Talk:Dennō Senshi Porygon

I can't upload a video so : can someone slowing down the video and adding a warning at the beginning of the video please ?

(Doing these two things is the best way for the safety of everyone + adding a warning at the start of the video saying WARNING this video can cause epileptic seizures, is the best way to make sure people don't miss it, because people can miss the others warnings which are under the video. Thank you !) Carokdzsf (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Please it's really important, people can be badly injured and can die because of an epileptic seizure. Carokdzsf (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

See WP:NDA and WP:CODI - Community consensus is to not use disclaimers in articles as they already have one, linked at the very bottom of the page, and in this article, its text already implies that disclaimer. theinstantmatrix (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Also the caption under the video says In one of the scenes believed to have caused epileptic seizures Pikachu uses "Thunderbolt" on a cyber missile, causing the screen to flash red and blue rapidly. If they skip reading that I don’t see how any other warning would do any better.--76.67.170.18 (talk) 02:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, you can easily miss this warning that is made after the video. It's like a warning in the description of a youtube video, not many people read the description. That's why it's important to put at least a warning in the beginning of the video (I did it myself but unfortunatly this change was removed. And I don't see why it's such a big problem to add a warning in the beginning of the video.) Carokdzsf (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Carokdzsf, unlike a YouTube description which is collapsed, the caption of the video is literally there. It's like a YouTube title. Indirectly, it warns those with seizures. If those with seizures still decides to click it, welp, it's not our fault. GeraldWL 07:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

99% of the people that come to this page come because they want to read more about the seizures. They already know that it caused seizures. Alexysun (talk) 04:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Ikr. A smart epileptic, unless they have some guts, would never look at the video constantly asking "Cmon where's the seizure?" then gets hospitalized and blame it all on Wikipedia editors not telling them "darling you can die" when they knew they would. GeraldWL 21:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Almost 5 percent is inaccurate

I take issue with the following sentence:

Reaction was swift on the Tokyo Stock Exchange, and Nintendo's shares fell by 400 yen (almost 5%) the following morning to 12,200 yen.

400 of 12600 is a little under 3.2%. It might be almost 5% compared to zero, but by neutral standards it is pretty misleading. The sources that must have come from is not freely available. (the other is focused more on the medical aspects) I'm tempted to just edit it here and now, but since that 5% figure is presented more than once, I would like the opinions of others before I do. -- sarysa (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• I just went forward with it. I'm assuming the difficult to verify source simply used creative rounding. -- sarysa (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Seizures induced by news reports

This article currently includes the following claim

Some had seizures when parts of the scene were rebroadcast during news reports on the seizures.

This claim seems to appear widely in English language sources, but does not appear in Japanese language sources (at least not contemporaneous sources). Additionally, I've never found any specific claims of which particular Japanese news reports replayed the footage in question. The claim is always that it happened, but never any specifics.

Dogasu's Backpack reviewed many different contemporaneous Japanese news reports, and none of them played the footage; at most, they simply showed stills of the scene in question.

In terms of English language sources, they all seem to trace back to this 17 December 1997 Reuters piece by Janet Snyder. Since Reuters is a ubiquitous newswire, other English language sources seemingly relied on Reuters for that claim (such as the CNN article currently cited for this claim on the page, which credits Reuters). I suspect there may have been some kind of miscommunication that resulted in that claim being included in the Reuters piece, because otherwise you would expect this fact to have been widely reported in the Japanese media.

Unless a contemporaneous Japanese news source making this claim is identified, or a Japanese TV news broadcast that does replay the footage is found (or the subsequent apology that would have inevitably happened), I do not think it is reasonable for the claim to remain on this page. --SnorlaxMonster 14:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Guardian article - Pokemon shock as a mass panic

A story in the Guardian provides an interesting perspective, and could warrant some new content in this article. See: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/dec/16/pokemon-explosion-tv-japan-children-hospital . Also, see: Mass psychogenic illness --Marshelec (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Page structure

@QuestFour You have on several occasions attempted to revert to page to the 19 December version. I had initially thought this was a mistake caused by accidentally editing an older version of the page, due to the lack of any explanation in your edit summary.

Could you explain your specific issues with the current page structure, and why you prefer the 19 December version? In your most recent edit summary, you cited MOS:PARA as a reason to remove "needless subheadings", but I don't see the relevance. MOS:PARA talks about what to include in the lead (which hasn't changed), not using bulleted lists in the article body (which this page doesn't), not having too many very short paragraphs (which there are admittedly a few of in the newer version, although in my view are necessary), and not having overly long paragraphs (which the old version definitely has). None of that relates to subheadings, so perhaps you meant to cite a different policy?

If you could explain exactly what your issue with the new structure is, I think we could work out a solution that everyone would be happy with. But at present, I have no idea what your problem is.

Regardless of whether you prefer to older structure or the current structure, I would ask that you do not simply revert to the older revision, as there are a number of other changes by many users (including myself) that have occurred during that time period that you are also reverting when you attempt to revert to the older page structure in this way. Even if the page is to return to that previous structure, it is important to preserve those other changes. -SnorlaxMonster 03:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The main point I was referencing in the policy is "short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading," which applies to the current version's immediate response, effect on the Pokémon anime and changes to television standards sections. Also, per MOS:LEAD, your shortening of the lead is nonconstructive and unnecessary as the previous version (although could use some trimming) is of appropriate length and due weight per the policy. I've restored the former layout while preserving other edits and trimmed the lead appropriately for now; further changes and improvements should be discussed here prior to being implemented. QuestFour (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can reference the "Immediate response", "Effect on the Pokémon anime", and "Changes to television standards" as being "short paragraphs and single sentences". All of those examples include a large number of sentences and multiple paragraphs, and two of them have 5 or more paragraphs. "Immediate response" and "Effect on the Pokémon anime" are two of the longest sections on the entire page, so I really don't understand why you believe them to be too short. --SnorlaxMonster 03:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

In terms of the changes to the lead, there were only two things that I removed: A reference to the effect of Nintendo's stock price, and a reference to the fact that the event has been parodied in popular culture. While the incident had a lot of long-term effects, a temporary drop in Nintendo's stock price (a company not even directly involved in the incident) just barely worth mentioning in the body, but definitely doesn't belong in the lead. And I don't think the pop culture references to the incident are so common that they merit an explicit mention in the lead—the existence of the "Cultural impact" section (which is visible in the TOC) should be sufficient. Instead, longer-term effects, such as changes to television standards, seem like they would be more appropriate to include in the lead than either of those two. --SnorlaxMonster 03:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Dennō Senshi Porygon

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

article was promoted in 2008 with this "review". the article contains many unsourced statements, many duly tagged with {{citation needed}}. ltbdl (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

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.