Talk:List of vaporware

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

Vaporware Page Restoration[edit]

By definition of the term vaporware as software/products that are never released nor canceled I think we can assume that regardless of sources actually stating that something is vaporware that if a source states it is in a state of suspension it can be considered for listing on this page. Previous edits by Richard BB removed sections of sourced material without discussion.

Proposal to restore missing content as per previous versions of the article.

  • Restore missing Hardware - Action Gamemaster
  • Restore missing Games/Software
    • Starcraft Ghost
    • Elite 4
    • Anarchy Online Graphic Enhancement
    • Microsoft Train Simulator
    • The Last Guardian

Please discuss before editing the page.

All of the material that I removed either was not sourced, or the source did not explicitly state that the products in question were vaporware. Please note that it is not our job to interpret sources, draw conclusions from them, or make our own assumptions about what is considered vaporware. This amounts to WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. We can only list something as vaporware if the citation actively supports this claim. Therefore, we cannot assume anything regardless of what sources say; this is not how Wikipedia works. — Richard BB 10:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with OP. In requiring the sources to actually say "this is vaporware" rather than requiring them to prove the definition listed at the top of the page, you have destroyed the entire content of the article. Is a tiny buzzfeed-style blurb from Wired (for Half-Life 2: Episode Three) a better source than 6 years of delays posted directly from the game director of Anarchy Online in relation to the engine? I don't think it is. By it's very definition a product will almost never be definitively labelled as vaporware by the company involved - the HL2 listing is not a result of in-depth research by a journalism department but simply a writer deciding that the product meets the criteria.

A delay doesn't instantly make something vaporware, and allowing unsourced material here opens the floodgates to people venting their anger at something being delayed. The long and short of it is that Wikipedia operates by way of reliable sources, not original research, the latter being peoples' own interpretation. The company involved doesn't need to label something as vaporware, but someone reliable does. — Richard BB 13:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
All material must be sourced per Wikipedia policy. Period. End of Story. --Sue Rangell 21:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Is the current requirement for sources reasonable?[edit]

There is clear consensus, that the current requirement for sources, is reasonable. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Must "vaporware" items be specifically labelled as such by a source or can they merely meet the definition? (talk) 07:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

They must specifically be labelled as such. Merely meeting the definition is not for us to interpret: that's original research. The source needs to explicitly state, "this is vaporware". — Richard BB 13:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, this requirement is reasonable. Without it, we'd have to resort to original research or personal opinion. Sources must explicitly state that a member belongs to a list. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The requirement seems entirely reasonable to me. Editors should not be assigning items to the list based on their own personal interpretation of the definition. -- TOW  04:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Of course, this is what is expected per policy.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
The requirement is not only reasonable, it is policy. --Sue Rangell 21:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Xycraft notability[edit]

It seems to me like the Xycraft addition is unreasonable. It's a non-notable mod with no Wikipedia page, and the source it cites is a different wiki project that doesn't seem suitable to be considered as a notable source.

I would recommend removing Xycraft from the page. An incredible number of Minecraft mods have been "publicly announced" on forums, and many of them have failed to deliver. I wouldn't consider these vaporware by any means, as they're not commercial software. Zeus Kabob (talk) 10:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Xycraft may be considered an exception given its highlighting on Forgecraft and prominence among the Forge community. That said I agree that it seems unreasonable to only list XyCraft (EE3 would seem to be another good example) Mt xing (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)