1,953
edits
Talk:Pokémon Gold and Silver beta: Difference between revisions
→Spaceworld Information
Celadonkey (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 340: | Line 340: | ||
So we are now approaching the one year anniversary of the public debut of the Spaceworld demo rom. That’s one year we’ve gone without any of this information on the site. And I get it, in the early stages it wasn’t exactly confirmed if it was real or not, but we’ve known that it is for a while now. And I know how the processes work here for approving changes to the site, but frankly, this shouldn’t ''need'' such a process— to be blunt, it should just be common sense that something so important to the history of Pokémon be allowed to be added without any kind of hesitation. Hell, even Wikipedia— a non Pokémon focused wiki— has an {{wp|Unused Pokémon in the 1997 Pokémon Gold and Silver demo|article}} dedicated to it. The point is, we can’t continue to call ourselves a Pokémon encyclopedia if we are to deliberately ignore such crucial information. We’ve tiptoed around this for a long time. It’s time to make a decision. --[[User:Celadonkey|<span style="color:#004EA2">cela</span><span style="color:#B60007">donk</span>]] ([[User talk:Celadonkey|talk]]) 12:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC) | So we are now approaching the one year anniversary of the public debut of the Spaceworld demo rom. That’s one year we’ve gone without any of this information on the site. And I get it, in the early stages it wasn’t exactly confirmed if it was real or not, but we’ve known that it is for a while now. And I know how the processes work here for approving changes to the site, but frankly, this shouldn’t ''need'' such a process— to be blunt, it should just be common sense that something so important to the history of Pokémon be allowed to be added without any kind of hesitation. Hell, even Wikipedia— a non Pokémon focused wiki— has an {{wp|Unused Pokémon in the 1997 Pokémon Gold and Silver demo|article}} dedicated to it. The point is, we can’t continue to call ourselves a Pokémon encyclopedia if we are to deliberately ignore such crucial information. We’ve tiptoed around this for a long time. It’s time to make a decision. --[[User:Celadonkey|<span style="color:#004EA2">cela</span><span style="color:#B60007">donk</span>]] ([[User talk:Celadonkey|talk]]) 12:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC) | ||
:The editorial board is still debating this? Has the number of irrefutable proof of the demo's authenticity posted by Celadonkey and others been presented to them? [[User:Ericss|Ericss]] ([[User talk:Ericss|talk]]) 05:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC) | :The editorial board is still debating this? Has the number of irrefutable proof of the demo's authenticity posted by Celadonkey and others been presented to them? [[User:Ericss|Ericss]] ([[User talk:Ericss|talk]]) 05:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC) | ||
::It has been presented but I doubt it's still being debated by mods, and honestly, I doubt it even has been to the extent to which you're picturing. Over the past year and a day (because, as of yesterday, the introduction of the ROM to the internet is a year old) it has been fruitlessly brought up probably more separate times that I can count on my hands. Personally, I've probably written enough about BP's treatment of the ROM both here and on the Discord to write a book, and I know others have too. But every time it is brought up it is largely ignored by people who, well, hold ANY power over the future of Bulbapedia. Either way, this is getting ridiculous. | |||
::My view on BP is getting exponentially more cynical as it continues to ignore something so crucial. Come on, guys. It's been over a year now and a lot of us still have to implore to include Pokemon information on a Pokemon wiki. We're better than this, right? --[[User:Celadonkey|<span style="color:#004EA2">cela</span><span style="color:#B60007">donk</span>]] ([[User talk:Celadonkey|talk]]) 19:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC) | |||