Talk:RPG Maker/Archive 2

message: http://www.enterbrain.co.jp/digifami/sadfact.html
Enterbrain put this up years ago begging people to stop pirating the series. it was ignored. they didnt mention the names of the people responsible since it's assumed they all use aliases, including don miguel himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.198.245 (talk • contribs) (01:55, November 3, 2006)
:yes, that's great...make a SECTION about it, stop adding these "illegally distributed and pirated" comments.  I would also like to point out, that there WAS no offical english version, when RMXP was released in english, I know many websites that immediatly took down the webpage and told people to BUY it. SaderBiscut 07:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A section has been made, and this part of the conversation will be now archived. Kopf1988 00:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof of Piracy 

message: Why were the PC RPG Maker pages merged into this one without a vote being held? Its not up to just one person to decide if pages are merged. every other merger I've seen on wikipedia has had a vote prior to it. Answer me, Elonka. 75.7.198.245 22:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is required for a merge, is consensus.  Wikipedia doesn't work by voting, and voting is actually considered evil. What you may be remembering are AfD discussions, which look like votes because they usually have a bold word Support or Oppose at the beginning of each person's comment, but those aren't votes either, they're just a shorthand.  For example, it's not uncommon for there to be a majority of "keep" comments, but for an article to still be deleted, and vice-versa.  In the case of these merges, to my knowledge, the opinions of multiple good-faith Wikipedia editors are that some of the articles should be merged.  If anyone disagrees, they are welcome to speak up.  Note that an anon user with no contribution history except for the articles in question (or no contribution history at all), though they are welcome to participate in the discussions, are not listened to as carefully as those editors who have worked on many hundreds or thousands of different articles.  See also the description of sockpuppets, and Wikipedia:Straw polls. If it turns out that there is not consensus on what to do with the articles, then I would recommend nominating them for deletion to bring in more opinions on what to do with them, since effectively the merged articles are being "deleted" by being merged. --Elonka 21:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, a consensus wasnt reached either. you just decided on your own without giving anyone a chance to voice their opinion. I have contributed outside of the RPG Maker article too, if you check my contributions. I dont care how many edits you've made to other articles, it doesnt give you the right to bypass the consensus. You didnt give anyone the chance to disagree. you just merged right away. 75.7.198.245 23:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This has been discussed for quite awhile.  Also, please see WP:NPA. --Elonka 20:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't get it twisted. There hasn't been a single personal attack against you. Don't act like there was. --Ixzion 02:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There actually was, but she removed it and replaced it with her own comment. it was from another anon user (not my IP address, so nobody better try sticking it on me). as for it being discussed for "quite a while", no. it wasnt. You said they should be merged, then merged them. Anyways, it doesnt matter anymore since the articles are seperate again. 75.7.207.125 03:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The articles are now seperate, and all the information in the section is obsolete and over-with. This section will be archived. Kopf1988 00:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged WITHOUT voting? 

message: The illegal translations of PC versions has been taken care of and put into it's own section. It is verifiable, via the Publisher of RPG Maker, Enterbrain, and through a second website, which mentions that RPG Maker 2000 (at the time of writing) was available for free via Don Miguel's website. Kopf1988 21:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job. The reason I removed it before is because it seemed to be the main focus of the article, with more info about the piracy than the software. In it's own section, it's great. 75.7.207.125 04:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now that there is a new section, this topic is old. It will be archived. Kopf1988 00:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illegal Translations 

message: The external link section is currently in need of cleanup. Site that are un-noteworthy, or unrelated should be removed. Also, sites that only contain information about, say, PC versions of RPG Makers should be moved to those respective articles.
::Why not get rid of every fansite link completely? just leave the official links for enterbrain and agetec, and then the individual RPG Maker pages can have fansite listings if the people working on them want to do that. Valkysas 15:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, some sites ARE relative.  But most of them for these so called 'notable' games, aren't.SaderBiscut 02:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links Section

message: There are some issues with this, first the legality has always been debated.  Secondly, even if it wasn't there is a difference between an illegally acquired game and an illegal 'translation', which I think it the issue here.  Third, it is totally unnessary as a topic title, at best it needs to be a section.  Fourth, it instantly throws the article out of neutrality in the wording of it.  For this reason, I am changing the section simply to 'illegal distribution' rather than 'illegal translations', frankly I think the section needs a source, but I won't edit it as such, because I don't have one. SaderBiscut 03:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Illegal' Translations?

message: Okay, should we have a page for them, or not link to them at all!? Some games DO add to the encyclypedic value of RPG Maker articles! Games from various eras in RPG Maker history can let people see the differences in design, the various possibilities, and the graphics and music that could be used with each RPG Maker. Voice your opinion! (Remember, voting is evil.) 216.159.78.162 15:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean notable games, not fansites? I dont think they should. as we've seen time and time again, people will add just any random game, even ones that do not yet exist, to the noteworthy games sections. They will take down their competitor's games, or any games they do not like. having a section for them is only going to as for vandalism, regardless of the intent behind the section, or how well written the rules for inclusion are. 75.7.207.125 19:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not venture to add my own site, but as the webmaster of a major RMXP site, I have to say I think the fan sites really need to be represented here. It's kinda stupid not to really. This is a program for amateur game makers, yet the article makes no links to communities of said game makers. Without the game makers and designers, this article exists in limbo. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 11:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you never saw the page when fansites were allowed on here. The list grew by 2 or 3 every single day, people kept removing the biggest fansite links and replacing them with their personal tripod sites, kept messing with the listing order, and constantly added dutch and spanish links, when those are of no use at all to anyone who would be visiting the english wikipedia page. I am stronly against fansites on this page. If people want to add them to each RPG Maker entry, thats fine as long as the site actually supports that RPG Maker and someone is watching that list every single day. but not here. If anyone wants to find a good site for RPG Maker, they can easily go to google.75.7.207.125 13:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I did see the list. I checked these sites fairly regularly when I was setting up rwiki at .org, and I agree it was out of hand. However, other fansite-heavy pages, such as the Avatar: The Last Airbender pages, manage to keep the constant fansite additions to a minimum. They are no different from any other spam: just treat the real, nonvanity content as such, and delete vanity content for obvious reasons. Add an HTML comment if there is not one already. There are a handful of core community sites that are recognised by pretty much everyone involved in the English RPG Maker community, and these should be recognised here. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 13:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And where do you draw the line? How many PC RPG Maker sites? How many console RPG Maker sites? How many PC RPG Maker sites are there worth mentioning that aren't carbon-copies of other sites with a different set of website graphics? 75.7.207.125 20:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The only way I think we should allow fansite links on this page are if the fansites support every RPG Maker, with this being the SERIES page. No sites support every RPG Maker though. They either cater to the PC series, or the console series. This is why they would be best off at their respective RPG Maker's entries.75.7.207.125 23:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Per Wikipedia:External links, we should only link to a couple fansites, if any.  I would stick with the most notable ones, as judged by quantity of web traffic.  If that judgment becomes controversial, then the way that other areas on Wikipedia handle this, is to simply not link to any fansite -- only link to official sources of information. See also WP:CRUFT --Elonka 00:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RPG Maker Fansites 

message: *There is no consensus to perform the move. —Mets501 (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just want to make a point to the comment made last month: EVERY OTHER game series has seperate pages for each installment. This isn't the case; Dynasty Warriors for example sensibly has the whole series on one page. I'd like to re-propose a merge, not with the whole series, but at least with each platform. Marasmusine 12:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The titles are still far too different even on the same platform. people looking for information on them are better served by each title having it's own page. If we ever wish to cover some of the minor variations out there, like RPG Tsukuru for Mobile, it can go on the RPG Maker 2000 page, because it's just a port of that for cellphones. but everything else is way too different.75.7.207.125 01:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay fair enough. Is anyone actively working on these pages? A fair amount of wikification and references are required still. I'd be happy to help but I've only used RPG2000 in the past. Marasmusine 10:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Valkysas is going to do the RPG Maker articles when he has the time. He doesnt have a lot of free time though. 75.7.207.125 18:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the first to split the articles, and I am still working on them to some degree. If you haven't notice, I have added at least one source to the first (3) PC version articles, and a little extra information here and there. I haven't played any of the PlayStation versions, so I can't do too much in those areas. Kopf1988 20:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: So... is "RPG Maker series" the official way to title this article, then, as compared to similar series articles in Wikipedia? Some series articles I see are capitalized, while others aren't. And besides that, I think that now that we have the "This article refers to the whole RPG Maker series. For the first game in the series, also known as 'RPG Maker', please refer to RPG Maker (PlayStation)" at the top of the page, maybe we can rename the article to "RPG Maker." Please put your opinion below, choosing either "RPG Maker", "RPG Maker Series", or "RPG Maker series."
*RPG Maker Now that we have the reference at the top, using just RPG Maker will be simplest and most convienient. We will have to remember to change the link at the top of the template, and some other redirects. Kopf1988 00:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Well, you see, the RPG Maker Series article was almost a complete rewrite of the RPG Maker article, and it was begun while RPG Maker still existed. We could archive it on this page, then move this page to RPG Maker. Kopf1988 21:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the only problem would be getting an admin to delete the old article so we can move this one to the 'RPG Maker' namespace, I guess. NeoChaosX  (he shoots, he scores!) 02:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User_talk:Valkysas Perhaps... Valk could help :) Kopf1988 02:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RPG Maker Series, or series, or simply RPG Maker 

message: Hi.  I've just moved this article from RPG Maker (series) to RPG Maker.  There was a substantial history already located at RPG Maker, and the current article was split off to RPG Maker Series on August 30, 2006, after which no substantial additions were make to the original article, which eventually became a redirect to the split article.  The split article was moved twice before today, first to RPG Maker series and then to RPG Maker (series).  Now it's back at its original location, and I've merged the pre-split history from RPG Maker with the post-split history that's been updated and moved around since then.  (I hope that made some sense.)
Anyway, there was a substantial talk page already at Talk:RPG Maker, which I just moved to Talk:RPG Maker/Archive 1, making way to move Talk:RPG Maker (series) here.  Enjoy. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: I did lots of cleanup to the PS1 Article.  But it needs A LOT MORE clean-up to be done.  Appreciated if someone could do it. --Putmalk 00:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PS1 Article 

message: hey i would like to see some sort of citation for the games released before tsukuru 95 (rpg maker 95)
i have seen sprite sheets that were in rpg maker 95 format but said dante 98. that is the only time i have ever heard of dante 98 in all my time surfing rpg maker sites. i played super dante for the super famicom, but i have never heard of mamirin, dungeon manjirou rpg construction tool dante, dante 2, chimes quest, or dungeon rpg tsukuru dandan dungeon and have only seen that one sprite sheet from dante 98 and dont know anything about the software. so are these real programs? without verifiable citations, a person can't tell if these are real products that were released in japan, or if some nerd just made up some silly names to pad out the list of rpg makers? let's get some sources (even on japanese websites) for these early titles. 208.103.184.146 14:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put in the list the sources that at least prove the programs listed surely existed. I couldn't find sources for Mamirin which can be considered reliable though, but from what I've gathered, I can tell that it is most likely true that a PC game called Mamirin existed and that it was a program to develop a Dragon Warrior-like RPG.--Neko jarashi 23:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: early rpg maker software

message: Please add the Software infobox for this program.  Thanks.  The Behnam 22:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also try to clean up Fighter Maker if you can.  The Behnam 22:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why ask for us to edit an unrelated article? that's pretty damn pointless. 75.14.34.136 21:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: What is an RTP? The article mentions it, but doesn’t say what it is. —Frungi (talk) 06:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the Run-Time-Package. A group of files, such as music and images, used to create games with. 24.140.55.164 (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RTP? 

message: I have composed a to-do list for all of the RPG Maker articles. If we can get cracking on these one at a time, the list will hopefully shrink quickly, and we will have some great articles. Here's what we need:
* Have a proper screenshot for each different version
* Each version should have a screenshot of the database, and the Action List (i'm not sure what it's officially called, but it's the one in which you tell events exactly what they do, such as show a Message Box, or move a character)
* Decide upon the official name for the general series article, and then fix redirects
* Create an information box, similar to the one at the top-right of Final Fantasy
* Update the information on every single one of the PlayStation version articles
* Consider the inclusion of character-set pictures in a couple articles
* Provide at least two (2) sources on the RPG Maker PlayStation articles (for now).
* Update the RMXP article, which should be a priority since it is the most recent version, and is in english.
Kopf1988 20:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RPG Maker To Do List 

message: Hi!! I am just want to know is IG Maker is part of RPG Maker Series?--Woad85 (talk) 07:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  IG Maker? 

message: there isnt any rpg maker vx ace article so the link just leads to the rpg maker vx article instead which lacks knowledge of vx ace. could someone either write an article on vx ace or remove the link?84.208.60.156 (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  could someone fix the broken link from vx ace