User talk:Wgungfu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Question on coin-op games[edit]

I noticed while looking through the history of Donkey Kong Jr. that at one point you removed ported release dates from the infobox, citing "coin-op infobox guidelines." (diff) Could you kindly point me in the direct of that guideline? Please note: I'm not being contrary, I just want to read the guideline. Thanks! DKqwerty (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem, it's laid out per the stated and shown usage of the arcade infobox at the Arcade Task Force page, and the consensus was derived (unopposed) here. Note that it only pertains to the arcade game usage of the VG infobox and has nothing to do with console/computer specific games (such as Final Fantasy for example). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for the info. Happy editing! DKqwerty (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: AVGN reviews[edit]

Hi, there. I was just wondering why AVGN reviews are not considered reliable. I know that many reviews of his are exaggerated and, yeah, filled with swearing, but some reviews such as the review of Pelé's Soccer offer legitimate criticisms. So I think there should be some exceptions, such as Pelé's Soccer, Godzilla, Friday the 13th, Jaws, Ghostbusters, etc.

So why can't people include that AVGN gave a game a negative review? After all, exaggeration or not, he obviously would think of certain games as negative, or else he wouldn't review them.

But, hey, who am I to argue with an Atari employee about an Atari-related article?

I'll leave my edit off the article for now. But please reply with an answer. --Matthew (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Matthew, I already did, including with a link to the decision. They don't meet Wikipedia's reliability standards per the consensus of the video game project. Just re-reread what I left on your talk page and follow the link. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's standards about the Angry Video Game Nerd make little sense to me. I understand and protest the use of someone simply saying on a game-related article "AVGN reviewed this in his (insert title here) review". I get that. But what I don't understand is that if such a popular series created by someone is essentially a critic, it gets deleted, but when some columnist nobody's ever heard of from, say for instance, The New York Times, gives a game or movie a review, it's considered noteworthy. James Rolfe grew up with these games, he knows how they are, he has memories and experiences about them, and sure, he exaggerates, but he gives credible reasons as to why certain games are bad. It's a well-known webseries with a legion of fans who agree with James' criticisms, and with all those people who have the same opinion of an experienced and popular game reviewer, I don't see why it should be left out.

All in all, to me, it isn't notable enough to just say James reviewed it. But it does make sense to me to include voicing the opinion that a knowledgeable game reviewer and his thousands of supporters all share about a game.

--Matthew (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough, you win. Even if I don't agree with you on this, I admire your diligence. Subsequently, I've left a barnstar on your user page. --Matthew (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yip Man page[edit]

Hey, I just saw your revert of "notable students" infobox on Yip Man page - what in your opinion determines which students should be considered notable? Aeontech (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


Notability Discussion[edit]

Generally, the problem arises when just names are added without references. I don't think an article is necessary per se but at least some reference indicating notability. The main purpose of the info box is to enhance navigation rather than list all possibilities.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I do think that if there are lots of students (and we see that for key individuals in the MA world) then the place is in the article itself with only the most important students finding their way into the info box. I am perhaps a little reactionary in that I have seen huge lists in other articles where connections were quite weak. Just an opinion.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game)[edit]

Hi, according to the Abandonware definition was E.T. indeed Abandonware. As far as I'm aware of this game was not available or was supported by Atari in any way since years (unlike other games which where made available via Atari Flashback), so this game can be seen as abandoned by Atari. Also, the Abandonware definition doesn't requires non-defense of a IP, just non-availability and non-support. regards Shaddim (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

No it does not, per "the owner may not be tracking or enforcing copyright violations" the product is still very much protected and enforced as are all the 2600 games published by Atari, Inc. (as is the copyright and trademark for E.T. in general). Their current owner Atari Interactive, is fully in control of enforcing the rights to these properties. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Exactly, that's the point, Abandonware is NOT about if it is protected under copyright or trademark, it is ONLY about is status as non-available and unsupported work. The status abandonware is independent if a owner defends the IP or not. Even as the IP owner here exists and defends the IP it is still abandonware as the software is not supported or made available in anyway. This game is abandonware as the game was not sold or made available since decades. The status "Abandonware" should not confused with warez (illegal redistribution), as obviously no legal allowance follows from this status. But, since some years there is some understanding of the problems which folows from the status abandonware by the law makers. For instance, there were DMCA exemptions formulated for the use case of archiving (only) of obsolete and unsupported technology. Overall, I'm highly curious what is the legal base of the recent redistribution/re-release of the internet archive. Shaddim (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it is does have to do about if it's currently (as in actively) being protected and it is stating that. Especially in the US. The term abandonware is more traditionally applied to software/games/etc. where the company behind them is no longer in existence or the company no longer cares what happens to the IP and has not exercised it to the degree necessary for it to remain a protected IP. Both ET itself and all the 2600 games are. Not physically supporting a cartridge is a far cry for not actively supporting (using and protecting) the game ROM inside it. The current owner of the 2600 games, Atari Interactive, does re-release these older games (actual 2600 games) in collections and does license them for packaged use. To sell E.T. again as part of these packages, they'd need to get a license again from the current owner of E.T. itself (since that company owns the character property while Atari Interactive owns the game itself). The lack of desire to do that in no way means that these properties have been abandoned. I've worked enough with Atari Interactive's legal department to know this. Again, you can keep claiming these as abandonware all you want but that doesn't make it fact - and Atari's legal department will disagree as well. As far as the Internet Archive, they are in a grey area and have opened themselves up for possible legal action (in the US) by providing console game ROMs for play without permission. Archiving is one thing, however providing wide digital distribution free play of these ROMs (vs. just being at a single physical location like inside a real museum) directly undercuts Atari Interactive's own licensing and commercial initiatives. (It's no different than how an NFL game can not be publicly rebroadcast). Additionally, according to copyright and trademark law, they have to continuously enforce these ownerships or risk them being diluted and eventually put into public domain (which is where "abandonware" lives as well). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, my point is the Abandonware terminology. While abandonware is often mixed with the "abandoning" of IP defense (company not existing anymore etc) and then taken as excuse for illegal redistribution, the term "abandoning" actually refers to the original fact/problem that a software product was abandoned "technical-wise" by a company. As in "a software is not made available anymore" and "no support ressources are invested anymore" (similar to orphaned works in general, which are not available anymore). Even if the Atari law department defends the E.T. IP law-wise, as technical software product it was until now Abandonware as the software was not legally available in no way (was not included a collection/remake by Atari as far as I'm aware of). Now, the internet archive made the game available again (assuming they do it on a lawful base or with negotiations with Atari) after years of non-availability and brought it therefore out of the "technical" abandonware status, which is remarkable. Also, I hope the internat archive has found a solid law base (or negotiations) for doing so. PS: if you are in contact with the Atari law department some statement from them would be of interest. Shaddim (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Yars' Revenge[edit]

For the record, I didn't include an edit summary because I was making a minor grammatical fix. As an experienced editor, I didn't think an edit summary was required in this particular situation--hence marking the edit as "minor." I see you do a lot of anti-vandal work, so no doubt you're used to dealing with people deleting material for no good reason, but it's still expected to perform at least a cursory look to see why an edit was made, especially if the editor in question isn't a newbie. That said, I'll make a note to include edit summaries even when I'm doing grammatical fixes. Grandpallama (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

:D[edit]

I'm happy you thanked me, Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever, for improving part of the Atari 2600 article. I'm going for the goal of turning History of video game consoles (second generation), Atari, Atari Inc., Atari 2600, Combat (video game), and id Software into GAs, and later possibly FAs. I'm an Atari fan. |>(@"<) (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

What is a video game console?[edit]

Greetings. I'd like your input about these definitions for accuracy. Only the first two paragraphs in that sandbox I'd like you to review. If the selected sources bring up any red flags with you, please let me know. BTW those definitions are for a best-sellers list I'm working on, not for replacing what's currently on "video game console" and "handheld game console". Thanks, « Ryūkotsusei » 04:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

:D (Happy)[edit]

You're welcome. |>(@"<) (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Asteroids (video game): Before and After[edit]

Before: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asteroids_(video_game)&oldid=583544618

After: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asteroids_(video_game)&oldid=589743880

Done by Mr. Gonna. |>(@"<) (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Cool, great job. You should probably submit it for GA review. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Look at the "Asteroids (video game)" talk page, because now I've nominated the article for good article review. |>(@"<) (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:Avalanchescreen.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Asteroids (video game): Before and After GA[edit]

Before: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asteroids_(video_game)&oldid=583544618

After: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asteroids_(video_game)&oldid=590274298

Brought up to Good Article (GA) status by Mr. Gonna. |>(@"<) (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Philips CD-i[edit]

Hey Marty,

I could really use your help on the CD-i talk page. User:Jakandsig, whom you may remember from some bad Atari 7800 edits he tried to push earlier this month, is back and pushing more bad claims, this time regarding CD-i sales figures. He is behaving civilly this time (he received a 48 hour block for edit warring during the last round), but he has completely misread an article where a Philips executive is estimating yearly demand, but Jakandsig thinks he is stating current marketshare. I believe he is acting in good faith, but judging by the grammar in some of his posts, I do not think English is his first language and he is genuinely confused. I have tried to explain the article, but we are just going in circles. A second editor saying the same thing may help him understand, or at the very least prevent the bad edit from recurring. Indrian (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Those bas 7800 edits that other than one section are still there untouched? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakandsig (talkcontribs) 21:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Not to turn Marty's page into an unofficial forum, but I never claimed every edit you made was bad, and you will note that I have not reverted most of your edits over the last couple of days. I was also referring to edits about the 7800, not edits on its own page, so was talking about your third generation console article history edits which were reverted. Anyway it was just shorthand to remind him who you were. Indrian (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Couple of things. 1) Jaksandig, watch the tone. You still have to adhere to WP:Civil. I'm seeing an antagonizing tone in your discussions that can and will get you in trouble here. 2) Yes, according to the edit history the bulk of your 7800 edits were reverted by multiple editors and are no longer there. 3) I looked at the link being discussed, and all Hawkins states is what he thinks the market is at the time and for over the next couple of years. Market is an estimated potential for sales, not an actual sales number. That's basic business 101. He'd have to be stating "We are currently selling..." or "We have sold..." for it to be in the context of actual sales numbers. The 10 million is potential market share at that time in relation to estimates of what the entire market was. According to this article they first broke 1 million units sold in early 1995 after being on the market for just over three years already. This article from the following year (and the same year as the original article in question) further addresses the slow sales problems that had not gone away, also establishing the unlikelihood of sales jumping 9 million units in a year even if we were to take "market" to mean "actual sales," which of course it does not in the original article. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
the 7800 is one section, It's like half the people on this site can't read. Indrian(talk) You literally said the eidts were bad unless you edited it out. Looking carefully you have not. So why are you lying? Also, Most of the stuff I added outside the 7800 is literally STILL THERE.
Marty Goldberg I am the one who put the original 1 million link in there fighting forever to get people to put in correct sales numbers, I don't I am well aware about half your post being true. The issues is that Philips only included its own sales and have never combined with numbers by various other manufacturer, and then that is also excluding the future sales from their own device after this period. The Article splits the shares down the middle of the 110 million which they would not do unless they had a starting point for market trend predictions. for example, he states the estimates for the year 200 in the article based of market trends seen currently(at the time) and then splits the market by number so you can see where he is getting the trends from. You have to have numbers to start a financial trend, especially in tech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.64.30 (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
A market prediction starts from actual numbers, of course, but Hawkins did not reveal the math behind his predictions in the article, so we do not know where he is starting from. Market predictions are often way off. Nintendo claimed they would sell 9 million Wii U consoles this year but just recently had to admit they are going to sell nowhere near that amount. Indrian (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
You're horrendous reference to the Wii u numbers is entirely different and is based off something completely different where there is no comparison. I understand what you were trying to say though. However, considering the statement if he was not starting from those numbers than they would not be "current" and his breakdown would "not" make ANY sense. He basically explained what he based his number off of because he was using it for his year 2000 estimates of 200 million drives. Now I could be wrong but judging from what is dais in the article the above seems to make more sense unless you can point out a flaw somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakandsig (talkcontribs) 00:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

North American Video Game Crash[edit]

User:Wgungfu In the crash section of wikipedia. I included a link that we had both edited before on the NES section, about the 1985 test launching being considered a failure/dismal at best. However, User:Indrian believes that the source is cherry picking, and believes, with no source, that the 1985 test launch was a success when even nintendo expected better. Perhaps you can fix this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakandsig (talkcontribs) 21:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

RFC[edit]

Yeah, I try to avoid that kind of thing because of the work involved too, but I think you are right that this is the only way we will get any resolution on this matter. I am starting to put out feelers to other people to get the required documentation in order before starting the RFC. I would not ask you to do any heavy lifting, but I hope that you would at least drop by to endorse the RFC if I launch one. Indrian (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Marty/Indrian/Ryo[edit]

We had met before in the Intellivision talk page about the sales figures. Thanks for contribution to my concerns, I'll now be able to add a lot more history to the page later on. But i have a small question for you.

Now there are a few game systems that seem to not have pages available. How do you create a new page? i figure i would ask someone who has already used Wikipedia instead of fiddling with certain things and ending up with odd results. Ha ha.

Edit: Please excuse the auto-correct phone typing.Leeroyhim (talk)

Merging of Wing Chun styles[edit]

I closed the Wing Tsun to Wing Chun merge discussion and opened two new ones: Traditional Wing Chun Kung Fu to William Cheung and Wing Tsun to Leung Ting. Usually I would leave merge discussions a little longer but they are not really being closed just shifted leaving time for further discussion.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I closed the discussions (suppose we could have done that earlier) so now we just go ahead with the mergers.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Pong, Breakout, and Asteroids userboxes by Gonna[edit]

Today I created three userboxes: first for Pong, second for Asteroids, and third for Breakout. They are about Atari video games and were derived from User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Breakout Games, a userbox about Breakout clones. Add these three userboxes to your user page!

| .
|
This user plays Pong.
====
This user plays Breakout.

/\/\
| ˑ<
\__/

This user plays Asteroids.

{{User:Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever/UBX/Pong}} {{User:Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever/UBX/Breakout}} {{User:Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever/UBX/Asteroids}}

Mr*|(60nna) 21:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Atari 5200 port difference[edit]

Both the Atari 5200's 2 port and 4 port models have the controller storage in the back. They used the same shell for both. I've never even seen a different shell for the 5200, unless you're talking about the prototype model that was never released. Evan-Amos (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Yah, for some reason I had the 5100 on the mind. Reverting my revert. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)