Jump to content

Talk:Pokémon Go

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Howrad (talk | contribs) at 20:36, 24 August 2016 (→Urban bias). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

New York sex offenders banned from Pokémon Go!

Pokemon Go's dark side grows! Linkedin reports: "New York sex offenders will be violating parole by even downloading Pokémon Go . . . The rationale (at least for Pokémon Go) is a study which found dozens of pokéstops and gyms within half a city block from 100 registered sex offenders. The game also included lures, which have already been used to bring unsuspecting victims to muggers".[1] Should we include this in the main article? Santamoly (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/theranos-debuts-new-product-york-paroles-cant-play-pok%C3%A9mon-c-abell
According to the BBC, it's a bit more specific than that: sex offenders released from state prison while on parole. Interestingly, the government is also apparently working with the developer to incorporate the registered sex offender list with game locations to keep spots from spawning near their homes. TimothyJosephWood 09:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA - bottling up the discussion!

The editor was given a final chance, and in that final comment, no new sources were provided, just the same old rhetoric that has garnered zero support so far. Closing. Please notify me if yet another discussion is opened on this topic. Sergecross73 msg me 21:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@soetermans pleads:"Am I not getting through to you, @Santamoly:? So far, nobody agrees with you . . . And please note that nothing is "deleted", your previous attempts of this pointless discussion have been archived" @soetermans, your desperate efforts to stifle this discussion are apparent at the top of the archive block which says:"The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it"; @Soetermans, you're treading a thin line at trying to block discussion aimed at expanding the Pokemon GO information base. As you can see, I don't believe you because your archiving efforts aimed at stifling a discussion supported by internationally-known sources, are so transparent and obvious. It's better that you leave this topic alone because Talk Page discussions are for improving the article but your shallow and transparent attempts to bottle up discussion by prematurely archiving have the opposite effect. You're obviously trying to dumb-down the Talk Page by archiving discussions as soon as they appear. Please leave the Talk Page alone so that we Wikipedians can continue doing what we do best. Archiving is for bundling up old and resolved discussions, not for bottling up current discussions. What you're doing is a sneaky form of harassment. Santamoly (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Reopening this discussion repeatedly, when multiple editors and admins having closed it, is disruptive and not aimed at improving the article. You are not providing reliable secondary sources or discussing the content you want added, but simply attacking the other editors. -- ferret (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I, and other editors, and closed the discussions, because there is a broad consensus that your assertion is not backed by reliable, third party sources. Everything I've seen you give either has either been from sources that don't meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable sources, or was from reliable sources that did not directly assert the exact idea you were trying to add to the article. As such, the info fails WP:FRINGE. Unless there's a new development or source that literally and directly states the exact information you want to include, there is nothing more to discuss.
If your next comment doesn't involve a reliable source that directly asserts your stance, the discussion will be closed, and if you open up another discussion, you will be blocked from editing for disruptive editing. Chose your approach wisely, as this is your last chance. Sergecross73 msg me 20:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Santamoly:, I closed one of your many discussions, not several. Accusing me of harassment is not okay, by any standards. I said repeatedly that it is up to you to find new sources, which you haven't done so far. Where are the "internationally-known sources"? There is nothing to resolve, because there is nothing to discuss. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Please, stop wasting our time (and yours), and stop playing the victim. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support closing this discussion. Since this is apparently being interpreted as a personal spat, we can do this semi-formally. No new sources have been presented, no new arguments have been made, and there has already been fairly robust consensus that this qualifies as WP:FRINGE unless many, varied, substantial, and above else, reliable coverage can be found. TimothyJosephWood 12:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd rather not quite yet, since I just gave him one final chance, and he hasn't used it yet, but I imagine that's where we're headed eventually. As others have mentioned, this game is huge and receives coverage from virtually every news outlet/journalist on the planet - if this idea of CIA connections was prevalent, it'd be extremely easy to find. But lets give him one final chance. Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose closing this discussion. Since this is clearly a personal disagreement between a small ring of owners and a group of editors whose sources are being disparaged as insignificant or irrelevant. One of the owners has even suggested that only the New York Times and CNN would be accepted as reliable sources, thereby dismissing many other reliable sources out of hand. Nobody is disputing the fact of the CIA's involvement in funding the development of Pokemon GO's geo-tools using any reliable sources, only the fact that sources reporting the CIA's involvement are not "reliable". The ring of owners is using the RS argument to archive discussion and move records to the background. It's a transparent attempt to bottle up the discussion, and detracts from the quality and depth of the article. Since I'm the most recent editor to try to open this discussion, the ring of owners is focused on my comments, suggesting that I'm a "fringe" voice; however, the archives show that I'm not the only editor who wants this topic opened, I'm only the most recent. Regardless, the quality of the article is lowered by the censorship of this one minor, but most interesting, topic. Disputing the reliability of reliable sources, and resorting to archiving as a method of suppression of discussion, are clearly unethical ways of dealing with editors with alternate views.Santamoly (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73:, your call. I'm through talking to a brick wall. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So because people disagree with your fringe, tinfoil-hat sources, makes everybody else unethical? There are clear guidelines on what Wikipedia considered reliable sources, and you haven't provided any thus far. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Urban bias

I'm surprised that there is no mention of the urban bias of the game and how it is nearly unplayable for those not in a large urban environment. The only hint about the problem is the line in Gameplay section about how Niantic was taking requests for more new PokéStops and gyms in rural areas only to shut the forum down within days. This problem has been covered by major news outlets, including Kotaku, RollingStone, and the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Is this a matter of no one getting around to writing about it? If so, here is a quick list of potential sources about this particular problem.

This should be enough for someone to start adding a paragraph about the urban bias. As for why I don't add it myself, I don't have enough knowledge to identify which of these are reliable sources, and which are not. —Farix (t | c) 10:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @TheFarix: Check out WP:VG/S for reliable video game sources. The majority of these are fine. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I imagine its just that no one's gotten around to it. Most of those sources are acceptable, and it's definitely a sentiment covered by a variety of reliable sources elsewhere too, though I don't know if there's much more to say other than "there's less stuff happening in rural areas, and people from rural areas don't like that". Regardless, it'd be a good point to inclusion in the reception section, whether it be a sentence or a paragraph. Sergecross73 msg me 12:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is probably a WP:DUE topic, given the sources. Speaking from personal experience, my wife downloaded the game when it first came out, and basically hasn't played it at all, because it's unplayable here. TimothyJosephWood 12:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There used to be a statement about this in the article, but I'm not sure if it's still there. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the second paragraph of the "Criticism and incidents" section: Players in rural areas also complained about the lack of Pokémon spawns, PokéStops, and gyms in their area. (supported with 3 refs) – Not really sure if there's much more to say beyond this to be honest. Only thing that would expand on this is if it's amended. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah that's it, and adding more sources to that would just be overkill. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Only the first sentence of that paragraph was in the article until I added it. That first sentence was also buried deep in the previous paragraph. —Farix (t | c) 00:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • If we wanted to add another sentence on this topic, we might clarify the "derived from the portals of Ingress, Niantic's science fiction-themed augmented reality game" to make it clearer that Niantic is not biased against minority neighborhoods and rural areas, but rather the players of Ingress were biased against them. Portals and PokéStops are user-generated content, and it was the users who were biased, not the developer. The quoted source ("There are fewer Pokemon Go locations in black neighborhoods, but why?") already makes this clear, but the Wikipedia article does not. Howrad (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First player to complete game

Is Reddit user ftb_hodor the first player to complete the game? Unsure of his real name. Below is the website.

http://www.polygon.com/2016/7/21/12247678/pokemon-go-complete-pokedex (Mobile mundo (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

List of best-selling video games

Why Pokemon Go isn't on this list? Dawid2009 (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is PGo...sold? TimothyJosephWood 12:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate, @Dawid2009:, Pokémon Go is a free-to-play game, while List of best-selling video games is about copies sold. Perhaps an article about video games having the most revenue or profit is a good idea though. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe we could just have a separate list, "List of most downloaded (or played) free-to-play video games", with at least a million needed to qualify? Just a thought. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support such an article. It's only logical with the current trend of digital distribution which moves away from physical CDs (etc.) to digital downloads (& streaming) as well as the current trend towards free-to-play games. There already is the list of most downloaded Android applications btw. I'd favor: List of most downloaded free-to-play video games. It would be nice if someone here created it. --Fixuture (talk) 12:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think free-to-play may muddy the waters some with the whole micro payment thing? TimothyJosephWood 12:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
List of most downloaded iOS applications get delted Dawid2009 (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fixuture:, while I'm certainly not against such an article, that would be different from a list of free-to-play games with the most revenue. Pokémon Go might be downloaded the most, a game like Clash of Clans has an estimated revenue of 1,5 million dollars a day. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
http://venturebeat.com/2014/02/21/report-finds-free-to-play-microtransactions-make-up-79-of-u-s-app-store-revenues/ - Mybe it would be interesing. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Soetermans: Exactly - personally I'm not really interested in free-to-play games with the highest revenue but I'd like to know which games are played most (these are the games people apparently like most and are most present in society etc.). A list of free-to-play games with the most revenue would make for a nice 2nd list though (I'm not sure if it's problematic to get the revenue-information of these games btw.).
@Dawid2009: It wasn't deleted but merged into: App Store (iOS)#Most downloaded apps (btw. imo that list is way too short and missing information).
@Timothyjosephwood: In which ways? I don't know. Maybe they are. For instance more games might become more pay to winy and intricate games might be hard to finance etc.
--Fixuture (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I see your point. Besides, while informative, revenue of free-to-play games might be harder to find sources for, since developers and/or publishers aren't always open about their finances. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
VentureBeat share up to date leading statistics but I don't know it is enaught. BTW I have started disscussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An article about revenue would be slightly harder to find sources for than one just about how many copies have been downloaded, but in either case, an article like this should exist. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest create two article: just List of the largest video games developers (There is List of video game developers) and List of most downloaded free-to-play video games (due to the fact it is easier to found some sources).
In List of best-selling video games there aren't the most renuve series of the games (In List of best-selling books there are not just single books but also book's series). Which game series is the most popular? Counter-Strike? The Sims? or mybe FIFA? This list would make for a nice ( Featuring Mario games would be classified in this list like to European Union here, due to the fact featuring Mario isn't serie of the games). In my opinion information about most renuve game series is more important than informations about most downloaded and renuve free to play games and should be in wiki before. Dawid2009 (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC) There is List of best-selling video game franchises[reply]
@Dawid2009:, I am against a list of largest video game developers. First, what is "large" in this context? Total of employees? Office size? Revenue? Total of games developed? Amount of people playing their games? Second, what would be the point of such a list? The size of a developer - no matter how you define size - doesn't say anything about the games they produce; quality, reception, units sold, etc. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What's the relevancy of the "largest" game developer here? Would Niantic all of a sudden be considered more important than a company that's been around far longer, but sold slightly less games? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We can create page: Most downloaded free-to-play games. https://www.surveymonkey.com/ is vere easy source to dispose this list (after registed you have got free premium during 14 days and acces to a lot of things). Similar website also is https://www.statista.com/statistics/popular/. I also have found source by which in 2013 most downloaded mobile games there were Angry Birds, Fruit Ninja and Temple Run: http://www.pocketgamer.biz/news/50604/the-app-stores-most-downloaded-games-of-all-time-angry-birds-fruit-ninja-and-temple-run/ (It is AppStore's opinion).Dawid2009 (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2016


It's also been banned in Malaysia and Saudi Arabia.

SOURCE = https://au.news.yahoo.com/technology/a/32251650/malaysian-islamic-leaders-say-no-to-pokemon-go/#page1


Bendavidsmith (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done It's not officially banned in either country. Just a strong recommendation to Muslims to not play the game, which is already mentioned in the article. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Target Audience

I am a new user. In going through the page I wondered a couple of things. One, who was this game initially designed for? And two, has there been any research into what the demographics are of the people that are playing this game. It seems to me that it would be interesting to know the answers to these questions. I am not a player myself, but work with many who do. Just thought that it might be something that could be relevant to the page if there was a better understanding of who was playing. However, I am not sure if the game has been out long enough to get an accurate account.


Wibharri (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wibharri (talk • contribs) 01:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read

Over 75 percent of americans have never and will never play Pokemon Go. I think the article should reflect that because someone reading the article as it is now would get the mistaken impression that literally everyone in america is playing it when that's no even near being remotely true. A lot of americans have never even heard of Pokemon to begin with. TimeaMese7w98 (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TimeaMese7w98:, what gives you that impression? And Wikipedia doesn't mention when something isn't played, so how should the article reflect something that isn't happening, according to you? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, where did you find 75%? And if 75% in fact hasn't played the game at this point, why should they never play the game? Also, 25% of the United States playing the game is a huge number, if you have the source we should definitely include that. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TimeaMese7w98: As stated on my talk page, any claim like yours would require reliable sources per Wikipedia policy. The entire claim at this point would be considered original research because the information presented is unsourced and potentially not reported by third parties. Without sources, your contribution to the article is in effect saying "believe me I know I'm right". I do not believe that anyone would have the impression that "literally everyone in America is playing it". Dane2007 (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boy, a chance to plug my draft essay on negative claims. Still could use a lot of polish. —Farix (t | c) 00:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

release map

@Cyclonebiskit: The chart is great, much better than prose. But it lists Puerto Rico as being shown in white, which would blend into the background and make that relatively tiny island almost impossible to see on the map.

However, Puerto Rico is actually currently shown in green, along with the rest of the Caribbean and continental Latin America. I suggest using brown, which is not currently used on the map and which would stand out well against the white. I don't know how to edit the map at all, or I would boldly change it myself. Thnidu (talk) 03:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thnidu: Thanks~ Been trying to figure out how to do it for a bit and it finally came together tonight. The Puerto Rico one is colorless since the release is a bit mixed up between sources. @Molecule Extraction: since you're the most recent person to update the map, would you mind fixing this up? ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyclonebiskit: Ah, sure. Thanks for informing! :) Molecule Extraction (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyclonebiskit:  Done :) Molecule Extraction (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Molecule Extraction: Thanks for doing this so quickly! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyclonebiskit and Molecule Extraction: Thanks, fellow editors. :-) --Thnidu (talk) 06:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyclonebiskit and Thnidu: Very much welcome. Molecule Extraction (talk) 06:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murcia Spain

Murcia is the first city in the world to pay for Pokemon go avatars and to offer prizes here in Murcia .tourism is booming as they come from Madrid and S an Francisco to hunt em down .weird affect of augmented reality but the marketers here in Murcia are shrewd astute and Harvard educated . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.72.80 (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...your point being? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Safe for Minorities?

Apparently not everyone feels safe playing Pokémon Go; in particular, members of some minority groups have expressed concerns that wandering in certain neighborhoods could give the police the wrong impression. I've seen this mentioned around the Web almost since the game's release, but as far as I know it hasn't been covered here...

Is this aspect something that should be covered in the article? Random the Navigator (talk) 05:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've since read the referenced article about how the distribution of PokéStops in the US reflects American demographics, and there's a link in that one to the medium.com piece I listed. People are thinking and talking about that not all players are enjoying the same comfort level using the app; maybe it does need its own mention. Thoughts?
(If I do this, any help with wording on a touchy subject will be greatly appreciated!) -- Random the Navigator (talk) 07:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely, it would just be added into an already existing sentence. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PokéStop removal requests available again

A form specifically for requesting to be de-listed as a PokéStop is (back?) up at Niantic as of 8 August:

The form lets the requester specify the reason(s) for requesting removal, including because the site is private property, dangerous, or "other" (which I would imagine covers it being inappropriate). The requester can even attach an image of the site. -- Random the Navigator (talk) 07:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not the traditional definition of "Augmented Reality"

See archived section Talk:Pokémon Go/Archive 3#Genres besides Augmented Reality. The inclusion of the block of content Howrad added does not appear to line up with the previous discussion. Several editors notes that the major of reliable sources do not back the content Howrad wants added, but the text included even said "Most sources admit its not really AR." This was a big block of mostly OR backed by two outlier sources. -- ferret (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret:@Meatsgains:Why do you think this doesn't belong in the article, or has undue weight? These are points that the general public is not very familiar with, and I think it's important to instruct them. The screenshots you removed also served to demonstrate the points. I can edit to reduce word count, but the current version doesn't actually make any sense. You put together two opposite views held by different experts. And Ferret claims that's there's only one primary source, but I included five.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Howrad (talk • contribs) 19:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted, I believe the previous discussion makes clear why in-depth inclusion was inappropriate. When I said there was only a primary source, I was referring specifically to the first paragraph that I removed as OR. I'm aware that the second paragraph was sourced differently. -- ferret (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret:Oh, sorry, I think I did my footnotes in a confusing way. The 4 footnotes at the end of the section applied to the entire section, not just the second paragraph. It was not original research, but a synthesis of 5 sources. I will rewrite to make it clearer and shorter. Howrad (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Howrad: Here are some of the issue. I hate to have to point by point this but since you're claiming its all sourced... 

"Most experts in gaming and augmented reality agree that even though the developers market Pokémon Go as an augmented reality game, it contains some but not all aspects of an augmented reality game, and the primary genre is better described as a location-based game or a pervasive game."

You say "Most experts". What experts? What source is backing "most experts" agree about this? Most reliable sources say augmented reality game, even if they also attach additional genres like location-based. 

"The majority of players turn AR mode off, because it makes the game easier and increases battery life, and are therefore not experiencing augmented reality at all."

None of your sources make these claims. Hence, it's OR. None of them support that the game is easier or increases battery life with AR off (Though I agree it does), nor do they claim the majority of players do this. 

"Some subject-matter experts respond that calling Pokémon Go augmented reality really has nothing to do with the camera augmentation. They say that the augmentation happens in the brain, not in the technology."

Only one source even mentions brain, and doesn't support how this is worded. In fact it would seem to counter this statement...

And so on. Finally, at least two of these sources, roadtovr and uploadvr, may not be reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. -- ferret (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the section is too long and unorthodox for normal articles, so either this should be merged in somewhere else or removed entirely. EDIT: I would just remove this entirely, as this is the same user who tried to add the same sources some ways back, as he seems to have a constant agenda regarding the inclusion of them. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My position is to remove. I linked the last discussion from the archive at the top of this discussion. It's full of OR, backed by a primary source that is being synthesized (A no no), 2 unreliables, and 2 reliables that don't fully support the content. Mostly OR to discuss a fringe genre element. -- ferret (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed more outright OR claims, and added citation needed tags to whatever was left unsourced, but I wouldn't mind this being removed entirely. At the very least, it should be kept it to a single sentence or two, as some of the sources used are reliable. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm just going to continue to remove this unless @Howrad: provides better sources and writing. All he has been doing, even in the past, is pasting the same statements with only minor edits to the wording. This is only a fringe opinion shared by very few (reliable) sources, so does it really need to be in the article anyway? A single sentence can have the same info without taking up an entire sub-section and/or paragraph. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I originally trimmed the content citing WP:UNDUE, having not looked closely at the sources. I would have removed the entire section but I respected the user's bold contribution and new additional editors would chime in to help out. Needless to say, the section should stay off the page for the reasons already noted above. Meatsgains (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you that this is not a fringe opinion. If you were to question 100 experts on augmented reality, at least 90 of them would say that Pokémon Go does not fit the traditional definition of augmented reality... possibly all 100 would agree. You'd find similar results if you questioned experts in location-based games and pervasive gaming, though they might be slightly more inclined to call it augmented reality. I'm sorry that there aren't that many experts writing about this in reliable sources, and so this makes it really tough for me to prove, but I think Scientific American should be a reliable enough source to demonstrate that this content has a place in this article. In an article about physics for instance, what's more important -- the writings of the popular press, or the writings of academic experts? In the future, hopefully I will be able to find academic journal articles supporting my claims. Howrad (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We're not discussing whether or not the content you attempted to add was true or not because IMHO, it probably is, but it needs to be verified in reliable sources. That is the problem we are facing. Meatsgains (talk) 00:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They may be experts in academia, but they are not in gaming, which is what your claim stated. And like I said, this can be properly explained with a single sentence or two, an entire subsection regarding it when only one true reliable source stated it is overkill. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The basic claim I'm trying to make is that 2 months ago, before the release of Pokémon GO, people would have described the game as a pervasive game or a location-based game with light elements of augmented reality (and many people prefer to turn off the AR). This new definition of an augmented reality game, if it lasts, is a major change in the definition. My personal opinion is that it's a misuse of the definition by people who don't understand, but I know that definitions can change, and a misused definition can become the new standard definition if enough people use it.

Does anyone believe that, if I find sources to prove this claim, it still does not belong in this article? Reliable sources to prove this are hard to find, but I'm going to try a new angle and get opinions from other editors. I found a PhD thesis about pervasive games from March 2016 written by an academic expert in gaming. It describes Pokémon GO as a pervasive game, describes other augmented reality games, but does not describe Pokémon GO as an augmented reality game:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Vlasios_Kasapakis/publication/303283809_Pervasive_Role_Playing_Games_Design_Development_and_Evaluation_of_a_Research_Prototype/links/573af8dd08ae9ace840e6c4f.pdf

Does this kind of source help establish my claim that it's a new definition? Should I be looking for more of this? Thanks for everyone's input. Howrad (talk) 08:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You keep using phrases like "I believe", "My personal opinion", "I synthesized", "Reliable sources to prove is hard to find".... That's everything that's wrong with trying to get these edits in. Please re-read WP:V, WP:N and WP:OR. I think the article already covers that Pokemon Go fits several genre descriptions. If the majority of reliable sources are saying augmented reality, then that's the lead genre even if it doesn't quite fit as a black and white definition. -- ferret (talk) 10:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet phenomena

Why Pokemon go there isn't on this list? Dawid2009 (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a question for Talk:List of Internet phenomena, not this talk page. -- ferret (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Profit from pokemon go

http://mashable.com/2016/07/19/pokemon-go-economics-making-money/#84PUNtxJ5qqX - profit from pokemon go is common, http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/21/middleeast/what-pokemon-go-looks-like-in-syria/ - and even sources like CNN report on this. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2016


2601:147:4200:D980:5575:76CF:1944:BF42 (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC) Pokemon go to the poles[reply]

 Not done I don't understand what this request is about.

What are "legendary pokémon"?

In the Technical issues section under the Glitches subsection, it says "Some legendary Pokémon were also obtained by players in a glitch, though they were later removed." I have no idea what this means and I assume most people without intimate knowledge of Pokemon won't either. What are legendary pokemon, how were the obtained and how were they removed? Can someone who understands add more context there? —PermStrump(talk) 06:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mode(s): Single-player, multiplayer

I tried this before, but I think I understand Wikipedia's policies better now, and I want to give it another shot.

I don't think we have sufficient sources to be able to say in the info box that the game has a single-player mode. Yes, one can find sources that say things to the effect of "it feels like a single-player game sometimes," "more multiplayer features are coming later," and claims that it's "predominantly a single-player experience." I believe this is sufficient evidence to write a sentence or two in the article about how some reviewers describe it as "predominantly a single-player experience," but not sufficient evidence to put a single-player mode in the info box. Especially when other sources give evidence that Pokémon GO conflicts with Wikipedia's definition of a Single-player video game: "A single-player video game is a video game where input from only one player is expected throughout the course of the gaming session." Pokémon GO always has inputs from multiple players, and there is no way to opt out.

If we want to keep this in the info box, we need to find a source that proves it has a single-player mode. Howrad (talk) 09:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Despite the fact you can fully play this game without need for other live people? It's not the normal version of what we'd considered single player, but what other evidence do you need? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
World of Warcraft can be fully played without the need for other live people too. If every other person in the world stopped playing, you could play it all by yourself. Does that give it a single-player mode in the info box? No. Howrad (talk) 11:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incident in Taiwan

On August 22, 2016, a wild Snorlax appeared in Taiwan this has caused hundreds of people to approach it. It was reported by the following:

Yoshiman6464 (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pokémon_Go&oldid=736049908"