Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:MissingNo.. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:MissingNo., but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:MissingNo. in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:MissingNo. you have here. The definition of the word Talk:MissingNo. will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:MissingNo., as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
RFV
Latest comment: 13 years ago25 comments10 people in discussion
This entry has all the necessary citations, I think. The real problem is that this is a specific entity, for which we have no set rules. --Yair rand (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
It comes from a fictional universe. For those we have fictional universe rules, which invalidates all the Usenet quotations by itself. -- Prince Kassad01:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Except that it isn't from a fictional universe. It is a glitch existing inside of a commercial product, a video game. The fact that the video game uses a fictional universe is irrelevant. The bug itself is not part of the fictional universe. --Yair rand (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Interestingly, a few of the cites seem to take the view that it is part of the fictional universe of the game, albeit an unintentional one. That is, it seems like there are two senses: (1) a certain glitch; (2) a sort of pseudocharacter in the game that results from the glitch. But regardless: move to RFD and delete, per your first comment above. —RuakhTALK02:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Keep per WT:CFI and WT:FICTION. The latter provides criteria for inclusion as applied to terms originating in fictional universes. "MissingNo." did not originate in any fictional universe.
I don't think that considering it a "true" Pokémon would necessarily generate a new sense. It certainly would be similar to considering Windows 95 a fictional character based on OS-tan.
The phenomenon of rationalizing MissingNo. as a fictional character is addressed on the article MissingNo. of Wikipedia:
Encountering MissingNo. causes graphical errors and the mass replication of the sixth item in the player's item menu; the latter effect resulted in the glitch's coverage by strategy guides and game magazines. IGN has noted MissingNo.'s appearance in Pokémon Red and Blue as one of the most famous video game glitches. Fans of the series have attempted to rationalize MissingNo. as canon, which has sparked discussion in sociological studies about the impact of video games upon society.
I don't agree. That entire quotation seems to be treating MissingNo. as a character; the last sentence merely distinguishes "character" from "canon character". Note, for example, that the previous sentence describes "MissingNo.'s appearance" as a glitch, rather than describing MissingNo. itself as one. —RuakhTALK17:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Keep; it strikes me as exactly analogous to the F00F bug, which can not be dismissed as fictional. Clarifying CFI seems like a good idea; we seem to be spending a disproportionate amount of time arguing over words that are clearly citable as English, but are in some way limited or proprietary.--Prosfilaes21:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
I consider the video game to be part of the fictional universe. It's true, we don't "cite" video games. I can only imagine the headaches in trying to do so, and for what purpose (even if they could be considered durably archived)? But this term does originate from the video game, and that video game is a work with reference to the fictional universe. IMO a definition of MissingNo. as a species of Pokémon would be subject to WT:FICTION. Most of the quotations fall into this class. However, a definition of MissingNo. as a glitch is a term that was adapted to describe the video game, not one that originated from within. WT:CFI does not make this distinction clear, but we all know intuitively that if this happens for e.g. genericized trademarks then the etymology does not disqualify the term. Per Yair rand and Ruakh, this definition as written is of a specific entity. In that case the rules are unwritten, and I would apply a stronger criterion of metaphorical use that is probably less likely to be met than what this request is asking for. So delete unless it can be defined outside of the universe. DAVilla01:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Let's set aside the issue of text from video games being citable or durably archived. First of all, we should not delete any attestable entry or definition just because there is potential for developing a novel rule that would exclude said term or definition. Secondly, DAVilla, mentioning in this discussion that you consider "the video game to be part of the fictional universe" apparently stems from a misleading simplification. Not all words that reference a video game are fictional in origin or in nature. For example, MissingNo. is a glitch of the game "Pokémon Red". The name of this game is a brand name and not of fictional origin, thus WT:BRAND, not WT:FICTION, applies to the possible inclusion of Pokémon Red as an entry. As a similar example, according to Wikipedia, the video games of the "Higurashi When They Cry" series depict a fictional universe and were made with NScripter. If, hypothetically, this engine has functions and bugs named in English, WT:FICTION simply would not be the right policy to define whether or not to include said functions and bugs here. --Daniel.03:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
I didn't say that you or anyone in particular should delete the entry because of a potential criterion. I said that I believe the entry should be deleted (as a result of this discussion), and I gave the potential criterion as my basis for voting that way, stating that the rules are unwritten so as to avoid making it appear that metaphorical use is the accepted standard. But others are certainly in their right to delete on different grounds, or to vote the other way. In my opinion, MissingNo. defined as a glitch is a specific entity that, as with nearly every proper noun in the yellowbook, has not entered the English lexicon.
Frankly I would think that WT:BRAND, being a much stronger set of criteria, (in fact so strong that there have been complaints that nothing has passed under it,) supersedes WT:FICTION. But even WT:BRAND doesn't apply to genericized trademarks, terms in common usage where the meaning is a product of this type rather than of this make. You are ignoring my argument, that one must consider the definition being analyzed before considering the origin. So I would have to almost completely dismiss your analogy.
I reiterate that MissingNo. defined as a species must, as I see it, pass WT:FICTION because it originated in the corpus of works, be they books or video games or movies, that is immersed in the fantasy of that universe. (Frankly I don't understand why that would invalidate all citations from that corpus, instead of say all but one on the grounds of independence, but those are the rules we agreed to, so those are the rules to interpret and apply.) DAVilla02:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
DAVilla, sorry if I'm mistaken, but I don't think that I gave the impression that I have ignored your words. By saying "First of all, we should not delete any attestable entry or definition just because there is potential for developing a novel rule that would exclude said term or definition.", I am not opposing the possibilities of defending and/or developing and/or applying a novel rule.
The origin of the definition is important according to WT:FICTION, with its wording "These are examples of the criteria for inclusion as applied to terms originating in fictional universes such as Star Wars, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and Dungeons and Dragons. Examples below include lightsaber, protocol droid, Darth Vadar, and Vulcan." (I edited the italics myself)
In addition, we are not talking about a fictional glitch (for example, a glitch of a fictional machine), but a real glitch. The fact that it is closely related to a fictional universe does not make MissingNo. fictional. As other examples, there are Pokéfan and Pokémaniac as "real" words and of "real" origin.
I'm fine with applying possible rules of inclusion or exclusion of specific entities to MissingNo. as a glitch. I'm not sure about considering it a fictional character, but this may be argued (and probably excluded either way, given our current rules). --Daniel.06:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Okay, it looks like we're coming to understand each other. You say you're not sure about considering MissingNo. as a fictional character, but I'm thinking that's the only way it can make it. Since that wouldn't be a specific entity, there would be tighter rules and it wouldn't be subject to complete discretion at RFD. As a specific entity, I'm assuming here that there would be consensus to delete. There's always the possibility I could be wrong about that since it would, after all, require consensus, but so far we seem to have it. So better to try proving its use as the species, which isn't a specific entity and less subject to whim. Anyways that's what many of the quotes so far indicate it to mean.
Realize that I've only ever suggested applying WT:FICTION to MissingNo. in this sense of a fictional character. In the current sense of a (very real) glitch, I couldn't give a damn what WT:FICTION says, as I believe very strongly that it shouldn't apply, regardless of how the wording could be tangled. Prince Kassad might (or someone with that viewpoint could) argue that the video game is a work immersed in the fictional universe, that the string of letters MissingNo. was first seen within that game, and that the term whose definition is the glitch likewise originated within that universe. I agree with all but the last, and in every post I have been iterating that there is a critical change in meaning between the statements "Wild MISSINGNO. appeared!" and "How do you fix MISSINGNO.?". MissingNo. the creature originated within the Pokémon universe, MissingNo. the glitch did not. DAVilla07:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
I don't see a consensus particularly inclined to deleting MissingNo. as an individual entity. Perhaps the future voting Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-12/CFI amendment will shed a light on the situation. I humbly consider unprofessional and ridiculous the suggestion of emphasizing a single word on CFI as "not permitted", but it may be improved.
How would MissingNo. have a chance to be kept if it is considered a fictional character and not an individual entity? Pikachu and Gyarados are Pokémon species and presumably excluded according to WT:FICTION.
The citations of Citations:MissingNo. that qualify it as a glitch but don't mention it as a character include:
"MissingNo. is a deadly glitch, that's why it was removed from Yellow. It's on Red and blue because it was part of the initial testing software."
"Everyone has a hissy fit if you so much as mention the name of this little glitch. I had played through Yellow and then Blue and not having anything else to do I tried the Missingno thing."
"MissingNO is a programming quirk, and not a real part of the game."
In addition, there are multiple citations that demonstrate both characteristics of a glitch and of a character. I assume the concept of "capture" of the following sentence is fictional:
"MissingNo. is a glitch in the game. NEVER TRY TO CAPTURE IT! It will screw up your game, but it brings some advantages just by encountering it: "
In this case, it can be considered an indication of both senses. Similarly, in the sentence "The noble blood that runs through my veins.", we can notice blood as the substance and as ancestry.
However, MissingNo. is defined (currently, after a few revisions) as:
A glitch of the games Pokémon Red and Pokémon Blue that is a common result of trying to access data for a nonexistent Pokémon species and that imitates a Pokémon species whose image is comprised of random pixels.
How would a separate hypothetical definition for a character be worded? Perhaps like this?
The hypothetical second sense is very similar to the first one. In fact, this distinction is akin to creating a new definition of "king" as a class of fictional characters, because there are (many) fictional kings. I believe the fictionality is simply a nuance of the unique sense.
Naturally, my counterargument whose basic idea is "WT:FICTION does not apply to MissingNo., because it is a real glitch." is directed to people who consider MissingNo. fictional, especially if they don't actively defend a distinction between the senses of "fictional character" and "real glitch".
Namely, I disagree with Kassad's "It comes from a fictional universe. For those we have fictional universe rules, which invalidates all the Usenet quotations by itself.". In addition, Equinox' laconic "Needs citations that meet WT:CFI." does not particularly mention that policy, but he has repeatedly labelled certain words as universe-specific to be deleted, so he may or may not be expressing this opinion once more. --Daniel.14:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm with you on the last part, which is why a distinction between character and glitch is necessary in the first place, so as to tame and qualify those sentiments. By the way, besides those two contributors, you would also have Ruakh, Beobach and myself voting to delete. Yair rand and Tooironic have not given an indication as far as I can tell, and only Prosfilaes has sided with you. I would give a tally except this RFV cannot be construed as a formal vote. I hardly consider the targeted CFI amendment to be serious either, although the points being considered on the talk page aren't so illegitimate.
As far as categorizing each quotation, you're also entirely right that there could be a mixture of meaning. I was very careful to select the two example quotations since it doesn't make sense to correct a species nor for a wild concept to appear. "Wild MISSINGNO. appeared!" is clearly a character, and "How do you fix MISSINGNO.?" is clearly a glitch. I would say that anon's "MissingNo. is a glitch in the game. NEVER TRY TO CAPTURE IT!" lends a lot more weight to the idea of it being a character than to a glitch, just as "the noble is a glitch in Nietzsche's system" and "Internet is a glitch on the regulatory system" do not use is to actually define noble and Internet. In fact it is the first three quotations you give that could ambiguously support either sense of figure or concept.
Still, just as with shades of king, this is mostly irrelevant if you would simply concede to applying WT:FICTION in finding citations for the character, since the glitch as a specific entity is more subjective. But perhaps you've had an unfavorable impression. Pray tell, why are Pikachu and Gyarados excluded? DAVilla11:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for restoring and attesting Pikachu. Yes, I probably had an unfavorable impression on how CFI applies to Pokémon species. Notably, (as mentioned in a related current BP discussion) WT:FICTION's example "Wielding his flashlight like a lightsaber, Kyle sent golden shafts slicing through the swirling vapors." qualifies lightsaber to be defined in the main namespace while it arguably isn't actually independent from Star Wars, so I conclude the concept of independence from that policy is broad enough to allow various modern fictional terms.
The citations that mention the status of MissingNo. in "Red", "Blue" and "Yellow" are not so ambiguous if we know that these three colors are names of video games. Other sentences that mention words like "video game" or "play" may be even more precise.
Please clarify: from your proposal of applying WT:FICTION to MissingNo. as a fictional character, how its status as a "glitch" would be mentioned? In the etymology, or maybe as a separate sense? Or the current entry as it is now, without any changes? --Daniel.07:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
It would be a character that arose from a glitch in the game. There's nothing wrong with mentioning that in the definition, since there's more than enough evidence to support it. Verification is only necessary to allow the term to exist in the first place. Well, usually only. Sometimes it's sought for other parts like the etymology say, but in this case as with most there's no question as to the facts, only the linguistic importance, if you will. DAVilla16:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago32 comments13 people in discussion
This passed RFV only because of certain inaccuracies regarding the definition of "fictional universe" as set in WT:FICTION. However, a regular RFD is still possible, which is what I am doing here right now, because if we were to include all game glitches... better not think about it. -- Liliana•19:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
I don't think it's worth my while to dig them up, but I dare say I could name fifty, dating right back to "Attic Bug" in Jet Set Willy (1983). Doom alone has at least three popular glitch names ("tutti-frutti effect", "Venetian blind crash", "voodoo doll"), plus the more widely-used hall of mirrors. Delete as before. Equinox◑13:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Keep, as I see no compelling reason for deletion. The nominator Liliana seems to say that the term refers to an entity originating from a fictional universe. If that thesis is accepted, WT:FICTION applies; some citations for this term are at Citations:MissingNo., and the nominator would assert that none of the citations meet WT:FICTION. However, I find the thesis that a glitch of a computer game is not an entity originating from a fictional universe rather compelling.
Furthermore, this sentence from CFI is a useful commentary on the sort of extra-CFI arguments that say that if we include this term, we have to include other terms which will be the end of the world as we know it: "There is occasionally concern that adding an entry for a particular term will lead to entries for a large number of similar terms. This is not a problem, as each term is considered on its own based on its usage, not on the usage of terms similar in form."
I do not see what horrible thing would happen if we included all attestable names of game glitches. The notion that "better not think about it" seems free from any reasoning or articulation. --Dan Polansky18:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
The thing is, this doesn't describe the glitch. It describes the character. It is clearly used to refer to a supposed Pokémon character who is not part of canon and can only be seen by exploiting the bug in the program. So it's as if a group of players of a certain game nicknamed a certain jagged spiky piece of wall (not intended by the level designers) as "Spiko". It's a name for a specific entity, not a generic word for a thing, and should fail on the same kind of grounds as Tiny Tim or Clifford the Big Red Dog. i.e., and in a logically consistent way, Delete this fan-made Pokémon character just like we have deleted the official Pokémon characters.Equinox◑23:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
MissingNo. has two senses: one for the glitch and one for the character.
(When you created the RFV discussion for it in 1 December 2011, it had only one sense: "A well-known glitch in the form of a peculiar Pokémon species, which is a common result of trying to access data for a nonexistent Pokémon species in the games Pokémon Red or Pokémon Blue.", which I don't think was well-worded: It may be for the glitch only, or it may be arguably ambiguous as to whether it defines a character as well. During that RFV discussion that focused on the existence of both the glitch and the character, I split the entry (diff) between two senses, whose wording was subsequently refined in the next months.)
The practice of counting votes here reminds me of Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-12/CFI amendment (that said: "Notwithstanding any other rules and regulations, the term MissingNo. is not permitted at the English Wiktionary."), which was created — and, deleted after a short life — by the person who started this very RFD discussion.
If we consider that proposals formally need a 2/3 supermajority to pass (in this case, the proposal is "deleting MissingNo."), then if some other person vote Delete (and nobody else balances the tally with more Keep votes) then that happens.
But, in any event, I personally dislike this method as it disregards our actual inclusion rules written down on WT:CFI. "delete, not dictionary material" (much like the opposite claim: "keep, dictionary material") is a circular argument, on the same lines as "delete, because it should be deleted". It is just repeating yourself.
All arguments pro-deletion of MissingNo. as a glitch here have been refuted, so I conclude the sense #1 should stay. The people who "voted" to delete MissingNo., either as a fictional character or without explanations, did not seem to acknowledge that the glitch and the character are two distinct concepts defined as two separate senses and did not answer my questions.
However, I honestly don't think its citations pass WT:FICTION, at the moment, so perhaps the sense #2 can actually be deleted or cited in the future, anyway. RFV would be the place for that. --Daniel18:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
See my comment above. "The thing is, this doesn't describe the glitch. It describes the character." The fact that you replied to it doesn't mean you successfully refuted it. Equinox◑19:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
There are two separate definitions in the entry, one dealing with the glitch and one with the "character". (I wouldn't mind deleting the character one unless it would be directly going against policy to do so.) --Yair rand (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
@Equinox: "The thing is, this doesn't describe the glitch. It describes the character." is not an " pro-deletion of MissingNo. as a glitch" because you are not supporting the deletion of the glitch sense in that specific statement (although you do support that in a previous message); apparently, you are ignoring it or interpreting it as "not a glitch sense".
Nonetheless, even that has been refuted as I pointed out the exact sense numbers where the character and the glitch are defined and even told some historical background. --Daniel19:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Please read the conversation above to find the answer to that question. I don't mean to be rude, (maybe assertive and confident, but not rude) but you are simply ignoring it. I'd rather not to repeat what has been said, once again. --Daniel20:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
(Additionally, one of the definitions is not referring to a Pokemon species, so it would not make sense to move the entry there even if it weren't the case that, as Daniel pointed out above, Appendix subpage entries are banned.) --Yair rand (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Eirikr, the fact that a red link exists is not enough justification to create the linked page. Note how that argument works both ways: MissingNo. is linked too, from a number of pages, including here, but that does not by itself mean that the entry should exist.
Not to mention that the format Appendix:Pokémon/MissingNo. is inappropriate, as I already said, so all the hundreds (a couple thousands, maybe?) of links to subpages of Appendix:Pokémon listed in Appendix:Pokémon species will have to be edited some way, or removed, to conform to policy.
In fact, I misread your signature and thought that it was Equinox who said "This term is already listed at Appendix:Pokémon_species "; and I directed my blunt reply at him. Since it's you, I thought I could give a longer and more explanatory reply. --Daniel20:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
@Yair, @Daniel --
Thank you for pointing out again the apparent ban on appendix subpages. I'd read through the vote page at ] some time back and found myself rather confused, as the proposal wording seemed to say one thing and the discussion seemed to say another; at any rate, it's been a few months since then, and I had forgotten about that vote.
(FWIW, had I participated in that vote, I would have argued that full-blown entry-style individual pages for fictional-universe terms are fine if people have the interest and energy to create them, so long as they are kept in an appendix until and unless they meet CFI for the main namespace. Given the sizable number of appendix sub-page term entries, and given the lack of work done to convert these to the single-page format decided on in that vote, perhaps the issue should be revisited?)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Even if Appendix:Pokémon species covers one or two senses of MissingNo., they can be repeated as an entry if they meet WT:CFI. Both Care Bear and Appendix:Care Bears define "Care Bear" as a fictional creature; assuming that it meets CFI, then the entry is allowed while the appendix serves as an index of both allowed and not allowed terms related to that franchise. It is not a replacement for the entry itself.
By the way, Appendix:Pokémon species defines MissingNo. as "the result of accessing a data point not programmed with a Pokémon" after the introductions "In addition to the official Pokémon, there are unofficial ones." and "Some peculiar Pokémon species may appear in video games as a result of glitches." They are informative to some extent, but still very poor in comparison with the entry MissingNo. In fact, the appendix definition seems to be directed at people who already know what MissingNo. is, at least because "data point" is technical jargon and its pertinence is obscure.
There was quite a lot of work done to convert "full-blown entry-style individual pages for fictional-universe terms" to lines in single-page umbrella appendices such as Appendix:Elfen Lied (although, I acknowledge that dozens of pages still need to be converted in the future). The contents in Category:Appendices of works of fiction could become some hundreds of individual pages if they were converted to that banned format, counting deleted pages for inflections, such as Appendix:Pokémon/Fire Stones. --Daniel18:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
About MissingNo., I happily acknowledge that the current main namespace entry includes content not found at Appendix:Pokémon species. I had intended to point out that the Appendix page has places for the content currently at the main namespace entry, i.e. somewhere appropriate to move that content to. I did not intend that the Appendix page, as it currently stands, already contains that information. Sorry for any confusion.
And regarding appendix sub-pages, I meant that subpages or single pages are both fine, in my view -- if an appendix is in single-page format, and the people working on that appendix are fine with that format, then great. Likewise for appendices with subpages. Just from my own point of view, I do not see much utility in changing from one format to the next, unless there is some appreciable improvement in usability and/or content. But that's just me. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig18:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
OK, I acknowledge that "the Appendix page has places for the content currently at the main namespace entry, i.e. somewhere appropriate to move that content to". It follows that: 1) either the entry is deleted and completely moved to the appendix; 2) or the entry is kept and merely copied to the appendix. If the latter happens, both the appendix and the entry can simultaneously be great places to learn what "MissingNo." means.
Alternative outcomes: 3) the fictional sense in the entry is deleted while the glitch sense is kept; 4) the senses are merged into one, along the lines of "a glitch that happens when (insert technical information here) and is often rationalized as a fictional character".
Personally, I agree that subpages and single pages are both fine. However, I have a minor complaint about the current system: in my experience, the single page lists are visually a bad place for additional information about individual words, such as their pronunciations, audio files, etymologies, synonyms, antonyms, usage notes, derived terms and translations; especially, translations. If an appendix of fiction warrants all that information to begin with, it would be better arranged in the entry style. --Daniel23:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure what to say here about keeping or deleting but as a long time Pokémon player, sense no. 2 seems like bullshit to me. None of the citations seem to be using it and I have never heard of it. MissingNo. is a glitch Pokémon and no more, not a fanmade character. Some of those citations sound retarded and ignorant to me too...but that's beside the point here I guess. 50 Xylophone Playerstalk19:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
Keep but move to Appendix:Pokémon. ~ Robin 01:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
