20001024120338/http://www.videostoremag.com/content/news.cfm?ID=268.00000
— Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyBlackwing (talk • contribs) 19:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Pokemon Stadium 3. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 21#Pokemon Stadium 3 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  TheAwesomeHwyh 15:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pokémon Stadium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 01:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Andrzejbanas (talk · contribs) 20:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Will begin looking at this article over the weekend. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I guess when I said weekend, I mean several weekends ahead. ;) Some early points from an early draft.

Sourcing

"Unlike the Game Boy games Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow, Pokémon Stadium does not have a storyline or a well-defined world or story, meaning that it is not considered a role-playing video game" Not quite what the source says, it does say its lack those elements, but not that these elements make or do not make an RPG.
Good catch. That's a leftover from an earlier edit before I started work on the article I forgot to remove. Fixed. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Style

The title Pocket Monsters' Stadium is in bold, but this seems to be referring to the earlier Japanese game. Putting it in bold here, at least for those familiar with wikiformatting, would make it look like this is an alternative title for this game.
What would you suggest doing here? Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
See below. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Phrasing
Lead

"" Always hard to list release dates like this in a healthy manner. But for shortening it in the lead, Maybe take a page from the Donkey Kong Country article. Perhaps change the lead to...
Pokémon Stadium{{efn|Known in Japan as Pokémon Stadium 2 (Japanese: ポケモンスタジアム２Pokemon Sutajiamu 2) is a 1999 [genre] video game developed and published by Nintendo video game develope dand published by Nintendo for the Nintendo 64." and then later before mentioning the "best-selling titles", You can say "Pokémon Stadium was released in Japan in 1999, before being its release in Australia, Europe and North America in 2000."
Tried implementing this. Let me know if this is good. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Not bad, might lose calling Pocket Monsters Stadium a Nintendo 64 game, as that's not too important for the lead. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
" A sequel, Pokémon Stadium 2, released in 2000, supporting connectivity with the games Pokémon Gold, Pokémon Silver, and Pokémon Crystal games." lose the either the first or second "games" term.
Good catch. Fixed. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
"Stadium was later re-released on the Nintendo Switch Online + Expansion Pack on April 12, 2023" drop the "later", the date makes that clear.
Done. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Gameplay

"Unlike the Game Boy games Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow, Pokémon Stadium does not have a storyline or a well-defined world or story, meaning that it is not considered a role-playing video game." Probably should clarify that these are the older games.
Let me know if this is good. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
"...or they can be imported from the Game Boy using the Nintendo 64 Transfer Pak." They aren't imported from the game boy, they are imported from the game boy games.
Fixed. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
"Pokémon are depicted in 3D, and have unique animations in-battle, which is a first for the series.", I mean, in North America, but Pokemon Stadium (in Japan) was clearly before this as mentioned earlier.
Admittedly not quite sure how to phrase this. Do you have any suggestions for phrasing here? Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
"Only three Pokémon may be selected to bring to a battle out of the six brought."
Perhaps change to make a bit more sense chronologically,  "Six Pokémon are chosen as the party. Only three of them can be chosen for individual battles." Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Pocket Monsters' Stadium

This section reads more like a mini-article for the the original game. Also, the lead of this article states "Originally intended for the 64DD, it was later developed into a standard console game after the add-on failed.", is that this game or the original game called Pokemon Stadium. As they both share similar titles. this isn't clear. This information can probably be moved to its own article with some of maintained for a production seciton on this. While I'm aware most Pokemon games do not have a lot of information regarding their development. I would suggest looking at an article like Mario Party DS and at least using it as a model for games that have very little in their development.
I would oppose a separate article. This game has no individual reception from the searches I did while improving this article, so the info doesn't really have anywhere else to go. A lot of the dev info for Stadium is primarily in the form of Pocket Monsters Stadium, since Stadium was primarily building on Pocket Monsters as a base, so there's a bit of heavy overlap there. Admittedly I'm unsure how you want me to phrase this to be more akin to MP DS given the amount of info on Pocket Monsters; could you elaborate a bit on what you want me to do here? Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
As another user has come into the conversation, I've posted my notes there, but to paraphrase here, with very quick research, I've found about 6 unique reviews to that game, and that was without even a lot of hunting for Japanese sources. Perhaps something similar to how Super Mario Bros. Deluxe handles the situation would be ideal. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Release and promotion

"Pokémon Stadium was announced in the December 1998 issue of The 64Dream" is this a magazine? If so, the magazine should be in Italics.
Fixed. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Maybe a bit more clarification what the "Japan-exclusive Pokemon Festival" is. (i.e: the articles doesn't state it's Japanese exclusive, its just a promotional even around Japan that seemed to take place in a few cities).
Reworded to remove the inaccurate info. This event seems to be pretty obscure; outside of the IGN article, I'm not finding any hits for this. Not sure this can be elaborated on any more than it is already. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Reception

The reception section is a lot "[website said this this and this]". Generally, its better to combine the topics and what was complimented by the sources to make it a bit more readable.
This falls under WP:SYNTH. Unless a source highlights the widespread negative/positive reception for something, it's best not to make original judgements regarding aspects of a review. If you feel I can phrase this better to be a bit less formulaic though, let me know what I can do. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Its not a violation of synth to say something like "IGN, GameSpot and [Other gamer review] complimented the games graphics/animation." or something. It's just to help summarize reviews per WP:VG/REC. I don't see how this would be a violation of synth as we would not be implying and conclusion or set statement. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding what you mean in terms of violating SYNTH. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
" Stadium was unable to replicate the success of the Game Boy games before it." what does this mean? Financially? quality of game? If its in terms of sales, then this should probably go in the release section discussing financial. If its in terms of quality of game, it should be clarified.
Re-reading the source, it seems to be discussing sales. Shifted this to the bottom of the sales paragraph, but let me know if I should do anything else. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I think that section involving the production will require some re-working in general so once that is tackled, I'll be able to give this a second look, along with the other points I've brought up before @Pokelego999: Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas sorry about the wait, been busy lately. Will try to get to this in the next few days.  Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
@Andrzejbanas: Responded to your comments. Also, I see that you've made User:Andrzejbanas/Draft/Sample containing some more content; would it be alright to port some of that content into the article? Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, was going to bring that up in a later review here. The Pokemon franchise was in very full swing in the late 1990s and the fandom really caught people off guard. While still popular today, this was shaking up Nintendo sales at large, beyond just selling a lot. I've created this as a sample after searching for content, and I think it clarifies some key details, particularly, how the game was promoted in Japan (alongside other Pokemon titles), how its sales were (with context, we can always give a number, but is that a lot for a video game? is that a lot for Nintendo? context helps). I think expands what is otherwise currently a relatively dry part of the article. Feel free to apply it here.
Good work so far, but I still think content should be moved to another article, even if its creates a fairly smaller production section. Some articles, even well researched and expanded ones, such as Mario Party DS are just going to have smaller sections. I would try to create something similar to the two Mario titles (Mario Party DS and Super Mario Bros. Deluxe) as suggested above for these issues. @Pokelego999:. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas I've added some content from your draft, and additionally drafted out a mock article for the Japanese only release at User:Pokelego999/sandbox/Pocket Monsters Stadium Outline. I'm still a bit iffy on a split, but I'd be willing to give it a shot if you feel the content here is enough. Was able to dig up a few more IGN articles for the game, which helped with content a bit, but the reviews are pretty short for the most part, which concerns me a bit. If you feel this should get split, I'll begin work on revamping the development section. If you feel it shouldn't, I'll alter the sections to cover both content from the Japanese release and the international releases individually.  Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
The reviews are generally a bit short, but its a game without a lot of content to really discuss, but honestly, sometimes that's just what is dealt to you when the content is there, and it can be expanded upon, especially if any other Japanese sources discussing the game pop up. I think you've done a pretty good job with it for its own article. Obviously requires a lead and an infobox, but you are a fine editor, I'm confident it'll stand. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
@Andrzejbanas split done. Could you look over the article again to see where else improvements can be done/see if there's any information I missed that's meant to be included at the new split? The new development section is a bit late, so I'd appreciate remarks there since I feel fusing it with Release may be unwieldy. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


### Since split
Okay. The article has clearly changed a bit since the split, so I'll try to tackle this a bit more fresh.
Lead

"It was the first Stadium title released in Western regions, succeeding the Japan-only 1998 Nintendo 64 release Pocket Monsters' Stadium. The gameplay revolves around a 3D turn-based battling system using the 151 Pokémon from the Game Boy games Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow." Maybe getting a bit ahead of ourselves. Maybe explain what this game is first. The sequel stuff is relatively minor, as this isn't a narrative sequel or anything per se.
"Using the Transfer Pak accessory that was bundled with the game, players are able to view, organize, store, trade, and battle using Pokémon uploaded from Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow." This sentence sort of makes it sound like they require Red/Blue/Yellow to do these. While true with some "organizing, trading, etc." you can battle with rented Pokemon as well. You can also even play the Game Boy Game on the N64 via the Dodrio/Doduo thing right? Might need re-phrasing.
"The game includes four stadium cups, each of which is a series of three-on-three Pokémon battles against an ordered lineup of opponents. Gym Leader Castle mode involves battles against the eight Kanto gym leaders and the Elite Four." the specific details like Gym Leaders, Elite Four, and the stadiums kind of only makes sense if you've played the games. might want to state something like "The game has various modes for battles called the "Stadium Cups" and "The Gym Leader Castle" which apply different rules for players to pick their pokemon." Not exactly this, but something a little more broad for people the casual reader.
"supporting connectivity with the games Pokémon Gold, Pokémon Silver, and Pokémon Crystal" probably can lose this info to tighten up lead a bit.
Tried shuffling around the lead a bit to be more concise and understandable. I disagree on the Transfer Pak thing since it's discussing it as an add-on to pre-existing gameplay, not a requisite for gameplay. I also don't really see how being able to play the GB games is super relevant to understanding the core gameplay. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Gameplay

"The game also featured an announcer, portrayed by actor Ted Lewis, who says voice lines in response to actions that occur in battle." Good find on this credit. Perhaps this, and the information about this and Ikue Ōtani voicing Pikachu could be added to development? While its maybe not perfect there, its probably more appropriate there than gameplay. Maybe something as simple as "The game features voice acting from Ted Lewis as the announcer and Ikue Otani, who had voiced Pikachu in the anime series.
Done. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
"Players bring teams of six Pokémon; these can either be selected from an option of rental Pokémon with pre-determined movesets that are not able to be altered, or they can be imported from the Game Boy games using the Nintendo 64 Transfer Pak." Maybe best to explain what rental pokemon are. Something like "Players select teams of six Pokémon to battle. These are either Pokemon collected from Pokemon Red, Blue, Yellow via the Nintendo 64 Transfer pak, or Pokémon with pre-determined movesets included in Pokemon Stadium."
Done. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Maybe a bit detail on the cups? How do they work? We have so much detail on the mini-games, but little on the cups. Even just an example of one or two of them could clarify how they work.
The sources don't go into as much depth on the individual Cups, but I've added some info and re-worded it to be more neutral. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
"as well as the Gym Leader Castle, where the player battles the eight Kanto Gym Leaders, the Kanto Elite Four, and the Champion." This is all a bit narrative that is difficult to parse for people who haven't played either Red/Blue/Yellow or this game. Might be easier to explain it via what makes it different than the cups.
The real only standout feature of them is the fact they're against opponents from the Game Boy games. The other bit is how you get Pokémon for beating them, which I've added, and is already clarified a bit in the Transfer Pak features. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
To my dismay, I think the surfing Pikachu bit might be breaking WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE.
This is literally 1984. (Removed) Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
We might be going a bit overboard with the mini-games section. This would be like explaining each mini-game The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, and while those have coverage,  it might be better to summarize the game has various mini-games in the Kids Korner, featuring pokemon in games that resemble Simon Says and ring toss as well as games like require either rapid or intricate button input such as Thundering Dynamo etc.
Being honest, the only reason I kept this was because it was here when I started and assumed there was some consensus on it given how long it's been here for on such a longstanding article. I've shrunk this down. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Development and infobox
While this section is small, it would be great to expand it into at least two paragraphs as sections that only have one paragraph tend to look underdeveloped.

It might be good to say at least a little something about the Pocket Monsters Stadium here a little, as we bring it up in the lead. Something like "Pokemon Stadium was developed by Nintendo EAD. Producer Shigeru Miyamoto explained in 1997 that Nintendo EAD was then a group of 20 to 30 staff each devoted to every title. Within EAD, a programming group called SRD, involved a seperate company of about 200 people working exclusively for Nintendo.[Source:Nintendo Power August 1997 Issue 99 in their Pak Watch section]. While this does not directly related to Stadium, it gives somewhat an idea of how games are made at Nintendo at this time period. Prior to the release of Pokemon Stadium, Nintendo published Pocket Monsters' Stadium. The game was initially set for 64DD and made to feature 150 Pokemon from the game boy games. This number was was reduced to 40 and released on cartridge for the Nintendo 64." etc. You could also include the information about the voice actors here as well. This will give this section a bit more "oomph" I think.
Done. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
On this note on the developers, there is no mention of them in the prose in the infobox. While I feel this is key information that we can't expand on, citations for people not mentioned within the article should probably be placed in the infobox.
To my knowledge, this information does not need to be cited, since it's assumed that it's being cited from the game's credits or something similar. It's only really necessary if we're trying to include people uncredited for their work on the original game, or some other extraneous circumstance (At least, that's what I've been told in my experience, anyway). Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
I can't see anything in the template instructions on the infobox video game article or MOS:FILM about it not including sources. It can pull from WikiData, but as that can be problematic I suggest the following. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, "The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article." That said, I do not think it would be useful to summarize these people in the article unless we have some discussion on it, but I also do not think they should be removed either as this is clearly information people related to real world material to the game. If you could cite the manual ore credits, I think that would probably be safest because these are living people, so we should be safe. For example, when I did Otogirisō, the credits had wrong information in the infobox...for years. I went through it and adjusted them to actually follow the game in question because of this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
I'll make some adjustments when I'm home. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Seems good. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
Release

Is it possible to cite more of the Blockbuster source from a third-party source instead of citing Pokemon.com? Comes off a bit promo-y with little context other than a catalogue mention of a release title.
Most of the detail only comes from the press release. I was able to find brief mentions of the stickers in some articles detailing Blockbuster's Snap promotions, but nothing on some of the other details, or really anything on the promotion as a whole. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
I think in the expansion of this, we lost the Famitsu review of Pokemon Stadium here. Probably should be placed in reception.
Slapped it in Reception. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Reception

The sales section should probably be combined above with the release and sales. Maybe trim some details.
Shifted. Let me know how this looks. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Sections seem to go a bit back and forth saying how they felt about the transfer pak stuff and the sound/music/announcer. perhaps re-write to talk about one talking point and then the other.
I still believe this is WP:OR (Misspoke with SYNTH earlier, woops) because we're drawing conclusions about different reviewers' thoughts without a source backing that up. I didn't find anything on a lot of these specific highlight points individually, so I doubt this would be feasible without jumping into that area. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Can you show me what part of WP:OR this would break? I think we might have crossed lines of what I'm suggesting. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
"Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." Implying a connection between sources not outright stated by them would constitute OR. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
It wouldn't be new misconstruing them to say that three publications complimented the graphics, because it would be true and not imply any conclusion. For example, "the graphics are the best!" or "critics agreed that graphics were the best". Stating that some publications (and naming them) is just sort of a short cut to tidy up the writing. I've done it myself for several articles, even the Miner 2049er you passed. Unless I'm missing something, I think this is probably the best approach to get a widespread of what the reviews state, and you can do other things like include some of the Famitsu review in there. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Sequel and legacy

"The game was released in 2000 and 2001". A bit confusing, maybe just stick with the earliest release. The article itself can talk about variants and regional releases.
Done. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
The ComicBook.com source on the glitch update is from Serebii, which is a site we WP:VG says to not use as a source per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources. I think generally per WP:VG standards, we aren't supposed to include bit by bit updates on software patches and such without major discussion surrounding it.
If a reliable source is reporting on the findings, then it's assumed it's reliable information, especially if it's a site like ComicBook which has editorial standards. It's only an issue if we take it straight from Serebii's mouth. I also only included this since it was the only actual glitch that received coverage, and it isn't just the standard routine patching. I can still remove it if you feel it's superfluous though. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards the latter. This update fixes a mild glitch in the game, its not a patch that dramatically enhances it (i.e: added gameboy game connectivity, added more pokemon, or whatever) that changes the fundamentals. Might be easiest to drop it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Done. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Citation style

Hong Quang source is malformatted.
Fixed. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
The Famitsu review of the game does not seem to match IGN's report on it. Is it possible that Famitsu source is referencing Pocket Monsters Stadium instead? I'd remove that one and add IGN's report instead.
Do you mean cite 48? I can't access it, but both share the same score (33/40), so I'd assume they're the same ones. Are you talking about a different source, or this one? Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Not I meant this citation here. Also, per the new infobox rating standards, we shouldn't show the Famitsu review as an average, as the magazine did not publish reviews like that initially. It had four reviewers, each giving their own rating, in this case, 9/10, 8/10, 8/10, and 8/10. You can see it in the instructions per Template:Video_game_reviews. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Can't access IGN rn so I'll take a look when I'm home. Will see about adjusting the review scores then as well, since I was unaware of the new standards. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Can probably remove second wikilink to Inverse in citations
What do you mean by this? Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
In citation 5, Inverse is linked in the cite. In citation 53, the Inverse is linked again. You can remove the second link to it per MOS:OL. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Thaaaaat's all @Pokelego999:! Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: Responded to the above. Let me know what else needs to be done. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
@Andrzejbanas: Hey, just making a drive-by comment as I am not exactly a part of this review. I just wanted to check in to see if this review was still going on as there hasn't been any activity in two weeks and there isn't even a signifier to state that this review is "on-hold". Thanks, CaptainGalaxy 22:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Hi! Apologies. I've been a bit. usy with real life items. Plan to tackle the rest of this review this weekend. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Understandable, thank you for the response. CaptainGalaxy 22:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Only a few more comments:

"Unlike the previous games in the series, Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow, Pokémon Stadium does not have a storyline or a well-defined world or story." I mean, not exactly true, it has a basic course of action like the cups and tournaments, what the source says is that it doesn't have a "storyline or a quest mode." perhaps change this to "Unlike the previous the role-playing games Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow, Pokémon Stadium does not have storyline driven gameplay." This suggests less that it doesn't have a story, but it's not nearly the focus of the earlier related games. ~
Good catch. Changed. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
"Pikachu's voice was changed, and changes were made to the tournaments used in the game." The word change used a bit too much here, maybe a different word for the latter (altered?)
Done. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
In the international release section, the caption on the N64 pic states that "The game's release helped boost sales of the Nintendo 64 console (bottom) internationally.", but the prose (and sources) both only states these and suggested ideas of why the N64 did so well that year, with the Nintendo executive stating that it was due to the new colour version, which I believe is the reason we use that colourful N64. While the Blockbuster image is and was cool, I might lose it here because that blockbuster logo is so small in that photo (even on my desktop!) I don't think its an ideal choice to illustrate this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
How would you phrase the wording? Bit unsure of how best to phrase it myself. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps if we lose the Blockbuster pic, we can state "Supermarket News and Gamasutra wrote that the release of Pokemon Stadiums created an increas in sales for the Nintendo 64, while Nintendo suggested that the color-variant release of the Nintendo 64 drove the sales." Something like that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
"The game was released in 2000[56] as Pokémon Stadium 2, featuring every Pokémon from the first two generations, including those released in Pokémon Gold and Silver." This only makes sense if you are familiar with pokemon as a fan (i.e: referring to them as generations). It might be just easier to say the new game allowed players to play the new pokemon introduced in Pokémon Gold and Silver or something like that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Altered wording. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
I've also followed up above to some questions and comments. Thank you for your patience as I've had to prioritize some other IRL and wiki tasks, but we are very close to finishing this I believe @Pokelego999:. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas I believe I've fixed the other two? Admittedly not too familiar with how to use both the things you wanted me to so please let me know about those. Please let me know on the above. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)


### Non participant comment
Hey, just thought I'd let both nominator and reviewer know that I have put this review on-hold as there hasn't been any activity on this review or the article in over two weeks. I understand IRL stuff is probably getting in the way, just wanted to let you both know. CaptainGalaxy 00:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for being vigilant on this @Captain Galaxy:. I think the following issues still stand for @Pokelego999:.
The statement on the image of the N64 states that the game increased the sales of the N64. We state this as a "factual" phrase, but its just a suggestion from the two journalists and they can't really qualify why, they can just speculate. This is backed up by the statement from a Nintendo rep who says that they believed it was the release of color-variatiosn of the N64 that pushed sales. We can re-phrase this, but maybe its easier to drop the image of the N64 and just focus on the blockbuster graphic.
The reception section is still a sliver weak. All the sources are accurate and fine, but there is not enough cohesion. While pokelego suggested this could violate WP:OR, I would go through the reviews found and see what the prominent highlights are and what was criticized and any overall statements. For example,
Graphics: GameFan: "offfering better graphics...instead of of static images, you can watch the Pokemon duke it out in rendered detail."
GameRevolution: "the Pokemon still exhibit personality in spades through the character graphics and animations [...] Better still are the animations. The Pokemon bounce around, leer at one other and dance in cartoon quality animation. They even have cute death animations! "
GameSpot "Pokemon look great - even better than they looked in Pokemon Snap. The fighting animation is a little drab[...]the Pokemon will merely step forward and execute its attack" stating the lack ofphysical contact between the creatures.
IGN: " highly detailed and look exactly like their TV counterparts, they also move with such convincing animation that it seems likely that Nintendo has found a way to motion-capture real-life Pokémon." [...] "Like in the Game Boy games, the Pokémon never actually physically "touch" each other -- which comes as somewhat of a disappointment."
Nintendo Power: " Two things stand out in Stadium - the 3D pokemon and their cool attacks." ... "the pokemon's reactions to the attacks are just as much fun. I skimmed through the reviews in the infobox and organized common talking points.
Music and audio
"Stadiums sound leave a lot to be desired."
"music is well orchestrated"..."happy music gets old fast, characters don't talk, goofy announcer"
GameRevolution: "How hard would it have been to stick those [Pokemon] voices in?", "irritating announcer. Really irritating."
GameSpot: "The sound leaves a lot to be desired. Tossing in Pokemon voices from the TV show seems like a real no-brainer here, but alas, there is none to be found. An announcer gives the play-by-play, but his speech is very limited, and you'll be hearing the same few phrases repeatedly. In addition, the voice and soundtrack are a little low on the frequency scale, making everything sound a little tinny and muffled."
IGN: "Pokémon Stadium's most disappointing area is its sound. I was ready to be blown away by some MoSys goodness when I saw the name "Factor 5" appear on the title screen -- but it turns out that Nintendo only used the developer's patented M.O.R.T. voice compression for the game's announcer"... "To make things even worse, there are hardly any real Pokémon voices in the game. Nintendo added Pikachu's trademark noises for the US version (they weren't in the Japanese release) and you can hear some of the voices in the mini-games, but that's about it."
Nintendo Power: "the announcer gets tiresome and the music and sound effects are nothing special."
RPGamer: "music in this game generally remains in the background and you hardly notice it. While this means that it doesn't really have an annoyance factor, there also isn't any stellar compositions to make this game memorable to the ear."
Gameplay
GameFan "surprisingly fun" "we all know the perverse pleasure of derived from beating pikachu into submission"
GameSpot "offers gameplay that feels scaled down and oversimplified, even when compared with the original Game Boy games."
RPGamer: "While this is a new and good way to battle your Pokemon, and the game isn't just battling, I just found something lacking in this $70 Game Boy add-on" .... "this game's main attraction is combat"..." and "My main beef of this game is that it *has no plot*. There is absolutely no storyline to Pokemon Stadium unless you count the fact that you can play the your Game Boy cartridges, which I don't. I have always preferred my games to have some sort of attraction besides mindless fighting. This game does offer more, but not much."
IGN "Pokémon Stadium is not much of a standalone game... shows its best features only when a Game Boy cartridge is plugged into your N64."
Takeaway message:
GameFan: * "main gameplay feels limited, you can't level up, can't heal creatures, and can't speed up battles." reccomended it to fans of the series for the novelty of seeing Pokemon in 3D, mini-games and management utilities.
Game Revolution: "the selling point of the game is it being an extension of the game boy game" (easy organization, storage, etc.) "Stadium should be thought of as an add-on to the Game Boy games...After you’ve seen all the pretty animations and fought through your fair share of challenges, there’s nothing more to it – unless you play Pokemon religiously."
GameSpot "The main hook to Pokemon Stadium is the GB Transfer Pak, which ships with the game [...] If you've grown attached to the Pokemon team you're raising on the Game Boy, or you're playing the heck out of the Game Boy version and you're tired of playing on the little screen, Pokemon Stadium is worth owning"
IGN: "It's fun, it's smart, it's jam-packed with cool options and it's for Pokemon owners only"
As said above, articles like Miner 2049er that you reviewed or featured articles like Donkey Kong Country take the approach of bringing up the talking points instead of one editors opinion after another. They key messages from what I've found seems to be that some critics were back and forth, but it all depended on their connection with the original game. Many reviewers complimented the animations, while noting they were upset that the pokemon never really interact with each other physically in combat. The sound seems to be heavily critiqued from the background music, the lack of pokemon voices, and the narrator. While not essential for this review, IGN seems to make note of an audio system used on the voice clips, which might be worth including in the production section.
The last section is quite a bit and I can clarify things. You don't have to use direct quotes or even the sources I used, but this will make the reception section GA worthy. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
@Andrzejbanas sorry about the wait; will hit this up in the next few days once I have a bit more free time.  Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
No problem. You waited for me, we are on the home stretch anyways. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
I'm working on the reception here, and I still have four more sources to cite. Once I'm done, it'd just need a copyedit and a look through by Pokelego to make sure that nothing is given too much emphasis or is missed from a review in his opinion. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
@Andrzejbanas New Reception's been implemented, feel free to review when you're able. Thank you so much for the help @Cukie Gherkin! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Looks much better! I feel totally comfortable to give this article a pass. Great work Cukie and Pokelego. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I have read over this article's GA review and would like to draw a community consensus on splitting the section about the original Japanese release of Pokémon Stadium and its sequel (known as Pokémon Stadium outside of Japan). The original Japanese game has many differences from the game that this article is about.
For those unfamiliar, the original Japanese game has a much smaller roster of Pokémon to battle with and is based on real-life tournaments. This game was never released outside of Japan. The second Stadium released in Japan is the same game as the English release of Pokémon Stadium.
The question is whether this separate game should have its own article on the English Wikipedia or it should be designated to a section on the English Pokémon Stadium article. Personally, I don't see it constituting its own separate article due to a shortage of content, but that doesn't necessarily make it insufficient to get its own page.
What would the community like to do here?  — Paper Luigi T • C 08:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Paper Luigi as I mentioned in the review, I couldn't find any Reception or reviews for the subject from what I could find. The production information and gameplay also share significant overlap, and would be largely duplicative of each other in those areas. I feel a split would not be wise here. I wait on the reviewer to see how they feel this section should be handled at this time, so I would wait at the very least until the review is done before making any hasty judgements on if this should be split or not.   Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
@Paper Luigi: and @Pokelego999: with just a quick overview, I've found quite a chunk.
English Review from IGN: here
Four page English Review from 64 Magazine here
Portuguese review from Gamers here
French review from Joypad here
Japanese retrospective overview from Famitsu here (especially useful for comparing it to later releases)
While researching, I think the Famitsu review in this article might not be the review for this Pokemon Stadium, per this IGN article here.
Generally speaking, it does not really matter that they are similar. They have a different production history, different reception, and quite different release despite being similar games. Kind of like how Super Mario Bros. Deluxe and Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels all have different articles despite being games that at a glance, the average reader would not be able to tell apart. This would also help seperate what I still read as really confusing for two games with similar titles (i.e: Japanese game called Pocket Monsters Stadium and an American game called Pokémon Stadium. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks to the new information presented above, I'm inclined to go along with the split, which it seems is already in progress.  — Paper Luigi T • C 07:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
@Paper Luigi should be finished, bar any minor changes done during Stadium's GAN. The reviews pushed me over as well; they're small, but there's enough there to justify a split given how strangely balanced the article would be with both articles as one.  Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)