Talk:MissingNo.

Edit reversion discussion

I have had an edit mentioning that MissingNo is a placeholder for Pokémons cut early in development reverted because "we know it's a placeholder, that doesn't add any new info...?". I find it an odd reason for reversion given that nothing of the sort is mentioned in the article. This used to be an obscure theory until the late 2010s, when we had a series of leak confirming it, so it was hardly public knowledge from the start. MissingNo's nature is different to other glitch Pokemon, which all have garbled names made of junk data, and this seems like an important thing to explain why. (also, the article does not mention that other glitch Pokemon exist, apart from a translated quote in a footnote, this seems quite a relevant information to the topic, and something that people not familiar with Pokemon glitches are unlikely to know)

Even Wilma Bainbridge's explanation of MissingNo in February 2019(likely part of an interview made just before the prototype leak, since the article doesn't mention it), present in a source quoted in the article makes no mention of the possibility of it being a placeholder for something else, just that she used to believe it was a "test" Pokemon.

And yeah, I am aware of the elephant in the room. The Wiki-friendly sources on the topic are really bad, and it is holding the article back very badly, and we have to work with what we have. SunflowerYuri (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

It pops up in the event the game tries to access Pokemon data that isn't there. The Gamer article adds nothing new to that context: we know there are gaps in the Pokemon data, the why doesn't change MissingNo. purpose or shed more light on it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

It pops up in the event the game tries to access Pokemon data that isn't there. Can you clarify this? I am not following. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

From my perspective, MissingNo. is not really a placeholder, but the reversion does claim that it is one, so that doesn't make sense to revert. MissingNo. has some defined data, but it also is using "junk data" for a variety of purposes and reasons. The fact that English RB MissingNo. increases the sixth item by a quantity of 128 when seen due to a mistaken process is a sign that it isn't purely a placeholder nor as a test Pokémon.

In any case, it is clear enough from the article that MissingNo. replaced the data in the slots that held Pokemon that didn't make it into the final game. The fact that this isn't mentioned in the article does mean that it isn't mentioned at all now. (If fact, there is only one mention of cut Pokémon at all and that is just to debunk something.) So, I would support restoration. Personally, I don't like the exact wording, but that ties into the elephant in the room. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Knowing that Pokemon data was removed does not change that or add anything in the context of this article or discussing this subject, that's the problem. MissingNo. pops up when the game encounters invalid pokemon data: that by default is going to include removed Pokemon. Additionally, The Gamer article in question isn't saying what was in that edit: it's only saying it was used as a placeholder (which, again, we've covered), and even Helix Chamber says there are a few "MissingNo" values that aren't attributed to a deleted pokemon. So there's some WP:OR going on with SunflowerYuri's edit (no offense).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

it's only saying it was used as a placeholder (which, again, we've covered) The Wikipedia article does not cover this to my knowledge. Which was what I meant by The fact that this isn't mentioned in the article does mean that it isn't mentioned at all now. I was saying that the information is not in the current Wikipedia article.

MissingNo. pops up when the game encounters invalid pokemon data MissingNo. only pops up if the player encounters one of its 39 slots via a glitch. If invalid Pokémon data was able to trigger it, then it would be some sort of error handler that would trigger for other glitch Pokémon. Instead, it is just the game trying to call the data for the Pokémon in index number 000, which doesn't exist. Since all of the MissingNo. are set to reference index number 000, it pops up with the exact data each time. (Excluding cry data.)

In any case, is the only really issue the "39 species" part of the edit? If so, restore the text without that part. [I]t was found that MissingNo. was a placeholder for Pokémon that were cut during development. If that is too absolute, then we could add the word "some" in place of the "39 species" part. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

No, again, the issue is it's redundant and not saying what you're citing it for. To boot it's also repeating *some* information from Helix Chamber, which also isn't recognized as a reliable source. I wouldn't add it to this article let alone a featured one.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Where is it redundant to what is in the article, what is the full problem with the wording, and why is it a problem when a reliable source mentions information from something we cannot use directly as a source? --Super Goku V (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kung Fu Man: It has been almost a week. Do you have a response to my question above? --Super Goku V (talk) 05:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I've already given my thoughts on this matter, and Cogsan agreed. I don't know why you're insisting on this, but I'm not going to sit here and argue semantics on it. It's a source that's citing another (unreliable by WP:VG/S standards) source, and not even saying most of what you cited it for. The rest was already redundant and doesn't add anything to the understanding of this subject.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I am insisting to see if there was a possible compromise, partly because of the unclear edit summary and partly because that is the goal in a discussion. I still fail to see this redundant portion that you keep claiming is there in the article as there is no mention of anything about a placeholder in the article, which was the only claim in the sentence as far as I can tell. If you don't want to suggest an alternative, then fine. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

from my somewhat limited knowledge of the mess that is rby's code, the name is the literal only aspect of missingno that is a placeholder for something, and even then i think it's pretty obvious that whatever that thing is is not what missingno is

so it's a bunch of garbage data compiled into a pokémon, a bunch of which happens to look the same for reasons only explained in like 2 youtube videos, of which the name is the only part that isn't garbage data (no such luck for ██3TRAINERPOKé█₽ or PkMnaPkMnゥ█♂█fPkMnk), and since it's the one of the easiest to find via the old man glitch (hell, COGSAN can result in a missingno), it's pretty much guaranteed to be the most popular one cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

so for clarity's sake, i oppose the statement because missingno is pretty much anything except a placeholder for pokémon that would eventually get into gen 2 cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the name is the literal only aspect of missingno that is a placeholder for something, but MissingNo. doesn't have anything to do with Gen II. Most of the known cut Pokémon didn't make it into a future game and the rest are just speculation that they maybe did get reworked. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

What's the deal with a simple grammar fix?

My small grammar fix on this article was reverted in less than half an hour from being published because of "terminology is long agreed upon to help the reader best understand the subject" but looking through this talk page I could find no evidence whatsoever of the related terminology having a consensus agreed exact wording.

The change in the summary from "encountered via a glitch" to "encountered via one of several possible glitches" was done because

1) it is the truth

2) the Characteristcs section implies that there are multiple ways with "this method" clearly indicating that other ways exist

3) it is better for readability, the sentence in question feels stunted upon read when just ending it with "a glitch".

Since looking at other discussions it seems that Kung Fu Man is a constant hardliner whenever someone tries to change anything about this article, especially about 'original research', here is a secondary source (not a game wiki) implying that the Cinnabar method is not the only way to get MissingNo:

https://screenrant.com/pokemon-games-missingno-glitch-explained/

Note that it says "the most common way" when starting the explanation on doing the glitch.

Featured Article =/= the article text is 100% perfect and there is no possible reason that changes may be considered. The fact that there are several other discussions here about missing information regarding this glitch is more than enough evidence for such. G5bestcfb (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Because we're discussing one notable glitch in the article, and the terminology already went through several runs before being agreed upon. Featured articles are held to a very high standard, and I can attest that putting *more* screenrant into the article is a terrible idea when several editors call it out as a low-quality source for these articles (called out as recently as January in a FAC for Raichu, where it was used for reception. It's not about being a hard liner, it's about maintaining an article to those standards.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

'm

now that that rfd is closed, i can get this going

i mentioned there that a mention for 'm (form 00 being a mostly similar glitch pokémon) could probably be added, based on at least those two sources (an archive of the latter currently being reference 9 in the article), though i could probably find more in a couple of minutes

so uh, opinions on adding it before workshopping something? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd barely mention it if we did at all: M-Block/'M is a similar glitch but not the same, even the venturebeat article calls it a "cousin". It'd definitely have to be handled with care given the nature of this article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

2024-10-17 revert

@Kung Fu Man

• The packaging for the games says Red Version and Blue Version; thus, they should be collectively referred to as “Red and Blue Versions”.
• “MissingNo.” is usually written in CamelCase when mixed-case writing is available, and is pronounced /ˈmɪsiŋˌnoʊ/ in American English.
• Glitch pokémon 0×FF (often referred to as “Charizard 'M”) is the only 'M known as アネ゛デパミ゛ Anedepami; 0×00 (the usual 'M) is ィ゙ゃゾ┛ Iyazo and 0×FE is ム゙▼イ゙ マ゙ゃ Muimaya.
• As presently written, the article's explanation of how the Old Man glitch works is in the wrong order; the player's name is copied into the available wild pokémon table first, and then overwritten with “OLD MAN”. ([1] § “'OLD MAN' Trainer ID Theft”)
• MissingNo.'s encounter flag is bit 7 of item 6 quantity, which is what causes it to be increased by 128 upon encounter. ([2])
• Hall of Fame corruption is caused by a sprite being bigger than the expected maximum of 7×7 tiles (56×56 pixels), and a sprite's dimensions are defined in two places. For block-form MissingNo.'s front sprite, its base stats sprite dimensions are 8x8, while its actual front sprite dimensions are 13x13. Immediately following the sprite decompression buffer is the Hall of Fame data, which is why encountering any of a number of glitch pokémon corrupts it. ([3])

Hàlian (talk) 07:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

A lot of this is original research, and Glitch City, a *wiki*, is not a reliable source. Additionally nowhere else on wikipedia are the games called Pokemon Red and Blue Versions. While I appreciate the thought, you need secondary reliable (and preferably high quality) sources to back the changes up, let alone go into this excessive detail.

Additionally the order issue while VentureBeat illustrates that is a bit of a nitpick; the article states the name is temporarily overridden and the actual name copied to the other data. Basic readers will understand terms like "temporary" and "actual", there's no reason to overcomplicate it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Additionally nowhere else on wikipedia are the games called Pokemon Red and Blue Versions. While this is incorrect, I am confused about why that matters. We shouldn't use Wikipedia to verify what the games are called, but verifiable sources like the box art and game manual to do so, based on my understanding of V and NOR. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

It matters for the sake of consistency: when wikilinking to the articles themselves, they are referred to as Pokémon Red and Blue consistently on all articles, and the "Version" element only mentioned in the lead of the games' articles themselves. Additionally we also rely on the most common usage in reliable sources for such, per WP:OFFICIALNAME. (Case in point, look at the move discussions for F.A.N.G. (Street Fighter)).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Fine, I guess I can't convince you to check for other articles. Regardless, I am not familiar with the F.A.N.G. character, so I am unable to see how it applies. If you are referring to the disambiguation, then the series is the Street Fighter series. If you are referring to the period at the end of the G, then I struggle to get your point since this article isn't called the more common MissingNo or Missingno, but instead MissingNo. as it is in the code. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Having taken a bit of time to reread everything, I still don't fully agree with argument. With regards to the other articles, there is a decent number that use the word version after the word(s) Red and/or Blue: 1990s, 1996 in video games, GameCenter CX, List of Game Boy games, List of Game Boy Advance games (for other languages), List of Pokémon volumes, List of role-playing video games: 1996 to 1997, List of Super Game Boy games, List of Virtual Console games for Nintendo 3DS (North America), List of Virtual Console games for Nintendo 3DS (PAL region), Nintendo Gateway System, Pokémon (video game series), and any others that I missed. Not only that, but OFFICIALNAME is referring to what the article name should be and not how it appears in text. Since no one has suggested that we move the games to Pokémon Red Version and Pokémon Blue Version, OFFICIALNAME should not apply. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Super Goku V If this title is under question, a discussion about naming should be held at Talk:Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow, as this is something that is out of this subject's scope and would distract unnecessarily from the other discussion points at hand. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Pokelego999, this is about the line: The packaging for the games says Red Version and Blue Version; thus, they should be collectively referred to as “Red and Blue Versions”. Kung Fu Man disagrees with this, while I agree that it should be used in either the opening sentence or the infobox. To make it clearer, this is not intended as a discussion to move Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow to Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow Versions. Instead, this is a discussion on the wording used in the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

For the sake of consistency, they should be referred to as printed on the boxen: Pokémon Red and Blue Versions. Hàlian (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

You need to understand though, the packaging of the game and how it's linked to in other articles are two different matters: check any article on here, and it does not include "Version" when referring to these games in a wikilink. The OfficialName policy does not only apply to a move but also how an article is linked to, which should use the common name in reliable sources. Additionally there's the matter of consistency across wikipedia; such a change wouldn't affect this one, but *every* Pokemon article, and would probably need a lot more thorough discussion than this can do if you really wish to press that.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

[...] check any article on here, and it does not include "Version" when referring to these games in a wikilink. Kung Fu Man, having read this I am a bit exasperated for one specific reason: I posted a list of articles above which makes already shows this statement to be inaccurate. At the least, please review Nintendo Gateway System and read the formatting there.

That aside, please show where OFFICIALNAME says that the policy applies to how an article is linked to. Because as stated at Redirect, There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles.

Additionally, we don't need to change Wikipedia to have the text say "Pokémon Red and Blue Versions" as all we need to do is update a single line in the article. There is no consistency issue that I can see with either using the redirect or using a piped link. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The consistency issue is that article usage of the phrase is inconsistent. Articles are inconsistently using the "Versions" moniker both with and without. A minority of articles use the "Versions" moniker, even though some do, and I feel as though if you wished to change what is used across all articles to be consistent, you'd have to discuss whether to use "Versions" or not. I feel given the minority of "Versions" usages that the name without it is likely the more consistent name, but it's why I asked for discussion on the Red and Blue talk page. To make this consistent across all articles would require discussion somewhere, and MissingNo's article is not ideal for this purpose. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure if I wish for it to be consistent or not. If there is consistency preferred, then yes, it would need to be done via an RfC somewhere. (Though, I don't see why we could not have an RfC here, unless there is a clear article that is much better for the task.) In any case, my thoughts have been that since there is no consistency, then only this article was being discussed and it does look more formal to use the word Versions once. So, does anyone else want to move forward with an RfC? --Super Goku V (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I proposed Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow for a reason. If a discussion is to be held regarding naming for these games, then it would likely be best off held there, rather than at a random species article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

If a discussion is to be held regarding naming for these games, then it would likely be best off held there [...] To be sure we are on the same page, are we talking about a move discussion or a discussion on how we link to the article? --Super Goku V (talk) 10:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Super Goku V how it's described in the article, as I believe that's what you're talking about. I feel it isn't the COMMONNAME per other reasons described in the discussion, among others, so the title doesn't need a change, but if there needs to be consensus on how it's described in articles that talk page would be the place to do it, I feel. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I am talking about. If it is believed to be best held there, then it should be. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

hate to not be the biggest pedant here, but... nah. not even tpc refers to their games as "pokémon scrimblo version and pokémon bimblo version", or even "pokémon scrimblo and bimblo versions". they just call them "pokémon scrimblo and bimblo". wp:commonname is in full force here, no one should be bothered to type the whole thing every time cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I do not see where it is suggested to "type the whole thing every time" as the original suggestion by Hàlian from my perspective was to use the word Version in the first sentence of the article and the infobox, while I have suggested using it in either the first sentence or the infobox. From what I can see, neither of us has suggested using the word throughout the article.

Additionally: Pokémon Red Version; Pokémon Red Version and Pokémon Blue Version; Pokémon Red Version and Pokémon Green Version, Pokémon Red Version and Pokémon Blue Version, etc. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The Glitch City Research Institute wiki is the primary font of knowledge about glitch pokémon, written by and for the people doing research into Pokémon glitches. For you to call it, and by extension them, unreliable and of low quality is a slap in each of their faces, especially when the so-called “reliable sources” that you undyingly and unthinkingly champion engage only in regurgitating each other's factoids and lies.

I think the point needs to be hammered home that you do not own this article. It wasn't true in August 2016, and it's still not true today. This is a problem that has come up before because of your pointless obstreperousness ᴡʀᴛ editing this article (see, for example, the discussions “Creation of Missingno.” and “Pokémon Yellow” on this page.) Hàlian (talk) 12:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

1. KFM doesn't mean to discredit the work of Glitch City. They're doing admirable stuff, but by the end of the day, Wikipedia needs citations from sources that either have journalistic or academic experience and qualifications, of which they have neither. This is not a personal choice enforced by me and KFM specifically, but is site-wide policy. I am not 100% refreshed on exact reasonings so I'll refrain from clarifying this out of concern I may misword what the policies state, but there are many reasons for this that you can review at their relevant policy page.
2. Do you happen to have a source that verifies that this circular reporting is happening? It would be good to have for clarity's sake, but again, it must have some form of reliable citation to it per site guidelines.
3. KFM never said he owned this article? He's not acting like it either. He's worked a lot on this article, so he has logically done the most research on the article. Out of all users who have worked on researching this topic, he has some of the largest experience with this topic field, so him responding to this discussion is not unreasonable nor coming across as him trying to "beat down" opposing viewpoints or something similar. Immediately jumping to the conclusion that he's editing for negative reasons is an assumption of bad faith.

Also, KFM participated once in the Pokémon Yellow discussion (Where all he did was clarify basic rationales as to why the subject wasn't included) and never responded to the Creation of MissingNo. one, so I don't see any obtrusive behavior here. If you wish to argue your point, please refrain from trying to personally accuse users of malformed beliefs, and back up your own statements with reliable sources. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

What Pokelego said above. Nobody is shooting down the work Glitch City does, but it's not up to standards for Wikipedia. Wikias, due to being handled by contributors, are considered "low quality sources" by default and should never be cited directly. To boot, this is also a Feature Article; sweeping changes should be avoided without heavy discussion and consideration as they can not only destabilize an article but cause it to undergo a Featured Article Review and lose that status later on. And realistically speaking, MissingNo. has been a big target for such good faith change attempts through the years resulting in the discussions on here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

As a question, how does one determine a definitive pronunciation for a word? I have looked at Help:IPA/English and still am not convinced either way if it should be the Y in happy or the I in kit nor the primary/secondary stress part. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The vowel in "missing" is definitely /ɪ/. Check any mainstream dictionary. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:A86B:B4D4:1582:5BA4 (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Oxford is ˈmɪsɪŋ - Merriam-Webster is ˈmi-siŋ - Cambridge is ˈmɪs.ɪŋ - Dictionary.com is ˈmɪs ɪŋ

So it seems that there are different ways to write it, but that /ɪ/ is universally accepted. (I think. I have no idea what Merriam-Webster is doing.) @Hàlian: Does this resolve the pronunciation portion? I know the stress part isn't discussed, but does saying that it is based on the pronunciation of the word missing resolve it? --Super Goku V (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Super Goku V That part of my edit was based on the Wiktionary entry for “missing” and its listed pronunciation for American English, which I've heard even British YouTubers follow. That said, I'm happy with your proposed solution. Hàlian (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Not in American English, per the Wiktionary. Hàlian (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Pronounciation

The article says it's /ˈmɪsɪŋˈnoʊ/ (the last bit pronounced like "no"). What is the source for this? It looks more likely to be short for "missing number", and pronounced that way. The "Gaming Urban Legends" wiki, for example, says it's pronounced "missing number" [4]. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:A86B:B4D4:1582:5BA4 (talk) 10:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I have never heard it referred to as "missing number" in my life and I am a huge Nintendo nerd. I think that that obscure gaming wiki is the outlier, not Wikipedia. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I have seen it written out as "Missing Number" in the past, but it was rare back then and rarer still nowadays. In any case, that is a Fandom site, so it doesn't help here. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

"No." means Numero sign/wikt:№ (it's translingual). 2804:388:6085:CC73:0:53:91C2:4B01 (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I know that, but most people pronounce it as it is written. This one wiki you want to cite is not enough proof to support a change in how this article pronounces it. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't support a change, I reinforced that the current state is correct in my PoV, as the o references Numero. Web-julio (talk) 02:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)