# Talk:Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire

The internal clock has not been removed from Ruby and Sapphire. At the begining of the game you set the clock's time. It is just that the night and day effects don't happen anymore. The clock is used to determine when can do events that can be used only once per day, (like the pokémon lotto in the mall) and Pokémon that evolve only during the day and/or night (i.e. Umbreon and Espeon). Try to get your facts straight. Greyhead 13:32, 10 May 2005 (UTC) P.S. Don't take this to hard guys

Not to mention making the Berry trees progressively grow over time, and killing the berry growth and other key events after one year! Unless you patched it of course. I've reworded it now, but you could have done that yourself... remember, be bold! Master Thief Garrett 11:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I just looked on [1], and there is an item called Wiki Berry. The description is "When held, 1/8 HP recovers when HP is below half, but Confusion occurs for Pokemon that are Adamant, Impish, Jolly, or Careful."  --pile0nades 01:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Doubtful.
Sorry for bringing up an old topic, but all berries are simply named for fruits; "Wiki" is an anagram of "Kiwi". --HeroicJay 05:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I've rewritten this section, citing sources. (I also put the sales numbers up front; does anyone think it's POV to mention the fact that it's the bestselling GBA game ever before the fact that some Pokémon fans kvetched that a feature or two was removed or that Snorunt's design is dumb?) I had to cut a lot of it as entirely unsourced; can someone cite sources for some of the old criticism and replace it? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Most of it is what I have personally read on boards - one topic blasting R/S cited that the Snornut evolution ws nonsensical.  To a certain degree, this is true.  I mean, I can see how Blissey/Chansey evolves, but Snornut/Glalie although not as verifable or NPOV as the example you rewrote (about Beautify/Butterfree).  The emphasis I had when initially wrtiting the section was just about the games themselves, not about public response in general, which is why I wrote about Pokemon Box, modern Pokemon mechanics, etc.  Of course, being a good Wikipedian (and having a good article) means verifable and citable sources, which I generally haven't done much of.
I see that the section on "hailed as the modern Pokemon games" bit has been removed.  I suppose that falls under review and not under encyclopedia article domain.  Hbdragon88 06:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone suggested that the Berry glitch section should be removed from Wikipedia. I think that it should either be moved into its own article or merged into a glitch page with the other glitches. There are seven "notable glitches" in Wikipedia right now (see {{Pokémon glitches}}), two of which are stubs, and half of which shouldn't be on Wikipedia if the Berry glitch section wasn't. — SheeEttin {T/C} 20:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it should just be mentioned here with a link to its own article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.17.45.166 (talk • contribs) .
I think it should be merged with Notable glitches in the Pokémon video games. 


#### Fake Sapphire Version
What the heck is this all about?  The description makes no sense.  How is it 'fake'?  Was it published by Nintendo? Beasticles 17:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but it's one of the fake versions floating around out there. It's not official, endorsed or published by Nintendo, and not worth including in the article. Sorry. Rai 18:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
It was a bootleg version of Sapphire for the game boy color. go to this link, http://www.trsrockin.com/fakegames.html#sapph, to find out about it.75.67.128.65 21:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the "berry glitch" is a glitch, per se. I thought it was just that the internal clock broke/ran out of batteries after a year. Correct me if I'm wrong. ~ Flameviper 17:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a glitch. It's not a strictly physical issue, like a battery dying, because it can be fixed in software. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

ok. some one thought it would be funny to replace this page with. "lol. pokemon pwns. hahahah." not funny. dude just leave pages alone. Someone obviously time on thier hands and then used it to create this page so people could see it. deleting it is just rude. anyways.. the page will have to be fixed.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lgroskau (talk • contribs) 23:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

The part about the berry glitch should probably be moved to the notable pokemon glitches page, because it is notable, and is a glitch like all the others.  It doesn't make much sense to not move it. Zivlok 00:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

well someone wrote some random things at the top and bottem of the page so I fixed it but could someone please put the box that shows the other games back up--Crypto 138 00:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Could this be the Box art for Ruby http://www.legendarypokemon.net/images/games/box_ruby.gif 
and this for sapphire http://www.legendarypokemon.net/images/games/box_sapphire.gif
thanksDSDark 19:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this fake game should be AT LEAST mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.115.106.52 (talk • contribs).

Ehem, what? -- ReyBrujo 04:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It's a bootleg, like the infamous Telefang ones.  And no we do not need to mention Chaos Black. hbdragon88 05:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Some idiot thought it was funny to stupify, vandalise, and make fun of Shigeru Myamoto's name into Shigeki Morimoto in here And Ruby/Sapphire/Emerald/FireRed/LeafGreen articles. Someone fix this please. cant remember how his last name is spelled :( 172.162.150.53 04:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon_Ruby_and_Sapphire_beta --Blue-EyesGold Dragon 18:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Bulba is Creative Commons, we are GFDL, and you can't mix the licenses together (I think you may be able to go GFDL > CC, but not the other way around).  Second, the whole lot of it is original research that is not backed by a reliable, third-party source.  Third, none of it is cited.  What article, edition of NP did they state Shellos was dev'd for R/S/E? hbdragon88 (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
you have got to be kidding, it is not original research its common knowledge that Shellos was ment to be in this game, and it is backed up, and as for the last question how the fuck would i know--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 00:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, we can't source what you think is "common knowledge." If Nintendo Power really DID say that (well, I know they did, but) then we need the actual issue of the magazine.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 00:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
If you can't find the issue we can't use it, period. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
it was in the May 2007 issue of Nintendo Power, is that good enough for you?--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 04:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
WTF do you people want, i gave you what you wanted now you tell me that i have to tell you the page number, fuck that, its on other pages of this site without that shit--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 01:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
fine then, lets remove all the other stuff--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 09:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't constitute blanking the page. Grow up, Blue eyes.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 13:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
lol, kid--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 05:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thats not even blanking the page, that is removing your "unsourced information" see you dont like it, so stop doing it to me --Blue-EyesGold Dragon 05:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
you fucking ass hole, this means i get to remove the warning right? just like you? we have the right dont we? i think we do--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 06:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, did I put a warning on your page? Christ.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 06:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
um....>_< wow O_o you didnt warn me for "you fucking ass hole" ....um........O_o --Blue-EyesGold Dragon 06:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for bringing up this old topic, but he's actually right. Shellos and Gastrodon(it's evolution) were found in the game's code. They even had back sprites, but no front sprites. Anyway, it's currently irrelevant, so I'll it for now. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Junichi Masuda commented in the May 2007 issue of Nintendo Power that "There's also
a sea-slug Pokémon that we weren't able to put in Ruby and
Sapphire that we were able to put in this one
Pokémon Diamond and Pearl.--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 08:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Brendan May Emerald.PNG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:

      Image:Pokémon Emerald screenshot.png
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think since this article covers all three games completely (as the Emerald article was turned into a redirect) that it should appropriately be named Pokémon Ruby, Sapphire, and Emerald. This honestly seems pretty straightforward to me. Besides, R/B's article does not FULLY cover Yellow and FR/LG, as those both have main articles, where as Emerald does not. Thoughts?
Also, I know this doesn't matter, but I just painstakingly fixed like ten double redirects, all for naught now =P. Artichoker[talk] 20:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

But the question is, what do we do if they are merged? At worst, it'd be "Pokémon Red, Blue, Green, Yellow, FireRed, and LeafGreen", at best, it would be "Pokémon Red, Blue, Green, and Yellow". While Emerald is covered, it doesn't have to be in the title - for instance, Kirby Super Star covers the DS remake, but is simply Kirby Super Star, not Kirby Super Star and Hoshi no Kirby Ultra Super Deluxe. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
It will most likely be Pokémon Red, Blue, and, Yellow; because Green is Japanese, and FR and LG are much too different. And still I see no reason why it shouldn't be Pokémon Ruby, Sapphire, and Emerald; the Kirby article doesn't name both of the games because then the title would be extremely repetitive (Kirby Super Star and Hoshi no Kirby Ultra Super Deluxe.) But in this case, we are simply adding one more word. Artichoker[talk] 21:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
But we don't need to add one more word. Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire are the original works, and Emerald is an additional work added on later. Emerald, unlike Ruby and Sapphire, is given its own section, making it more or less "unequal". - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me? Please look at the article, as Emerald does not have its own section. And as this article covers all three games, so all three should be mentioned in the title. Artichoker[talk] 21:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, it did, before you removed the heading. Is there any reason why Emerald can't be a sub-heading to the differences section? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually it doesn't, they are grouped together (i.e. Reception of both games is in one section, plot of both games is in one section, etc.) Check and confirm if I am correct. Artichoker[talk] 23:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Well it doesn't now, which is why I used past tense. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
No, my point is, that the header was not the only thing that distinguished between whether they were separate or not (if that's what you meant.) Artichoker[talk] 00:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I get your point. But the differences section talks specificly about the changes in Emerald, so why not make a subsection called "Changes from older games" and "Changes from Emerald"? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Well they talk specifically about Emerald because Emerald is one of the games being covered in the article; as simple as that. Artichoker[talk] 00:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
But again, I disagree with the title - Emerald should not be equal to Ruby and Sapphire. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
But why not? Emerald is a game too, is it not?? Artichoker[talk] 00:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I know exactly what this discussion needs, more people. I agree with the title change too, but there aren't enough people here currently to discuss this. And it's hard to tell which Wikipedians are Pokémon fans since most Wikipedians edit all sorts of articles.TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I have reposted this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon#Moving Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire to Pokémon Ruby, Sapphire, and Emerald, where it can hopefully get more input. Discussion should be continued there. Cheers, Artichoker[talk] 00:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I continue to maintain that the conventions should stick to calling the articles by the original two English names, that they are the original games and are, by default of that fact, are more significant to the article (and it's reflected - Emerald always takes backseat). Besides, it's also got searchability to consider - will people think to search for Ruby, Sapphire, and Emerald? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Some people might, for the rest there are always redirects. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with ALttP on this. Remakes don't generally get name space for video games. Just by way of example, Kingdom Hearts II Final Mix+ has info on the KHII and the KH:CoM articles, but isn't reflected in the names of those articles. A search for the updated version takes you to the appropriate section of the KHII article. That's just an example, but it seems the most appropriate. Putting every single remake or re-release in the article title would lead to clutter. Onikage725 (talk)

I disagree with the reason why I was reverted. You CAN travel to other regions in the video games. That's what trading is for. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you can't travel there. From Hoenn, the player can never travel to Kanto, Johto, or Sinnoh, and visa-verse. Therefore, in the video games (we are not talking about the anime here), Hoenn would be considered its own world to the average person. Artichoker[talk] 19:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The pokémon are transportable, doesn't that count? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Whether Pokémon transportable or not is irrelevant to whether something is considered a region or a world. Hoenn is both a region and a world in the video games, so mentioning that it is a world is acceptable. Artichoker[talk] 19:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I get your point. I'm such a big Pokémon fan that I didn't think Hoenn could be a world as well, and still don't. I respect that in video games what a "world" is is different from reality (and I consider the anime reality), but I still don't understand. Nevertheless, I will leave this alone as I don't believe in edit wars, and respect your views on this. Yes, I got nothing else to add to this discussion. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-wrote the section, correcting some grammar/citing sources/etc. Feel free to dispute/undo/whatever. The Transmogrifier (talk) 06:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Loudness is such a minor characteristic in the game that I don't think it warrants the exposure it gets here. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty good; I rewrote it slightly, but I kept most of the stuff you wrote. Also, good job of the references. Artichoker[talk] 14:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The original and the updated. Trivial or not? If not, it could probably be squeezed into the "Development" section or something. The Transmogrifier (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The chnages are so minor, and without a lot of commentry attached to them, that I don't think we could justify adding the image.  We can most definitely link to them though.  I'm glad they were kind of "maturing," or just knowing that they were screwing us over with the GBC to GBA transition (can only catch 200/386 until FR/LG). hbdragon88 (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
or just knowing that they were screwing us over with the GBC to GBA transition No, they had their reasons for not letting GBA be tradable with the older versions. Natures affect every single Pokémon, do you really think it would be possible to trade Pokémon with nature to older games without nature without getting your game screwed? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I know about the technical reasons.  I'm just saying that it would be deceptive to say "gotta catch 'em all" when about 180 Pokemon are not, actually, catchable.  They managed to retain compatibility when G/S/C came out, so they could say that then (as well as creating a generation of whiners when R/S came out and their lack of backwards compatibility).  Actually, it seems to be a permanent shift away from that slogan, seeing as FR/LG and D/P don't feature it. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Going back on topic, I wouldn't be against a mention.  Probably just something like "the cover art for the English-language games underwent several minor changes; these included a change in the background pattern, and the removal of the "Gotta Catch Them All" slogan", with both articles referenced for comparison. MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
This is the page I will use to review this article so please watch it. Gears of War 2 23:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you for taking the time to review this article, and I have this page watchlisted. Artichoker[talk] 00:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments on Lead

The first sentence of the second paragraph needs a couple of cites.
I don't think this needs a citation per WP:Lead section#Citations.
The third sentence of the second sentence needs a cite. Done
I suggest that the lead be re-organized in the following way: Paragraph 1 deals with names, release dates, who made it (development), etc. Paragraph 2 deals with Gameplay. Paragraph 3 deals with Critical Reception and sales Done
"selling millions of copies to become the best-selling games ever for the Game Boy Advance" needs a cite.
According to WP's MoS, if the statement is already cited in the article (which it is), it doesn't need to be cited in the lead section. The Transmogrifier (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments on the Setting and Plot section

The third sentence of the first paragraph needs a cite. Done
"-this is done by raising Poke'mon, defeating the Eight Gym Leaders for Gym Badges, and eventually challenging the Elite Four and the champion" that statement needs a cite. Done
Comments on the Gameplay section

The first sentence of the second paragraph needs a cite.
This is already cited by the reference at the end of the paragraph.
Comments on the New Features section

Try to clarify the caption of the image. It's a bit confusing. Done
Comments on the Connectivity with other devices section

The second sentence of the first paragraph needs a cite. Done
The second sentence of the second paragraph needs a cite. Done
Comments on the Development section

The first sentence of the second paragraph needs a cite.
This is already cited by the reference at the end of the paragraph.
The third sentence of the thrid paragraph needs a cite.
This is already cited by the reference at the end of the paragraph.
The first and second sentences of the third paragraph needs cites.
This is already cited by the reference at the end of the paragraph.
The first and second sentences of the last paragraph needs cites.
This is already cited by the reference at the end of the paragraph.
One these problems have been attended to tell me. Thanks and cheers. Gears of War 2 02:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed a few problems, and I shall fix the rest in the morning. Artichoker[talk] 03:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Good. I look forward to premoting the article. I will not be able to premote it until about 2:00-300pm per church in the morning. Gears of War 2 03:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I have addressed all of the concerns. Artichoker[talk] 14:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to see this article become an FA (WP's first Pokemon-related FA!), but I know from experience that prose is probably one of the biggest hurdles in the process, so I'm thinking a peer review is in order. If anyone is planning to put this up for FA candidacy some day, then a peer review can't hurt; even if no one is planning to make this an FA...it still can't hurt. 
Also, since this article relies heavily on web sources, I would suggest that someone archive the pages at Webcitation. (I'll try to work on it, but in case I don't have the time, hopefully someone else can take care of it.) Ink Runner (talk) 00:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah this article is probably about as close to FA as Pokémon Red and Blue, which is currently in peer review before I nominate it. I'll try to work on this article too as my time permits. Artichoker[talk] 00:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
It probably is indictive of age, but I can remember when Bulbasaur and Torchic used to be our proudest articles, FA-quality ones...before the mergers happened.  The primary architect, HighwayCello, has been gone for 23 months...approching two years on 7 November. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think it would make a difference if he would have stayed before the merging began? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking the article to peer review because, well, I think it's pretty close to FA-quality, but what do I know? If it isn't, the peer review should fix that. 

...I hope. Ink Runner (talk) 05:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate a section opened for both the Ruby and Sapphire versions featuring the brass section theme music. Many different scores are included in the games e. g. when a wild Pokemon battle starts or when a gym leader battle commences. Also towns have their own songs and different styles of routes include background music. Thank you [User:Alex Bieser|Alex Bieser] Nov 14 08.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.158.54 (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC) 

According to a comment in peer review, the article should only use one of the box art. Since (I think) they're both pretty much equal, I guess it boils down to...which one's cooler looking? :P 
(Seriously, though, which one should be kept?) *cough*Kyogre*cough* Ink Runner (talk) 05:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well since The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages is featured and uses both box arts, I don't see why this article can't as well. But if we had to use only one box art, I would say Ruby with the sole reason that it appears first in the page title. But as you are now probably the main contributor to this article, it's your decision. Cheers, Artichoker[talk] 15:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
David Fuchs said that Oracle of Seasons isn't actually a good FA to emulate, since it has an overuse of non-free images; but you're right, Ruby's boxart should probably stay since 1) it's title comes first and 2) Groudon is on the cover of the soundtrack. Ink Runner (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I propose renaming the article Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire versions or Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire Versions. More discussion has occured here. SharkD (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The article looks really good in my eyes. Any member heavily involved feel like putting it up for FA? MelicansMatkin (talk) 06:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, why are the references listed under "Notes"? And what are those four thingys under the "References" section? They look like orphaned references to me. I'm very confused! -Sesu Prime (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The "Notes" section is basically references, and some of them correspond to the literature in the "References" section (such as ref 4.) Artichoker[talk] 20:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a copy of Famitsu magazine that shows scores of 9, 8, 8, and 9. By my count, 9+8+8+9=34, not 33 as reported by The Escapist. The magazine I have is an anniversary collection of many reviews reprinted in 2006 and so I suppose there may have been an error on Famitsu's part in transferring the numbers from the 1999 review to their 2006 anniversary issue, but then again it could just as easily be The Escapist's error. I guess finding an actual 1999 copy of Famitsu would be the way to solve this question, but I thought I should bring it up here before making any changes. What do people here think should be done? -Thibbs (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I've gone ahead and exchanged the Escapist-reported score for the one from Famitsu. To what extent the Escapist source can be used for other claims in the article is not something I'm prepared to address at the moment, but just so it's not lost, I'll shift it into talk below:
Funk, John (2010-09-08). "Pokemon Black & White Grab Rare Perfect Score from Famitsu". The Escapist. Retrieved 2010-09-08.
-Thibbs (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Under Pokémon Emerald, it says Nintendo Power erroneously reported that sales of the game would exceed the value of an actual emerald the size of Neptune. That's obviously a joke, so shouldn't it say they jokingly said that? --UnindentifiedHuman (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it since it doesn't add anything to the article. Artichoker[talk] 00:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Pokémon Ruby and 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080709011448/http://guides.ign.com/guides/17508/page_6.html to http://guides.ign.com/guides/17508/page_6.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080706153004/http://guides.ign.com/guides/17508/page_7.html to http://guides.ign.com/guides/17508/page_7.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080117214241/http://gameboy.ign.com/articles/389/389147p1.html to http://gameboy.ign.com/articles/389/389147p1.html
Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/610tVc0Jx?url=http://www.1up.com/reviews/pokeacutemon-ruby-sapphire_2 to http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3103339&p=19&sec=REVIEWS
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713004608/http://rr.gameboy.ign.com/rrobj/pocket/object/692344/ to http://rr.gameboy.ign.com/rrobj/pocket/object/692344/
Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/610tdBJMg?url=http://n-europe.com/news.php?nid=4558 to http://n-europe.com/news.php?nid=4558
Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/610teBcGI?url=http://n-europe.com/news.php?nid=6515 to http://n-europe.com/news.php?nid=6515
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) 01:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Eon Ticket. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  TheAwesomeHwyh 00:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect World's Edge Island and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 6#World's Edge Island until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 16:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Mirage Tower and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 6#Mirage Tower until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 16:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Marine and Terra Cave and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 6#Marine and Terra Cave until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 16:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Pokémon Ruby & Pokémon Sapphire: Super Music Collection and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 6#Pokémon Ruby & Pokémon Sapphire: Super Music Collection until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 16:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The redirect Ruby and Sapphire has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 13 § Ruby and Sapphire until a consensus is reached.  cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

In a similar case to the merge discussion for Pokémon Sword and Shield Expansion Pass, these two articles have considerable overlap. Outside of some release information and some minor expansions on specific elements, the game has identical plot and gameplay to Ruby and Sapphire, with both of these elements being better covered at the main article. In a similar vein to Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow, Emerald can easily be covered at the Ruby and Sapphire article. I've mocked up a merge visualizer to help with showing how this article would look. Though I've done very few alterations to the actual prose and the lead is currently unaltered, it should help show what this would look like, and with some minor adjustments would be entirely feasible (For instance, Emerald's section in Release would need some details on new features added, but that should be coverable in a single paragraph). I've primarily followed how the Red, Blue, and Yellow article has done it, which I feel is perfectly adequate in covering this subject. With this merge, no information is lost, and the information is covered in a more succinct way for readers, allowing them to get a good summary of all three highly associated releases without needing to read two separate articles of mostly repeat information. I believe these articles are better off merged, and I'd be happy to hear your thoughts.  Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - I think there are enough notable differences in gameplay, development, and reception to easily merge these articles together. (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
@(Oinkers42) Could you clarify your points here? I'm a bit confused given you've stated they're easy to merge together while the front half of your comment is seemingly listing reasons you disagree.
I will say that if you do oppose on the above grounds, that I am a bit confused as to why. The differences you've described, bar Reception, are minimal. The development of this game isn't really development, and I couldn't find more sources documenting this when I searched. The current information fits neatly into Emerald's current section on Ruby and Sapphire's article. The gameplay additionally has very few differences. With the exception of minor gameplay alterations that fall under trivial detail, the only big changes are the Battle Frontier, special events (Which fall more under release and promotion than anything) and E-Reader, which can be easily covered at Ruby and Sapphire's article without causing undue weight to be placed onto Emerald's content. If you feel it would be beneficial, I can mock-up how this would look in order to better clarify my point. As it stands though, given most of these sections are small, and the gameplay and plot is nearly entirely identical to Ruby and Sapphire's, I don't see why this would cause problems in terms of weight concerns nor size concerns.  Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Oppose This is a fair idea, but I think as far as 'third version' articles are concerned, most iterations in the series are self-evidently notable and all but Yellow have standalone articles. I think the status quo is justifiable given the game has a discrete plot, gameplay, development and reception - even if the state of sourcing in the article is weak - and can be adequately considered discrete subjects warranting an article as per WP:NOTMERGE. They're standalone commercial products marketed for their new features and evaluated by critics as such  - same reason game expansions get their own articles. I understand this sits slightly closer to 'special edition' or 'bonus feature' releases where the lines are blurred, but these are successor titles to some of the most commercially successful games of all time and has ample coverage to show for it. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vrxces Standalone commercial products marketed for their own features can still be merged. Evidently, Yellow was merged for similar reasons, as were the SWSH DLCs.  Per Wikipedia: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." Given the similarities in Emerald's various aspects as an expanded version to Ruby and Sapphire, would it not be more beneficial to have this info available all in one article, where readers are more easily able to see and appreciate the differences between Ruby and Sapphire and its expanded version? While the state of sourcing is not entirely what justifies merger rationale, comparing this to something like Pokémon Crystal or Pokémon Platinum shows a striking difference between why those have standalone pages and why I feel this should not. Crystal and Platinum have strong aspects that make a merger unwieldy and better off as standalone pages- in this case, Crystal has a strong individual legacy and Platinum has a strong individual development and release separate from Diamond and Pearl. Emerald doesn't have anywhere near as strong a legacy, nor does it have any strong developmental information that would detriment Ruby and Sapphire's article to implement.
It's in a similar boat to Yellow (Linking the merger discussion for reference), where the plot and gameplay have heavy overlap with only trivially small differences, and little to no developmental information separate from the main subject. While the Reception in Emerald is indeed separate, that isn't enough to justify a split when most of Emerald's article is repeat information with only minor differences, again just like what happened with Yellow's article. While I could understand the NOTMERGE rationale if this was an article with more substantive content, there's precedent for merging articles of a similar subject matter and content level, and I believe a merger can be safely done here without applying UNDUE weight to Emerald as a result.  Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Comment I've added the gameplay and story differences between Ruby, Sapphire, and Emerald in Emerald's section of my merge visualizer. This should hopefully help with understanding my argument a bit better.  Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Oppose I'd feel uncomfortable merging Emerald into this article with how much it changes about the gameplay and plot. It would be ludicrous to  claim that Emerald is the same experience as Ruby/Sapphire, which are much more similar to each other. This is giving me heavy "solution looking  desperately for an actual problem" vibes as there is easily enough info about Emerald's totally new features and changes to justify a page. I will also add that the heavy WP:BLUDGEONING doesn't help the case and actually hurts it. The necessity should be self-evident immediately to your typical Wikipedian or it's not a strong one. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Comment I'm having a tough time with the merge visualizer with the SwSh content still at the top. User subpages are free and infinite. Feel free to make a new subpage for each thing, if you like. Also, Emerald should be bolded and discussed more in the proposed lead section. It should be a lead for the entire proposed article. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Fair point; I've added the merge visualizer into a new doc that should hopefully make it less confusing. I've added some Emerald info to the lead, though admittedly this could probably be expanded. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Comment After thinking it over and discussing this further with Zx, I think I'll withdraw this for now. I feel I need to refocus my points at a later date once I've thought this over further. I'll refocus on improving some other articles before I get back to this and see where Emerald stands in comparison, but for now I'll let this discussion rest. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I have created an article for pokemon box. I feel that, because Pokémon Box is a significant release and differs from Ruby and Sapphire, it should have its own article instead of being added to the article here. All the other pokemon Ruby and Sapphire spinoffs have their own articles as well.
On this article, however, it's a mess. The reception, gameplay and summary is mixed into the same section, instead of being separated into different sections. This is partially why it needs its own article, but I'm not sure what to do with the information here. Should some of it be removed? Everythingwii (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Everythingwii The new article seems like an unnecessary split. It's just a copy paste of what's in RS's article. I wouldn't call its section a mess, as the section is split into three paragraphs that cover each bit of relevant information instead of being "mixed" like you're describing. Additionally, the reason the other RS games have splits are because they fundamentally have a lot more content, reception, developmental info, etc separate from RS. Just because other games have splits doesn't mean this one automatically should. Box's content is basically all in RS's article already, and better covered there rather than having an unneeded split.  Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Currently, yeah it only has the information found in this article. I don't know. While it is certainly a smaller and less significant spinoff, but it is a spinoff nonetheless.
When I said "mixed" I meant that it's easier to look at a Wikipedia article, look in the contents and open the section you want. Here, you have to go through the paragraphs to find it. It's still easily readable since it's only 3 paragraphs, but that brings me to my next argument.
There's probably more information out there than just 3 paragraphs. I'm going to search around for developmental information and see if I can find anything. If there is more notable info that should be added to the article, it might be worth keeping a seperate article.
It's certainly not a significant difference either way, and if there isn't that much more info to be found, then yes, I agree. Keep it the same. Everythingwii (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
@Everythingwii good luck on finding more info! I'd be happy to help if need be.  Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
@Everythingwii how is the search going? Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
not well. Unfortunately there's a lot more obscurity around the app. Some other people are contributing though, so I'll keep it as it is for now. Everythingwii (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
@Everythingwii how is the search going? Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay! I was unable to find more info. However, I discovered that pokemon box was not able to be found in google search results until the split was made. So it makes it more visible. That sounds like reason enough to keep the page. Everythingwii (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2025 (UTC)