Talk:M.U.G.E.N/Archive 2

message: I have archived the old talk page to give this a fresh, clean slate. If anyone has questions regarding certain informational bits, check out the Archived talk page to see if the topic in question has already been discussed. Blacklist 06:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

message: What do this means for MUGEN users?  What do Elecbyte has in store for their users?
:It means absolutely, positively, nothing until they do something. As it stands all that's there is a webpage, that could've been put up by anyone. Anything beyond that fact is speculation.--Kung Fu Man 18:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether it's Elecbyte or a group of hackers, they're cashing in on the Google Ads and probably not going to do anything with the site. Borrada 14:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Hackers. Click on the FAQ link on the site. It leads to some spam site about monkeys. 75.120.101.109 14:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Now that Elecbyte, LLC (creators of M.U.G.E.N) is back online . . .

message: How should the spelling of M.U.G.E.N be cleared up?  As it stands, the screenshot of the title screen is shown prominently.  That screen and it being displayed here is the primary source of confusion.  Here are couple solutions to this.
* Use a screenshot of the title screen without the N--deceitful although intentions are to clear up confusion, but might also create it.
* Use an alternate screenshot--doesn't display the main screen.
* Leave the screenshot with the misspelling with an explanation in the article--immediate confusion still remains for those who read pictures first in an article.
Discuss?  Vote?  I dunno.  I personally like the first option. Messatsu 05:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go with the first option: seems better overall to show the forward face of mugen itself, and leave other screenshots for the rest of the article.--Kung Fu Man 12:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now that M.U.G.E.N is in the correct spot... 

message: Is the following line even worth mentioning?
Creators of M.U.G.E.N content are from all over the globe, most notably including American, Brazilian, Japanese, Chinese, and French creators. Messatsu 00:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly? It isn't. Just somehow got left in because everyone felt it was fair to the other parts of the community and all that good jazz.--Kung Fu Man 17:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nitpicking 

message: "However, M.U.G.E.N is a forgotten acronym, referring to the days when the engine was meant to emulate shooting games as opposed to fighting games as stated by Elecbyte, therefore the real meaning of M.U.G.E.N is and always will be unknown."
 What does this mean? Did every one of the original developers die or something, taking the acronym's meaning to their graves? Now that would sure be worth mentioning. Humor aside, the real known information would be more useful. --Boradis 02:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Following my brilliant policy of "post first, research second," I looked through the discussion archive to find that the developers claim to have forgotten the meaning. It would still be better for the article to say something along the lines of, "The developers claim they have forgotten the meaning of the acronym." --Boradis 02:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed that section as per Boradis's comment and expanded a little to the point of "Pronunciation of Mugen" probably not being a good descriptor any longer.  Left the "official" pronunciation more in the unknown category on the rewrite since the Japanese meaning is unverified.  And I mean unverified in the sense that Elecbyte hasn't come out and said Mugen referred to the Japanese meaning.  Considering including TESTP and UNITED in the article. Messatsu 04:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A "forgotten" acronym? 

message: The argument that the engine itself is freeware, and thus covered under freeware laws. In reply, opponents state due to the license agreement[1] obtained by Elecbyte, which in part may still apply, M.U.G.E.N itself is actually shareware, and covered under the laws governing such.
This doesn't appear to be true.  I'd lean towards calling it freeware.  Mugen is and has always been available for free.  Although lacking made-available source code, I don't think the argument for calling Mugen shareware is very strong. Messatsu 03:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freeware/shareware 

message: Rename Warehousing title to Hosting Controversy possibly?  While that section can explain the community meaning of warehousing, warehousing isn't referred the same way outside of the Mugen community that I know of.  Messatsu 03:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've actually seen the term used in terms of sprite ripping communities and others, so it fits. Hosting Controversy sounds a bit too ambiguous.--Kung Fu Man 23:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then please list some examples, I don't see why it shouldn't be called "Hosting Controversy" it's not like the controversy section in the  article on Ebaum's World is called "ebuaming", warehousing is a derogatory term used by the mugen community, I don't see why that should be the name of the section it breaks the neutral point of view by enforcing a certain point of view  while "Hosting Controversy" doesn't. Another example is if the section in the Jack Thompson article called "Video games and juveniles" was called "jackassing" if some forums used this term to describe his actions of threatening and insulting gamers.Sonic Hog 05:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's derogatory because it deserves to be. People hosting creations without permission is stealing and possibly copyright infringement. That's what closed source work is. Blacklist 08:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not a valid defence please read WP:NPOV "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views " , all the files in MUGEN are open source the creators should have understood this before they started crying "copyright infringement"Sonic Hog 22:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they're not open source once the creator deems it so. Read more. Blacklist 03:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As stated 'warehousing' is a very common term akin to what's going on here (not every online community is free-free-free after all). Hosting Controversy may also lead to confusion as to if the subject of the paragraph is the engine itself or the content for it from the getgo.--Kung Fu Man 20:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but "I've seen it on other sites" is not a valid source. How does "Creation Hosting Controversy" sound?Sonic Hog 22:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe put an and between the first two words. Could "'Warehousing' (Creation Hosting Controversy)" also work?--Kung Fu Man 01:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No again according to NPOV, at least warehousing would have to be second there-> Creation Hosting Controversy ('Warehousing').  And that doesn't seem to follow Wikipedia's naming conventions.  If the name change were approved, I had intentions to add in the first sentence saying "also known as warehousing in the Mugen community" or the like. Messatsu 00:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'm thinking about it... there is a good deal of redundancy in the Warehousing and Legality section. Messatsu 00:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still not wild about the proposed title though. It'd be too confusing to a newbie. And keep in mind if you due chop down the warehousing section, you're going to run into a possible problem of leaving some things uncovered or loopholes in the text there, so be careful of that much. As it stands, the title isn't meant to be "POV" but to cover an actual term used for the hosting of copyrighted materials without any hint of permission of the original author (again, see sprite sheet community and you'll find the term warehouses exists there...same for in regards to illegal MP3 site or so on: the term is by far not one isolated to the mugen community (and before someone else chimes in, keep in mind my examples there extend beyond just "what's on another site").--Kung Fu Man 04:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Creation Hosting Controversy" is less confusing to someone that doesn't know anything about the subject than a community catchphrase like warehousing, if you can find this catchphrase being used by communities other than mugen please list them and even then it doesn't justify it being the subject title. If I was someone that didn't know anything about MUGEN I would understand quickly that section was about the controversy of rehosting creations/files for MUGEN, and if it was simply "warehousing" I would have trouble understand the section without reading the section, all section titles on Wikipeida should clearly reflect what they are about, please read Wikipedia:Words to avoid WP:WTA Sonic Hog 06:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem is, Sonic Hog, that you can't really even bother with mugen and not notice the term at one point or another: it's widespread to that much of a point. My main concern to is someone might read a topic title like that and automatically assume it's regarding the engine and not content for it (though the section explains it enough, it's still a possible problem point. Perhaps a blend of the two titles ("Creation Hosting Controversy ('Warehousing')") would cover it, as then you have what it is exactly and the key term combined without being POV to one side or another.--Kung Fu Man 08:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes this is the point that I am trying to make and he just keeps ignoring it, this article isn't solely here as a FAQ or help guide for mugen newbies, its a article to inform and educate anyone about MUGEN be it if they are a newbie, someone that is researching game engines, or anyone else, labeling a section so it panders to "newbies" is wrong.00:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *sighs* Gotta love ya Sonic Hog. But my reasoning is while a more exact title is a good idea, should still include the term as a part of it as I suggested (and later did in reaction to your change) the 'warehousing' bit as without it the subsection title comes off as a bit too vague. I've already stated my reasoning on that matter.--Kung Fu Man 00:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already stated my reasoning on that matter.Which is that niche communities use jargon that fits this definition? Messatsu 01:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Messatsu you know as well as I do "creation hosting controversy" doesn't cover the full extent of it, and if you did use that with some folks they might be confused given not everyone uses stuff like 'creation' to define content made for the engine (i.e. what if they call them conversions instead?). Either way, we should probably at least get more input on this from the people involved in watching this page regularly and see what they think at least before going one way or the other.--Kung Fu Man 01:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Messatsu you know as well as I do "creation hosting controversy" doesn't cover the full extent of itI do?  Well I did make the suggestion to change it.  How about Content Hosting Controversy?  There's little to no ambiguity with that.  Content for what?  Oh right, the engine this article is based upon. Content has no gray area.  Messatsu 01:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still just seems too vague. There has to be a happy medium between the two that works for both casual readers and people interested in the damn thing.--Kung Fu Man 02:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Content Hosting Controversy is vague explain how. :) Messatsu 03:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could imply there's controversy on the original files for the engine, or the engine itself, or any number of things related to it that could be hosted. It's a term I don't think I've even seen *used* before here. Also people do get pointed to here occaisonally for the definition of what warehousing in the community is. Maybe something more concrete in the first paragraph might kill any possible confusion however so who knows? In the current form it just does not seem to fit and makes it almost seem trivial.--Kung Fu Man 03:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe something more concrete in the first paragraph might kill any possible confusion however so who knows?Including that information there doesn't follow WP:LEAD.  I think you're using this too much as a platform rather than to be a good encyclopedia article.Could imply there's controversy on the original files for the engine, or the engine itself, or any number of things related to it that could be hosted.Under the definition of warehousing chosen, warehousing is equally as weak as Content Hosting Controversy yet CHC is NPOV and IMO more "anonymously" descriptive than warehousing (that implies that I think warehousing is descriptive, though I don't, but I'll leave it) and avoids using the niche description. Messatsu 03:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for showing you don't know what you're talking about. Here's your sign.--Kung Fu Man 12:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And since when was Urban Dictionary an actual source for true and reliable information? It's nothing but POV statements and lies, if you ask me. Blacklist 17:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, it doesn't matter. It's an invitation for Kung Fu Man to continue his invention of a new term. The fact is that regular people don't know that "warehousing" or a "warehouse" is. This is just something made up by people who frequent M.U.G.E.N message boards and means nothing to normal people by itself -- plus it's not objective. Regular people understand "redistribution of M.U.G.E.N Works" just fine however, although "hosting creations" isn't that clear. And I always know what I'm talking about! --75.132.7.7 18:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition of warehouse is: "a commercial building for storage of goods." This is true with Mugen creations, as warehouses do exist that store creations, but most of the time, they're stored without the owner's consensus. WarehousING would most likely mean: "the act of putting things in a warehouse." It's not a made up term. You just think it is. Blacklist 18:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If you don't have anything positive to contribute, don't post at all. The talk pages are not forums. Blacklist 02:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Flaming is also not contributing. What you said about statements was justified because it actually had to do with the topic at hand. You're here, as far as I know from what you said above, just to flame users. Please follow the rules, or I will have to report your actions. Blacklist 01:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Warehousing' rename 

message: Please tell me where in WP:EL it says "Only 4 links are allowed" it just says "Links should be kept to a minimum" , I believe you're using this to control the links that are added regardless if they meet the guidelines. Sonic Hog 05:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The links that random people add are not notable. Plus, they are most likely warehouses. Blacklist 08:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus we were already shouted at before for having too many links for the article. Check its history and you'll see when that happened. Given I'm friends with both Ruben and Mature4Evr (the owners of the two sites added last time), I doubt I'm playing "keep out" over here.--Kung Fu Man 20:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, the links should be limited to English sites unless offering substantially more information in the non-English ones.  There are none that I'm aware of.  Most of the "new" links popping up as of late are anonymous people discovering that they can add their newly started website after they found out about Mugen ~2 months ago.   New information or contributes to the article?  I don't think so. Messatsu 00:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "there's a link limit! >_<" 

message: Uh, sources are cited. The warehouse section does need sources, but the rest of the article is correctly sourced. Sources are sources, whether it's a FAQ or not shouldn't matter. Blacklist 17:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, the only sources I see are in the warehouse section. Nifboy 04:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While uncited, most of the stuff in the article originates from information in the provided Mugen documentation.  The warehouse section is heavily cited because it has been removed on at least one occasion.  Minus some changes, the associated filetypes section is a direct import from the documentation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Messatsu (talk • contribs) 11:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With additional necessary info added to it: the documentation tends to be lightweight on a few grounds, oddly enough though people seem more likely to read something here than they would the engine's actual documents. o_O--Kung Fu Man 11:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't know if this satisfies your complaint, but I cited where that information comes from. Messatsu 03:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once I discovered what was actually being referenced (the .txt file included with the patch), I was moderately satisfied. I've attempted to make this a little more clear in the reference. Nifboy 05:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: Since no one wants to complain here, and only in those little summary blurbs on the history page, I'll start a little something up relating to the recent complaints that are being dealt with.
First, I know that there is a user that is using an IP generator or proxy to constantly vandalize and un-revise the correct Warehousing section with his own biased opinion on creators.
Stop it. You will be banned if you keep doing it and the article will be locked to non-registered users if you continue.
Second, the same person (assumed) is also putting a link to Mugen Fury in the External Links section. Stop that too. There are enough links of other websites and databases there. Last I checked, Fury also had a bad history of hosting illegal and stolen Mugen content. If you verify that you are no longer hosting illegal materials on your site in any way, your link will most likely be allowed.
If a conclusion can be reached on any/all of the issues stated above, then we can go on with life nice, and easy. Blacklist 05:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better expand that to "on your server in any way", as he's still doing it for DBZ mugen stuff the last time I checked on a subdomain. At this rate though might be best to simply request a lock against unregistered users from modifying this page. At least then we'd have someone to file complaints about if it kept up.--Kung Fu Man 17:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: FWIW, I support locking it from unregistered users.  Very few useful contributions have come from anonymous users. Messatsu 04:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Request made. Messatsu 06:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Request denied.  Seems it would be logical to make fake vandalizations so admins would not use LOL not enough recent traffic LOL Messatsu 21:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Vandalism Attacks

message: I emailed Capcom support, but they didn't put my question and their answer online.  Being as that is, I cannot source that particular thing, but it is really just a rewording of the fanart stance on websites.  Here is the two side-by-side:
CAPCOM does not object to fans creating fan-works which contain reference to 
CAPCOM games or characters, with the understanding that this is done as a personal activity and that you do not 
intend to receive revenue by the use of our property. Also, we will not object to the fan-work as long as it is not 
offensive or slanderous towards CAPCOM, our products, our employees or any other third party. This policy is in 
no way meant to be interpreted as creating an agreement or grant of license between Capcom and its fans. If you 
are a fan of CAPCOM games, and you have a fan-work that you would like to create, CAPCOM will not object as 
long as you are working within the above stated criteria. CAPCOM is grateful for your continued support of our 
products.
CAPCOM does not object to fans creating websites which contain reference to CAPCOM games or characters, with the understanding that this is done as a personal activity and that you do not intend to receive revenue by the use of our property. Also, we will not object to the website as long as it is not offensive or slanderous towards CAPCOM, our products, our employees or any other third party. This policy is in no way meant to be interpreted as creating an agreement or grant of license between Capcom and its fans. If you are a fan of CAPCOM games, and you have a website that you would like to create, CAPCOM will not object as long as you are working within the above stated criteria. CAPCOM is grateful for your continued support of our products.
Just guessing that what they mean by personal activity is non-corporate. Messatsu 05:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capcom 

message: The only thing sticking out that is unsourced, that I couldn't find was French Bread's statement on their games/sounds or whatever historical stance they had.  I believe this to be true, but we need to find a source for that.  Particularly their site on archive.org or documentation from one of their games. Messatsu 05:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced stuff 

message: I know it would be a shot in the dark here, but if anyone has any of the TESTP workfiles, please contact me on my page. Messatsu 20:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TESTP workfiles 

message: Why does this article talk about Mugen "file types"? Isn't "The engine allows for anyone to create characters, stages and other game objects through interpreted text files and graphics and sound compilations" (originally written by yours truly) enough? It's also filled with pointless drivel no one cares about. So Suave Dude is knowledgeable about cloning? Legally obtain a Windows compiler? Hahahaha. I'm not going to make changes, but seriously folks! And why the hell was this nominated for good article? --75.132.7.7 03:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I nominated it since the things mentioned in the peer review have been fixed for the most part. Messatsu 18:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woah, woah, woah, woah, WOAH 

message: Question says it all...here's what comes to mind for it immediately though
-Evil Ken, DragonClaw
-Borghi's works
-Rikard's original works
-Silent Storm & Tetsu (mabye KY group on the whole, as this did end up generating interest in the actual 'fighter maker' styled game.
-EVE (as much as I dislike it...it is probably one of the most well known screenpacks :\ Can't believe I'm saying that).
-Some specific full games? That will be tricky.
Basically it's a question of 'what ends up mentioned in the article as some of the original and/or best mugen work, and/or representing the history of it.--Kung Fu Man 17:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What will count as noteworthy engine content though? 

message: In the original documentation, Kung Fu Man does not carry the name "Joe Mayama." Seeing that only Taruse mentioned it in his character (and is seemingly being perpetuated only by the creator Kung Fu Man), this doesn't seem to be relevant to the article at all. The storyline included with the character is enough information.
*It's worth mentioning regardless, even if it could be rephrased better which I'll do in a min, and the name's appeared in other usages besides Taruse or myself.--Kung Fu Man 22:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joe Mayama 

message: To whom it may concern:
I would like to create a profile for Dragon Claw.  I know there isn't much on him, but I like the character a lot.  So may I creat a page for him, or at least place him in with Kung Fu Man and stuff?  Thank you in advance.  Neo Guyver 01:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As much as Dragon Claw is noted for inside the Community, it is doubtful that he will pass notability and required sources for Wikipedia's standards. You can go ahead and make a page if you wish, but it will most likely be deleted as "Not Notable." Just saying. Blacklist 01:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess he could be notably if only by the fact he's the first merchandised character for mugen (with Reu selling Dragon Claw shirts etc off his site). Probably wouldn't deserve a full article in wikipedia, but it is notably enough for that much)--Kung Fu Man 11:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Legend of Dragon Claw

message: Regarding the statement regarding Nintendo disapproving of emulation in any form, I don't believe that goes well with the statement that Capcom/SNK/whatever "show no ill will." Last time I checked, all companies disliked emulation of their games. The Nintendo emulation issue and game companies' allowance of sprite/sounds for fanwork have nothing to do with each other. 11:14 AM, 17 October  2007  (UTC)
:You should take that one up with Messatsu actually, Jango, as IIRC he was the one to add those bits in there, the rest just kinda conformed around it.--Kung Fu Man 15:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nintendo stuff