Talk:Ragnarok Online

message: Ragnarok Is Here  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:3404:B269:E5C5:9556:8A83:7DC0 (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

message: Those removing this section need to give a reason for doing so, or I'll just keep on reverting it. --Resplendent (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no way to argue that private servers have had a huge impact on the game, and leaving them out of an encyclopedia article about RO is frankly irresponsible.  Just because it's "bad" doesn't mean we can't talk about it.  Articles on murder, genocide, bombings, etc. aren't deleted because they're "bad."  Wikipedia's job is to give an accurate overview of the subject, and by not mentioning private servers, it leaves out a big piece of the puzzle. --Resplendent (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

text: The private servers are still not mentioned. What is up with that? Hamhamman (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

text: No matter how fun you do mention it, they are still illegal. Nice try. 180.193.42.165 (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree, as long as there are sources for it. --Resplendent (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Private Server Section 

message: Here's the reason why I reverted it: Look at the sources -- First source is a direct link to a what looks like the code repository of a private server, with no other sources to underscore its notability, the second is legal mumble jumble, while the third source is to a blog. To me it's a clear-cut case of WP:V, and WP:OR. WP:OR because of the cited legal stuff - That source does not mention private servers being legal. Eik Corell (talk) 11:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, here's the reason I reverted it back: The first source is a direct link to a code repository for eAthena, which is the emulation software used for all private servers that are legal based on the second source. If you have questions about what it means, ask a freaking software engineer. You don't go around reverting astrophysics articles because you don't understand the equations they use in their papers, do you? Do you even understand how the law works? 17 USC 102(b) CLEARLY states that methods of operation are not subject to copyright. Check Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc. for precedence. Just because you can't understand law, does not mean you should revert changes. Ok. If you don't feel the third source is verifiable, go ahead and delete that portion. Zeteg (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The legal stuff is irrelevant, and it's being misrepresented. WP:OR says: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.", but that's not even the real issue, which is that eAthena has not, to my knowledge received coverage from a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question. That is the primary criteria for information added to Wikipedia, and from what I see, it fails this. Nutshelled: Unless it has received such coverage, it shouldn't be mentioned. Eik Corell (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your inability to understand a clearly stated law does not mean it's irrelevant, or that it has been misrepresented. The legality is A. The fact that the eAthena source code shows it is clearly an emulation, and not the original Aegis software is B. String A and B together, and you don't even need any sort of original research. This is a clear connection of two sources, and it uses simple logic. Don't even start with me, with your ridiculous argument of coverage. If you want to make that argument, you can delete this entire article and almost every single game article under WP:V. So far on the site, I see iRO (original work) cited, and even a god damn wiki page cited. Zeteg (talk) 07:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how else to explain this, and I'm not gonna bother when you're taking this tone. Instead of repeating myself, I'm gonna link you to an article with a section like what you want to add, only that one is compliance with WP:V - here , second paragraph in that section. I have also called for another editor to come and have a look. Eik Corell (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Eik Corell has asked me to take a look at this as a neutral party, so here's my take on this issue. This actually looks clear-cut; I'm sorry to say Zeteg, that this is pretty much the definition of WP:SYNTH. What you're doing is taking two sources that say different things ("eAthena is an emulator" and "methods of operation are not subject to copyright") and using them to form a third conclusion ("eAthena is the only legal private server"). It doesn't matter that this may be blitheringly obvious to you; what's needed is a reliable source that explicitly says "eAthena is the only legal private server". That gets your content included, the current sources do not. Indeed, I'd query their reliability; the eAthena project link doesn't verify anything to anyone not versed in programming, and Shenglong's Posterous is a blog, failing WP:USERG. Find sources that support your statements, without the need to create a logical axiom to interpret the data. Then there's a case to be made. At present, though, this is not suitable content. Yunshui 雲‍水 00:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, you're right. I'm going to go ahead with your argument, and delete segments of this article that do not cite credible sources. Oh, and your claim above is mistaken. "eAthena is an emulator" + "methods of operation are not subject to copyright" = "eAthena is not subject to copyright" because by definition, an emulator emulates methods of operation. Rather than discount sources that require you to understand code, perhaps you could--oh, I don't know--learn code. In either case, I understand your argument perfectly. As such, I've taken it upon myself to help you clean up this page. I've deleted all material that has no reference, or only has a primary reference (violates WP:PRIMARY). Even though, you know, there's a big banner noting it on the top of the page. After all, these infractions are the same, no? Zeteg (talk) 06:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Private servers 

message: See above section on private servers. Taking Yunshui's arguments, I've deleted portions of this that violate WP:PRIMARY, even though there's a banner. Zeteg (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted your edit. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please explain to me why non-private server information on this page, can violate WP:Primary.  Zeteg (talk) 03:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Primary sources can, and are often used to support info in video game articles. The issue as I understand it, is that there are no secondary or third-party sources to support it. This is a general problem on video game articles, one that is largely tolerated. I just found out something much more problematic than any of this, though - linkrot in the References section; most of them are dead, and when they were already primary ones, that doesn't bode well for the article's quality. Eik Corell (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, now, please tell me why my private server edits were not accepted, while these are, even though they violate WP:V as well. The last part, I can understand. The first part, not at all. "eAthena servers are legal in the USA because of 17 USC 102(b)" is justified by "law saying emulators are legal" + "source code showing OBVIOUS emulation" Zeteg (talk) 07:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Becuase making that leap of logic requires an interpretation of data which is not advanced in any of the sources. Per WP:SYNTH: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Interpreting data in this way, whether the conclusion is correct (as is almost certainly the case with your eAthena example) or incorrect, is not permitted on Wikipedia; it is considered original research. The reliability of the sources is a secondary issue; the problem is your synthesis of sources to reach a conclusion which neither source actually claims. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this serve as "explicit" proof? Zeteg (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly; I can't view the full article without buying it. If it contains a statement such as "eAthena is the only private server which is legal in the USA" or similar, then yes, it would be ideal. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If one article said "Murder is illegal" and another one said "Dan committed murder", would it be inappropriate to say "Dan committed murder, which is illegal"? Zeteg (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, but that's because the statement "murder is illegal" is not likely to be challenged. To use an example directly from the No original research policy: "That "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed." Replace "Paris is the capital of France" with "murder is illegal", and you have your answer. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiable