Talk:Pokémon Gold and Silver beta

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to navigationJump to search

Picture-heavy, no? evkl 23:04, 18 November 2005 (CST)

We have a problem -- this article is almost a direct copy of this page here: Pokémon Gold & Silver - Development Reconstruction

argh. all the pictures are direct copies. Do we have permission?

Well. We can assume that given the kind of reaction I've received from the author of this article, that User:Celebi23 and the author of that page are one and the same... But, seeing as de:Pokémon Gold & Silber (Beta) exists, hmm, it makes matters more confusing. - 振霖T 00:29, 19 November 2005 (CST)

Hi there. I'm xdaniel, the original author of the Pokemon G/S Development Reconstruction article on DigitalZero Domain - my website - which is linked to here. As several parts of this article here were rewritten, i'm not exactly sure if my appearance etc. here is of any importance anymore but i'd still like to express my view on this. The user Celebi23 here and me are definatly not the same person, whoever that was pretty much just copy'n'pasted my article in here without permission. I had no idea about this until I came across this article (and this Wiki in general) via the German PokeWiki. I don't really know much about how Wikis work, but while, as I already stated, parts of the article here were already rewritten, enhanced, etc., i'd still like to ask if someone of you could rewrite it a bit further - things like the structuring by years or the 1997 Pokemon 2 section - and change the link to my article to point to my (German language btw) website with a note about my article (or something similar). I hope you understand my point and opinion. - xdaniel on April 11th, 2006 at ~14:23 (local German time)

You can do that yourself - that's the main feature of a wiki. Unfortunately, I don't understand German, neither do most of the people here. - 振霖T 14:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


I thought I'd catergorize this page, but I'm not sure where to put it. Should it go in Games or Meta? Personally I think Meta but if anyone else has an opinion Ill be glad to hear it

Why not both. You can give an article as many categories as you want. (But don't overdo it.) - 振霖T 03:40, 24 November 2005 (CST)

The pics at the bottom...

Why're they there? Do they really say anything about Route 46 and the National Park? TTEchidna 05:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


One of the links, when I clicked on it, it said that it was suspected of containing malware. Does it? And if it does, we should remove it. TorchicBlaziken (talkedits) 23:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It would really help if you gave the link. The Dark Fiddler - Nos hablamos? 23:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Something i noticed

Probably not that important, but neat nonetheless. In this picture, behind the gold kanji, the red block looks kinda like an angled number 2. I guess that screen was from before they removed the number from the game's title. Morgil27 04:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yea, that's when it was known as Pocket Monsters 2 I believe. I think it is mentioned.--Midnight Blue 04:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

New beta map


It's from here (starts at about the 2min mark)

What would this be categorized under?--immewnitythemew 14:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow. It's in Polish. --Maxim 14:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Here's a recreation of that map: [1] The white fence is the same, but the trees are still the beta ones. --Jurgen200 09:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Silent Hills

Do we have proof that this was the beta name of the starting town? Because this would be interesting trivia to put on New Bark Town's page, especially considering the Silent Hill horror series.--PhantomJunkie 21:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't the beta name of New Bark. It was a completely different starting town.--immewnitythemew 15:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Preoder issues?

This is something that's been bugging me for some time.

I heard there was issues with the first release of games, specifically those sent to people who pre-ordered Pocket Monsters Gold/Silver in Japan; it was a version with the gender option still implemented, but ended up crashing after the gender was chosen. I heard this back on a few websites during the day, and wanted to know the status of this; after all, this is Pokemon, who knows what rumors may've flown about it.

I can say I would trust one of the sites I've heard it from, but it's been so long (10 years!) that I no longer remember it or know if it exists anymore. Lass 01:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Missing Daughter and the Glitch City Ghost

I recently found out about this after finding out about an NPC in the GSC version of Glitch City. She's black and white(almost looking like a ghost) and when she "sees" you the Burned Tower music plays.

That sidequest could have been a lot darker than the SS Aqua one. Sukid 02:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Beta Qwilfish/Chikorita/Marril sprites?

According to this, there were beta sprites of those three Pokemon left in the coding of Gold and Silver. Do these actually exist, and if they do can they be added to the article? Yamiidenryuu 03:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Pocket Monsters GS Demo Data Link

I found this link while surfing the internet and I will say it is very informative. I do believe it should be in the Links section, however, I want you guys to look and decide:

Yes, I do agree with your opinion that some info should be on this article. If we do this, the part that says you're automatically named "Ash Ketchum" should be made to the name being automatically changed to Satoshi because this was in Japan and the U.S. counterpart to Satoshi is Ash Ketchum. So, really, it was probably automatically named Satoshi. JacobTheDoduo 01:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

More beta material

Old Pokemon fansites from the time period have a greater collection of screenshots than is featured here, and more and more are turning up: Much higher resolution of original starting town from Super Game Boy era: [2] Beta Slowpoke Well entrance from Super Game Boy era: [3] Pokemon party screen, showing an egg but no genders: [4] Clefairy Pokedex, with beta numbered footprint: [5] Beta berry tree design: [6] (final pic for comparison: [7]) Beta Poke Mart: [8] National Park entrance, more simplistic fence sprites and no bin: [9] Pre-release screenshots of routes and caves etc: [10] [11] [12] [13]

Four pages of beta information are still online at [14] (Mirror of that site just in case: [15]) --Jurgen200 08:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The second pic, the one with the Beta Slowpoke Well, gives a 404 error. Could you please re-upload it? Also, do you remember the websites you found those pics on? - Ericss 10:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Olivine Beta Map???

I'm sorry, but this looks kinda fake to me. Despite it being a beta map, the other maps are complete, but this on has a black tile with nothing and a house with random inaccessible headbutt trees on it. It just doesn't look real to me. JacobTheDoduo 03:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

That's because the original tilesets these maps used were removed or damaged beyond repair, so the maps are essentially being shown with the final version's tilesets. Hence why many elements do not show up correctly. --Dorsal Axe 17:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. JacobTheDoduo 06:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

More Beta Material again!

Someone at Bulbapedia pages has found another beta material again: <--- Pokémon Gold and Silver Beta Casinò <--- Two new map about Pokémon Gold and Silver Alpha

New beta screenshots

This apparent beta casino and these two other shots were just added to the page. They should be added to the gallery with the other beta screenshots if they're worth keeping. I'd do it myself, but apparently I can't upload pictures. Yamiidenryuu (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

... Wait, I just noticed the above post. Disregard this, I guess. Yamiidenryuu (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Clearer beta images

I found this today, it appears to be a Japanese magazine scan with clearer images of what we have here. New Scan Dehry (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Glitch Dimension

If you look at the Glitch dimension page, you see this during the glitch:

Ho-Oh showing its true colors, in a "clean" Glitch Dimension.

I presume that this exists in the coding in the game but not used in the final version (i.e. beta) Wowy (talk) 06:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Beta content

I found some screenshots on IGN and on Unseen64 that might be useful to show more beta content on the page's screenshots section. Some pictures are large.

--Totodile101 (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

We can't steal content from other websites. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
At least get them from the actual source, which is the Japanese Nintendo page for Gold and Silver. SatoMew 23:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably beta art concept book

Hi Guys, today searching on ebay i found an art book of pocket monsters 2. Take a look. I think that the art book could be a great discovery for details of beta concepts. [16] - unsigned comment from ‎Xtr3m one (talkcontribs)

Beta Safari Zone

Here's some beta gameplay showing someone going into the Safari Zone and encountering level 20-wise Pokemon. This suggests you were supposed to start at Kanto and travel to Johto (like TPP Anniversary Crystal). It also shows beta sprites for Pokemon like Porygon2, Butterfree, and Mankey, among others, which are in a colored RGBY style rather than the final GSC sprites. It shows beta maps, and TONS of info. - unsigned comment from Gs22033 (talkcontribs)

Pokémon Gold SpaceWorld Demo Leak

Should we add the info of the leaked demo, or will the demo get a page? --Prog rocker (talk) 00:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

We don't know if it is legitimate. It could be a hoax to keep the nostalgia train from the recent pre-RG reveals.--ForceFire 05:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
If this is a hoax, It's the most elaborate one i've ever seen, And i highly doubt TCRF would risk their reputation by hosting a fake beta of a game. Bearfan121 (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
So, I guess this means wait and see. --Prog rocker (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Let's grant that TCRF wouldn't deliberately host something fake... They could still be hosting something they think isn't fake, only to later discover that it actually is.
Just because they've hosted it doesn't mean it's 100% authentic. So yeah, we can at least give it more than a couple days to see how it plays out. Tiddlywinks (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
This is approaching the same level of pathetic as when Bulbapedia refused to acknowledge Eternal Flower Floette as real even when multiple people hacked the retail versions of XY to find it with video evidence. It's about as real as anything's ever going to get, and the suggestion that this is a hoax with overwhelming evidence to the contrary is downright embarrassing. How long will Bulbapedia keep its head firmly buried in the sand this time? Did you even do any research before forming your opinion? Fishman (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Dude, calm down. They will post it in due time. I'm sure of it. --Prog rocker (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Protip! Instead of accusing us of just not doing research, maybe suggest some things we may not have seen?
Fact is, we do understand that it looks pretty authentic. (We absolutely do try to be diligent. Just, that doesn't always mean we'll reach the conclusion you want.) We still prefer to wait for a while, since it is still an anonymous leak. Tiddlywinks (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
My problem is, The only way i see it being absolutely 100% confirmed real is if Nintendo admits it's real (Unlikely) or starts issuing takedown notices, I can't see any other way it can be proven real beyond a shadow of a doubt. Bearfan121 (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

(resetting indent)Just have to wait it out for now and be patient. We do need to recall that it is unknown to everyone who even dumped or discovered the rom in the first place and that in the past a representative sold a debug version of Pokemon Ruby to a debug / beta collector. Should be interesting to see what happens from here. :) Frozen Fennec 03:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Occam's Razor suggests to me that it's more likely that it's a legit Beta versus an elaborate ROM hack. I totally understand Fishman's frustration because Bulbapedia has a history of being late to the party with info, but I also understand Bulbapedia's desire to ensure that it's authentic and not jump the gun. That said, I'd say at this point it's pretty much obvious it's official, but if Bulbagarden wants to wait until July 1st to start adding info about it, then that's what's gonna happen. -- Nick15 (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I posted this link on the talk page for Prototype Pokémon designs, and since the discussion here seems to be a lot more lively, I thought I would post it here too: [17] I find it very interesting that a small animation used for Hoothoot in the alleged leaked demo was found in the final game... after the supposed demo was leaked. (Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the demo is 100% true for sure, I'm just bringing up potential evidence as a discussion point.) --Celadonkey 23:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm just gonna throw this out there as possible evidence against it being legit: One of the supposed beta pokemon is just a straight-up rip off of the mascot for a Japanese doughnut chain. And while there is a rumor that the guy who made that mascot also worked at Game Freak at the time, there isn't really any concrete evidence linking the two. Morgil (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Could have been a tribute, like Square did with the Chocobo. IIRC it was a reference to the mascot of a Chocolate factory or something like that. Sorry if my initial question brought problems here.--Prog rocker (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Interesting... There's too much of a resemblance between potential beta Porygon2 and Pon de Lion for it to be a coincidence. Wow. I can't think of any explanation for that. On one hand, that's such a specific reference for a fake ROM to make, but on the other, if it was real, then why did Pon de Lion not exist until 2003? Very interesting find indeed.
No need to apologize, Prog rocker, I think this is a discussion that is worthy of being had. This, if real, would be one of the biggest pieces of Pokémon history, and if fake, would be one of the most disappointing hoaxes of Pokémon history. --Celadonkey 02:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
First time making a comment, so I apologize if I do this incorrectly but- proto Porygon2's resemblance to Pon de Lion should not be considered evidence against the leak as proto Porygon2 also bares a strong resemblance to a LOT of lion-shaped baby toys. Pon de Lion is a cutesy four-legged lion with a donut mane, and proto Porygon2 is a cutesy two-legged lion showing off the graphical upgrade to spheres. Both are just a simplistic lion-based design that anyone could have thought up, so I do think that it can be passed off as coincidence. Yoriven (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nick15; The page being protected until July 1st is not a cue for anyone to add the information. That's just an estimated time to see if this gets proven real or fake by that date.--ForceFire 06:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Force Fire Interestingly, the title screen with the orange and black Ho-Oh sprite does show up in a screenshot at the SpaceWorld '97 off-screen, but it's too far away to make out at first glance, but you can see the orange and black sprite if you zoom in on the image on one ofthe screens, it was posted on the Beta Resetera thread.:

Playable_silverSW97.png User:Tyler11 (User talk:Tyler11

The guy who first started disassembling Pokemon games has written an article with some evidence that they are real prototypes: --Dorsal Axe (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I guess there's a orange and black smudge there? I don't think it's possible to compare it to the 1996 promo nor to the 'leaked' demo.
iimarckus's account proves nothing. The details of the demo could've been read beforehand and the animations and stuff could've been copied and edited from the original Gold/Silver ergo having such similarities. ExLight (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
This just in, random Bulbapedia editor knows more about the inner workings of a rom that is neither a Red Version hack or a Gold Version hack than a person responsible for disassemblies. Expert analysis means nothing because jimbob didn't get confirmation from daddy nintendo that the sky is blue. Fishman (talk) 01:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely, any matching details could easily be attributed to the fact that all of this information is public on the Internet, and that any dedicated hoaxer could have copied every detail. However, I think it's worth mentioning that that image did not exist on the Internet until after the demo was leaked, as Google reverse image search shows.
Right now, I think the link that I and Dorsal Axe posted is the best piece of evidence that we have so far. Hopefully more is revealed through time. --Celadonkey 03:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
The image above? The Black and orange sprite is pretty much unrecognizable. This ain't exactly a high-res camera. As I said, we can't really see if it is the 1996 prototype sprite (which would prove the leak to be fake) or the one from the leak (which could prove the leak to be true)...
ExLight (talk) 04:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@ExLight I zoomed in to the spot I'm talking about to try to get a better look, and took a screenshot of it to get a better look at the sprite, sorry that it's low-res, hope it looks a little more clearer to you. The '2' is missing from the logo, just like on the ROM.:

And I found this 'gif' on 4chan, someone compared the ROM's 'Route 1' with the image's Route 1.:


I do take the entire ROM with a bucket of salt, but it has been an interesting ride, even though I'm on 'Team Real' currently. I think the 1996 build was an earlier build, though, some of the locations in the ROM were present in magazine scans, such as the town with the tower, which had a window on its doors in the scan, and in the ROM, it's just regular wooden doors. My belief in the ROM is merely just an opinion, you may agree or disagree, even it is a clever fake if proven so in the end. Tyler11 (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Very interesting find. Even in that low quality image it's clear that the trees/fences/grass match up.
The one thing that doesn't though, is this blob here:
However, when I checked the actual game to see what goes on there, there's a trainer who wanders around there, and sure enough, he stood in that spot. Seems to check out to me. --Celadonkey 17:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

at this point we're in full desperate denial mode, huh? literally every piece of evidence, even stuff people more or less didn't scrutinize at all or completely missed prior to the proto going public is being ignored because "w-well they could have just made it up based on this photo and not the other way around so it doesn't count!!" give it up and get in touch with reality. there is no rational reason to plug your ears and shout at this point, and that's about all it can be characterized as. the earth isn't flat. Fishman (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

No need to be so aggressive... Bulbapedia's stance is to wait until concrete evidence surfaces, which is a far cry from "desperate denial mode", and even then they discuss it, which takes time. Be patient. If it is true then it will likely be added to the site within a month or so.
If there is a possibility that the people who leaked the demo "could have just made it up based on this photo" as you say in your portrayal of Bulbapedia, even a slight possibility, then staff will decide not to put it up. That's how it works here, you don't have to like it, but there's not much you can do to change it It really isn't worth insulting other editors over..
I do believe that the ROM is real, but I also appreciate the need to confirm everything 100%. Even if that means, God forbid, we have to wait more than a week or two for information to be put up. --Celadonkey 01:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
There will literally never be magical, Nintendo-sourced statements to "100%" confirm that this is real. Expecting that is stupid. At this point, trying to claim that this romhack with hundreds of completely original sprites that anyone with functioning eyes can tell are a bridge between the first and second generation art styles (particularly with gen 1 pokemon) is fake makes about as much sense as claiming that anything we treated as fact before the Spaceworld Proto leaked is fake. There's plenty on this very article that's unsourced that I could just as easily claim are fake just because I don't like them. After all, photoshop exists so anything that doesn't get a press release confirming the legitimacy of is fake. Videos are fake too. Entire games are fake. Reality is fake. Fishman (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Nobody is saying that these leaks are 100% fake. We're just saying we're not 100% sure yet. Yes Occam's razor says the leak is real but until hard concrete evidence comes out that are undisprovable without any doubt then we can't say it's 100% real yet. There isn't yet that has come out, so therefore, we can't put it up yet. Anyways, saying that we can't undoubtedly prove the veracity of these leaks (which != saying they're fake) is a whole nother world from saying that videos, entire games, and reality is fake, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with that.
If you want to help prove these leaks real so they do get onto the wiki officially, then you should probably be a bit less harsh, chill out a bit, and help out with us instead. And again, it's only been a little more than a week, expecting something this huge to be up so quickly is asking for a little much. --Celadonkey 02:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
The level of scientific absurdity reached in this page has gone too far. Even if the leaked ROMs aren't real prototypes, the level of magnitude they got in the social media is too big to simply hide them as if they never existed. I suppose this kind of wiki was made to compile relevant information about Pokémon, so if the ROMs have spread worldwide and almost everybody knows about them, they really deserve a place here. Science is not perfect, it's based on evidences and we make new discoveries everyday, so it's completely normal that we change our minds and end up modifying things (physics, paleontology, medicine, all is open to interpretation and changes). Not adding the leaked ROMs information won't prove you're smarter or correct, but reflect you think you're infallible, and trust me, that's impossible for us. It's not even necessary to add a reference of the leaked ROMs as an immovable truth or the truly lost prototypes, just add them and add a sticky on the top reflecting what they are: leaked ROMs which possibly are the lost prototypes everyone is talking about and had an enormous impact in the fans of the franchise. Is it that hard? Think about it, for example, we have references to the Electric Soldier Porygon incident, we have suppositions about where the Pokémon names could come from and we have even a section dedicated to ROM hacks. You'll end up adding this new information, even if it's all a scam, it's part of Pokémon franchise story, so please, stop being so elitist and open your minds. --Micael Alighieri 13:27, 9 June 2018
A couple of things everyone coming here to be rude seems to be missing:
1. On their twitter account, the bulbapedia webmasters have stated they are waiting a full month before adding anything (more or less to give people time to do all the research on the demo itself and to avoid any possible legal trouble that might come anyone's way from this demo.)
2. While an official confirmation would be delightful, nothing is going to be added until after this month; ultimately, whether or not Spaceworld demo stuff gets added sooner or later is up to the webmasters and Editor-In-Chief to decide.
3. NO ONE is saying this is a rom hack or fake, it's merely speculation that people who have not been to this wiki keep thinking that the whole wiki is thinking. I have seen a comment or two at first wondering if it was real or not but the more info that comes out, the less people are even debating the validity (most users here have come to the conclusion it is very much real but as point 1 states, everyone still needs to wait it out til July).
On that note, I do not see why people are getting so upset that this demo is not being added to the wiki immediately. Even with past betas and demos, they almost rarely were ever added right away, I have to agree with the staff and do not see much reason to change the way they wait out to add certain content. No webmaster or admin here is trying to be smug and act like we are better than everyone else, that's just a very misleading opinion from those who do not come here often. So please refrain from getting hostile towards the wiki while we all wait for the final choice of the Webmasters and Editor-In-Chief, thank you. Frozen Fennec 11:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Frozen Fennec Agreed, people who are acting this level of rudeness need to calm down, and let the staff decide what to do, all I did was provide some images to help provide evidence, which can be seen above, two screenshots, one of them being a zoomed in version to show a blurry tile screen, and s gif comparing a Route to the one in the ROM. It's disappointing to see people acting rude and nasty to the staff when they haven't reached a decision yet. Tyler11 (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is if Nintendo were to be catastrophically stupid enough to pursue LEGAL ACTION against people for making a prototype public, Bulbapedia is willing to match that stupidity and refuse to cover or publish anything found in that prototype? There is literally no reason to pretend this doesn't exist. It's only going to get more embarrassing the longer people insist on keeping their heads in the sand. A wiki isn't a book you have to drag your feet on finishing until the dust settles because you only get one chance to do it. Congratulations on the decision to waste the fact that Bulbapedia is a wiki. We're paralyzed for a month in fear because we wouldn't want to put anything on Bulbapedia that isn't 100% correct. But those Trivia sections, man? Those are perfection. Just vomit random speculation and coincidences into those and press Save. Fishman (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Fishman, Nintendo has pursued legal action over this kind of thing in the past, first of all. Legal action against sites that publish information, such as Serebii. It's really not worth risking.
Besides, the point is that the staff decided to wait because we want to prevent any speculation. Waiting for the dust to settle, you know? If we just let people edit immediately, then what will likely happen is people who are so excited by the reveal will edit whatever information in that they see online before we know if it's correct. That would be a lot of work to edit out, and we want to prevent that kind of deal whenever possible. If we wait a month we will likely know the full details of the demo as well, which we aren't completely sure we do at the moment. Stuff is still being discovered at the moment, such as how to get into caves and ruins with no warp data. It's only been nine days since the alleged demo has been leaked.
We also are still continuing to find more and more information proving the veracity of these leaks. Do we have enough evidence right now? I have no idea, honestly. In my opinion, yes, but it could be argued that there's nothing concrete right now. And even if there was, it's gonna take at least a week for staff to decide whether it should be treated as real or not. Expecting it this soon is asking for a lot. Bulbapedia is arguably the most influential Pokémon fansite out there so we really do need to take the possibility, even a very very very slim one, that it could be fake extremely seriously. If we do put the information up and it turns out to be fake, simply removing it won't repair the possible influence that the existence of the information on the site had.
And even if there is 100%, inarguable evidence, and even if it had been a year since that information was discovered— which is very far from the situation we're in right now— there is still absolutely no reason to be rude to fellow editors, to staff members, and to the site itself. --Celadonkey 21:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

(resetting indent)Protip all around! The complaining, and answering the complaining, isn't really doing anything except making the section longer. If people want to complain further, please leave it be. We'll all live. Anything that could be said in this vein mostly has been, and complainers gonna complain.

We continue to welcome constructive discussion of the subject of the leak (as opposed to simple frustration). Thanks! Tiddlywinks (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Since I am a bit worried that this is turning into another Diancie/Hoopa/Volcanion issue, I think that there needs to be a step taken back on the discussion. Regarding everyone saying that it is a fake or that it is real, I would like to enquire about the July 1st date. What happens if not enough evidence of it being a fake or a real prototype comes out prior to that date? Does it get a separate article stating that it is neither, does the deadline get pushed back, or does a third action occur? In addition, is there a location to post what we believe is evidence for or against this program being the Spaceworld 97 prototype or should such evidence be posted here? --Super goku (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Tiddywinks Well said, I provided some screenshots an a gif above as potential evidence to help give more evidence of the ROM being real, albeit, the stuff is low-res, unfortunately. Tyler11 (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, I don't know Japanese, but you can ask me if I see anything. Just want to know how I can help. --Prog rocker (talk) 03:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Tiddlywinks Helix Chamber enhanced this old '97 pictures, provided by dmrn28 from Twitter, who provided the sketches of the '97 Pokemon, andf enhanced it, and Ho-oh is in the same position as the sprite on the 1997 beta demo title screen.:

Tyler11 (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

So I guess nothing has happened, right? --Prog rocker (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

(resetting indent)There are pages currently in the works here, here, and here. these pages will make there way in the mainspace, they just need to be fleshed out. If anyone wants to add information about the spaceworld demo, feel free to add them to those userpages. Do not add them to the GS beta page or Unused design pages yet.--ForceFire 03:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I sound like a noob, but how can I edit those pages. They don't have the edit button anywhere. --Prog rocker (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
On the top of the page, like all other article. You can edit them freely to add information, it's not protected.--ForceFire 03:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Weird, there's no edit button anywhere. I even used Ctrl+F to make sure I wasn't skipping anything. --Prog rocker (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Oof yeah, I wanted to help out and add the attacks, but it seems that I don't have an edit button either. Yoriven (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Right, you're both new users. You have to be autoconfirmed to be able to edit the userspace. To be autoconfirmed, you have to make a certain amount of edits in the mainspace and be a user for some time.--ForceFire 05:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Got it. I'll find something to do around here. --Prog rocker (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Rather than acting needlessly paranoid over the veracity of what was clearly a legit leak, you people should have looked at the article itself. It assumes that 1997_GS_Route_35.png is Route 35 and connects to National Park, presenting that speculation as a fact. And lo and behold, now that we have access to the prerelease demo, we can see that these assumptions were incorrect. Ericss (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Uuh, you talk about it being speculation while using an anonymous, non confirmed by GF/Nintendo, leak. That's not much better... ExLight (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Ericss, please know that the information was most likely added back when Bulbapedia just started in 2005. Way before the leak surfaced. So obviously we couldn't fact check it since there was nothing to fact check it with.--ForceFire 03:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
ExLight: The point is that people were getting so anal and paranoid over the legitimacy of the leak, yet the clearly baseless speculation in the article got a free pass all these years.
But regarding your comparison. A "non confirmed leak" (just like pretty much every leaked game prototype out there) of what is a clearly legitimate prototype ROM that anyone can verify with an emulator and whose veracity had been accepted by people who have experience at dealing with leaked protos, versus baseless speculation that was never officially confirmed yet was being passed off as fact by the article. Yes, I'll say the situations are rather different.
Force Fire: So? It was still unconfirmed speculation that the article treated as a fact. Ericss (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Everyone failed to recognize the erroneous information. It's done, and fixed now. There's no point to belaboring the issue. We can all try our best, but being perfect is very hard. If you're worried about other pages, feel free to check them yourself and ask about anything you find worrisome. Tiddlywinks (talk) 12:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Spaceworld Implementation

Starting a new section because the last one has gotten quite long- I've been wondering if staff have any idea of how they would like to implement the demo Pokemon. I know some Pokemon that barely differed from their final design could just be added to the Pokemon's regular page as trivia, and that would probably be easier and make more sense than giving every demo Pokemon a separate beta page, but what about demo learnsets or even the base stat info? These differed for many Gen I and II Pokemon.

Also wondering if there's a better location to discuss the implementation of Spaceworld info than on this page. If there is, please direct me. =3 Yoriven (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

There is a page for unused or altered designs. About the more in-depth stuff it doesn't seem to be too relevant since it never came to public. ExLight (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I would agree if this was Smogon, but I don't think Bulbapedia would be a very good resource on all things Pokemon if it neglected to include available information? It's an encyclopedia for Pokefans, not specifically gamers, and someone might find that information interesting and relevant. Yoriven (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I have compiled Spaceworld learnsets for all existing pokemon here. This is just in case it is decided to try to incorporate demo information into the existing pokemon's pages. I have learnsets for all of the scrapped pokemon filled out too, but am saving those for their page mockups.

I have also started to write what little information there is for some of the existing pokemon into trivia notes here. Yoriven (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I just came across this on 4chan, someone thinks the demo could actually have come after Spaceworld 1997's, but who knows for sure.:

Although, another person replied to it said it could be a build made shortly before Spaceworld 1997.:

And this person said this build 'could' be closer to theHobbyfair '98 build.:

Sorry for the link post and edits, I was surfing through the internet for any other things about this. Tyler11 (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I was going to point out that the demo's intro screen could be seen in footage of the Spaceworld 97 event, but you were the one to post the image showing that earlier on this page so I guess I don't really have to tell you. XD
In any case- footage of the event matches the demo, whereas pre-event footage with the 1996 intro screen and older graphics seems more likely to be from a build given out for media coverage beforehand. As for the fan art from the event- they were drawn from memory after the artist's return home, and the comment next to ledyba even remarks something to the effect of "there was a ladybug pokemon but I don't really like ladybugs so" with the implication that it was probably not exactly right because they weren't personally interested in the design.
Here is some recent commentary from the artist, actually: Yoriven (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
The Spaceworld Demo is going to be its own set of pages actually. We have several different articles across the site too. If anyone is able and wants to; they are more than welcome to help edit the articles and make them more complete. It is asked that everyone refrains from adding speculative comments though. Links below to the current work in progress pages:
[| Beta Pokédex entries and Pokémon information]
[| Pokémon Gold and Silver Spaceworld demo / beta]
[| Beta Pokémon information]
Any help that can be given with completing these is welcome.~ Frozen Fennec 13:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I hope I don't sound rude, but it's been well over six months since the public release of the Spaceworld demo, and all the chaos surrounding LGPE has passed. I believe it would be a grave mistake if we don't document this incredibly important piece of Pokémon history in the near future. I also believe that if we start mainspacing information on it little by little, such as a single page on one Pokémon or a page summarizing the demo, then it would spur more interest in adding more and more, and through the teamwork of the contributors of this website, we could very quickly have comprehensive information about the demo up. --Celadonkey (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I have pretty much given up unless Bulbapedia gives any indication that they desire the SpaceWorld articles to ever be mainspaced, but here is the work that I had done awhile ago on the moveset tables for all pokemon who were left out of the final version of the game. Good luck to anyone who is still working hard on this, you're real troopers! Yoriven (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Frozen Fennec and I have been working hard at this page-- I have already sent it to an administrator who said they would pass it on to the others. The future is, in my terribly optimistic opinion, looking bright for Spaceworld information on BP. --celadonk (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Bumping this. Do the staff have an answer as to why this hasn't been mainspaced yet? I know one staff member was adamantly against the leak's legitimacy but it's all but proven at this point. The community has virtually finished all the pages, what's stopping it all from being added? --Pichu Madman26 (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

inb4 someone says "we're focusing on Sword and Shield now"... that's why I was pushing to get it out well before then. But of course, that never happened. Either way, it's been over a month since SS's release and the site has mostly calmed down from that. I don't think it's out of the question to mainspace this stuff now. Apart from that, I don't know what the holdup is... or has ever been. Staff really needs to be more transparent about this stuff.
I feel like I've done enough badgering on this issue on the Discord server, but I feel like if enough people keep bringing it up there might be a chance in the near future. Maybe. Most of the groundwork is already done.
It sucks that such an important thing is being largely ignored by the mods, and regular users are blockaded from doing anything, but hey, that's how Bulbapedia works. --celadonk (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
In the meantime, I'm gonna compile a masterpage of every page needed. If anyone wants to pitch in, it's here. --celadonk (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Spaceworld Information

I've mentioned this before here, but I seriously think it would be in our best interest to start creating pages for the Pokemon Gold spaceworld demo in increments now, rather than all at once when it gets finished somewhere. It has been nearly nine months since the demo surfaced and its veracity has been more than proven.

I have made a few pages myself in my userspace, as have others such as Frozen Fennec, but I would rather not do all the workload of creating pages for every single Pokemon. Rather, I think that if we put up one or two pages, such as Honoguma or something, and a list of Pokemon, it would spur user interest in this incredibly valuable piece of Pokemon history, and we could quickly have a comprehensive database on the demo.

Personally I recommend mainspacing Frozen Fennec's userpage, and then under the Pokemon subsection, put a list of Pokemon with red links, with one or two of the pages created.

Please feel free to reply with your input. --celadonk (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

With the way Helix Chamber and its affiliates handled the alleged "RG leak", it sort of puts doubt on the spaceworld leak, at least in my opinion. If they have the time, effort, and ability to create fake front sprites for the "RG leak", whose to say they don't have the time, effort, and ability to fake the whole thing (that goes for both the "RG leak" and the spaceworld leak). I have always been, and am now 100%, against putting anything from the spaceworld leak on Bulbapedia. We were lucky to get the initial RG scoop last year because is was from an official source, and now a couple month after that a "spaceworld leak" appears from some anonymous source (i.e. not official). It has always been suspicious in my eyes.--ForceFire 06:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Putting fake sprites into a game, and even adding fake Pokémon to it, are fairly straightforward. Creating a whole game that is halfway between the Generation I and II games, which lead to discoveries of unused content in the Generation II games that nobody was previously aware of, is not. You can also read analyses by experts like iiMarckus. Pulling off a fake like this would be virtually impossible. There is no doubt that the demo is real. --SnorlaxMonster 07:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah. Besides, the incident with RG was a completely unrelated one by different people; it shouldn’t affect the proven veracity of Spaceworld. It was probably just capitalizing upon it. --celadonk (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
With that in mind, I still maintain that information should start to be added from the Spaceworld demo, now that we've gotten its legitimacy out of the way. I believe that not documenting it on Bulbapedia would be neglecting a hugely important piece of Pokemon history, especially for how long it has been available for. I'd be more than willing to do some of the work, as I've already done quite a bit in my userspace. --celadonk (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how HC's "Capumon mockup hack" undermines the authenticity of the leaked Spaceworld ROM. That mockup ROM was actually very easy to identify as it is a simple hacked version of an English-language Yellow ROM. It can be identified right away as such and it is obvious that an actual leaked ROM wouldn't look like this (it wouldn't be based on Yellow, work on GBC and be in English). It wasn't even intended as something meant to trick people, more like some kind of fan imagination (it was their error to present it in such a way, creating all that confusion among the fans). The Spaceworld GS demo does not have such betraying features - it has all traits of an independent ROM base, something that would be very hard (if not impossible) to fake in a convincing way. Also, if we take that Helix Chamber are a bunch of scammers who dedicate their time to fabricating fake leaks, why did they never finish the announced translation patch for GS97? This just doesn't make sense. Face it, arguing that GS97 ROM is a hack is nothing more than a conspiracy theory at this moment. Also, to me it sounds like a notable thing for article even if it is a fake (we have articles on numerous fandom phenomena with much less impact than it). My advice about making the article on Spaceworld demo is that I would draw a clear line between the accessible material (since this is actually something that has been made public) and all that unfinished stuff that are not accessible without cheating/debugging. --Maxim (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
That's a good call for that last part, I wouldn't have thought to do that. For individual Pokemon pages for Pokemon unavailable without debug mode, would it be best to put a statement like "This Pokemon is unavailable in the demo without the use of debug mode" or something similar? --celadonk (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Any attempts to add anything about the spaceworld demo still needs approval from the editorial board. I've made my stance pretty clear on this.--ForceFire 03:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
We know that. We’re just discussing. --celadonk (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd encourage people to separate the information Helix Chamber received from the poorly-conceived and mismanaged way in which they chose to reveal it to the world. The source provided them with information in an extremely unhelpful manner (it's the digital equivalent of an amateur digging up an archeological site themselves and handing any artifacts they uncover to experts rather than allowing those experts to excavate and catalogue their findings scientifically) and they did what they could to verify its authenticity. ThomasWinwood (talk) 19:27, 20 April 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 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. --celadonk (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? 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? --celadonk (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I have to agree, this is ridiculous. This is about the only place on the web that refuses to acknowledge the demo's legitimacy. And even then, it seems to be mostly Bulbapedia's staff; people are tired of explaining that the demo has been proved legit, but it all seems to fall on deaf ears. How paranoid and (frankly speaking) clueless can the staff be regarding the subject? Ericss (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Seems my page has been being looked at for about 2 weeks now if I recall correctly. celadonk and staff member abcboy have both helped a lot on it. I am hoping sometime in the next week or two it could be approved so more people can help add on to the page itself as well. While it has been roughly a year since it was confirmed and NO STAFF MEMBER is saying it is "not valid information" and such as you seem to be accusing them of. We always need to wait for them to move the pages to the mainspace which I do not have as much of an issue with. Probably going to try adding a bit more to it later today and seeing if I can ask a little more about mainspacing the article one more time. :) Frozen Fennec 13:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
So the staff isn't debating its authenticity? Ah, my apologies to them then. I'm just frustrated that it has been over a year and it's still not covered by Bulbapedia, userspace aside. I think that's the longest we have gone on without adding widely known verified information. Ericss (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Frozen Fennec, I hope I don't come across as rude, but there has actually been a staff member who has expressed their unfounded opinion that the Spaceworld demo is not valid information, although I will not say who. (It's pretty easy to find out.) And we've been waiting for a year and two days now. We've known it was real for most of that 367-day period. Honestly, I personally do have an issue with continuing to have to wait for really any fruitful acknowledgement or progress.
I might try and work on some pages too but Bulbapedia is pretty low on the life priority list for me, especially as school comes to a close for the year. If I were to decide (which, to be clear, I'm not), I'd say that the article in your userspace is pretty much good enough to mainspace as a solid summary of the ROM, save for certain images that would need to be uploaded. --celadonk (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The Pokedex format seen in the Spaceworld demo ROM can be seen at 10:33 of this video.:

Tyler11 (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The more footage from Spaceworld 1997 that comes up and matches up perfectly with the the "fake Spaceworld leak", the sadder it becomes that some people are still in denial of its veracity. Aside from everything SnorlaxMonster, Maxim, and others pointed out previously, it'd be impossible for it to be fake unless the person who made the leak was actually at Spaceworld 1997 themselves and explored everything possible in the demo, recreated it perfectly 20+ years later, then added in a bunch of inaccessible fake data. It's conspiracy theory at this point. Poliwhirl (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
At this point I doubt that there is anyone in denial apart from one nameless moderator. I think it's mostly just lack of discussion within the moderator team about how to implement it. I know that a few of the mods-- Spriteit and Abcboy come to mind-- have been pushing for action, so the issue at least isn't completely stagnant.
Apart from that, I don't really understand what decision making needs to be done apart from the obvious "yes" to whether we should put information on it on the site-- it's undeniably real, as we've been over many many times, and much of the groundwork has already been done by both average users and moderators in their userspaces.
It makes me wish that a) the mod team was less private/more transparent about important decisions that average members have been pushing for, such as this, and b) that average members had a little more say in what goes on here. That being said, I am very grateful to the two aforementioned mods for being very polite, cooperative, and transparent about this whole issue.
In the meantime, there's a page here that is basically ready to go.
Idk if this is too optimistic or not, but hopefully if I come back in two or so years the all clear will have been given. --celadonk (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I find it extremely odd that the Spaceworld information hasn't been implemented yet. It is borderline indisputable that this is real, there are far too many coincidences. Hell, I have further proof that it's real: the fact Tyranitar isn't in the demo. The MicroGroup Game Review Magazine specifically says that Tyranitar wasn't canon (as were none of the other designs), and this was released in April of 1997. The accurate translation only came to light after the demo's leak when Plague von Karma bought the magazine herself and had Obskyr look at it. Tyranitar wasn't added in until after Spaceworld 1997, quite clearly. The rest not even being in the ROM furthers the evidence of this demo's legitimacy as well as a result of this. The person releasing this could not have known any of this without retranslating this magazine themselves. Why go through all that effort for such a hoax? --Pichu Madman26 (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that's the best piece of evidence, but it shouldn't really matter, because we already are 100% sure it's real. The issue is that most of staff seems to be ignoring this completely.
Other than that, I just want to bump this thread again. I rarely even use Bulbapedia anymore these days but it still disappoints me to see this still being pleaded for.
If any mods are reading this, please at least let us know what's going on. --celadonk (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The scrapped Farftch'd evolution was brouht up by Eurogamer's question in this interview when they were talkking about Sirfetch'd.:

For those who wanted to get right to the section.:

Tyler11 (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to urge staff to look at this again. Sword and Shield release has blown over, I think we can take the time to make this happen. --celadonk (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

We have definitive proof that these leaks were legit. We got confirmation of the origin of these files from the leaks, as the origin of the files is from the same person who hacked Nintendo's servers. Kingdedede (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Not that I question the legitimacy of the SpaceWorld leak (that is, without a doubt, legit) but this whole story about it coming from Nintendo's servers is very dubious to me and by no means can be held as a token of proof. Why would the SpaceWorld beta be saved on Nintendo's servers? Especially considering that it's an old ROM originating from GameFreak. And part of the proof of validity provided by the SpaceWorld team comes from the deterioration found on the ROM file. I don't think that'd be something you'd find on a Nintendo server. Yoriven (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Welp, nevermind that last post, I finally got around to reading into it more. I do still question a bit how well this information can be verified, just because it's hard to really take one person's confession as fact after you've watched a few pre-release season hypes full of fake leaks galore. I'd love to see a good compilation of everything regarding this hack, including whatever proof could be provided to back it up, especially as it seems that there was a lot that poured out of it.
I'd also really like to see some things start to get the greenlight for mainspacing here but I stopped holding my breath awhile ago. =P Yoriven (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Let's Do the SpaceWorld Again

So as I'm sure plenty of people have heard by now, Pokemon Gold and Silver's source code was leaked, and a second Spaceworld demo was leaked alongside it, this time from 1999 rather than 1997. This demo is much closer to the final game, but still features a lot of the same beta elements from the previous demo.

Maybe it's finally time to actually start adding info to this page about these demos, or even set up dedicated sub-pages for them? I don't think the idea that the original leaked demo is fake even has a fraction of a leg to stand on anymore at this point. --Pkmn (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

(This is also a reply to Yoriven above.)
We were actually planning on starting to add Spaceworld '97 stuff around now, but the unfortunate timing of the recent leaks, the hype around it, and the claims of takedown notices some people and sites have received about it (whether those claims have any validity is yet to be decided, IMO, but regardless). Probably, after a couple weeks or so after all the hype has died down, we can start to focus back on that-- a few userspace pages are practically complete anyways and there are images on the Archives already, so it . --celadonk (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Also, the leaks happened recently, so might as well wait until we're sure most stuff has been found. Eridanus (talk) 07:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
(Whoops, ignore the “so it” at the end of my message.) --celadonk (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I did some digging into the leaks just to get an idea of where this was all coming from and why people were so sure of them and boy it's a heck of a lot of information now. Not just a '99 version of the game but also other '97 versions with additional scrapped pokemon- practically a whole timeline of development in hundreds of files. That's surely going to take a lot of time to comb through and I hope we'll get to see a nice compilation of everything that's found in there.Yoriven (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
IMO, when the temporary hold is lifted, we should focus on logging all of the Spaceworld '97 stuff first. --celadonk (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I came here after hearing that there was an addition Spaceworld 1999 leak but was confused as to why it’s not on Bulbapedia. I understand I’m preaching to the choir here, but this information needs to be properly documented in this page and allowed to be viewed on the wiki. There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that it is real, including DMCA takedowns from Nintendo towards YouTubers who made videos about the leaked ROMs. Looking through previous discussions, all it would take it moving the article that Frozen Fennec made into its own article and linking to it from the GS beta page. It is truly a shame that two years after the leaks, we still have nothing to show for it on main articles. Pokebert (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Unobtainable Shiny Pokémon

Under the Unobtainable Shiny Pokémon section is a hidden section, but due to the placement of the <!-- there is an excess line between it and the next section. Could this be removed please?--Tmwps (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. --Spriteit (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Sweet Honey

Sweet Honey has clearly been replaced by Sweet Scent due to the Sweet Scent NPC also owning a Butterfree, please add.--Tmwps (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)