User talk:Dgpop

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

A barnstar for you![edit]

Copyeditor Barnstar Hires.png The Copyeditor's Barnstar
WOW! So you're the other person on Wikipedia who comprehends correct tense! I bet I've edited 100 articles to eliminate the childishly nostalgic past tense about classic technology. The stuff about Amiga and Nintendo has been a bear, and there is a perpetual tense edit war on Nintendo Power, lol. So if the product was a computer, then when did it become something else and what did it become then? :-D — Smuckola(talk) 18:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Game engine template[edit]

Noticed your cleanup of the game engine template. You might also want to take a look over List of game engines. It's in ok shape currently but any input would be appreciated. I know some engines in the template have been missing and vice versa. -- ferret (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I do appreciate the idea to help further divide the template, as it was I who divided it between 2D, 2.5D and 3D, but I am still a little concerned by how objective a category such as "historical interest" is. Someone could very well make a decent indie game using the Doom or even Wolfenstien 3D engine (Operation Eisenfaust: Legacy, for example, is quite detailed), for example, and their modern source port derivatives mean that they do certainly maintain compatibility with modern software and hardware (not to mention, modern re-releases such as Duke Nukem 3D: Megaton Edition and Shadow Warrior: Classic Redux, which are still based on the original Build engine code). So I am just wondering what definition you are hoping to operate this section under. Thanks and happy editing. Technopeasant (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
My intent was to avoid having old and new mixed together, because it makes the template less useful. Having Garry Kitchen's GameMaker and Unity in the same list is an overly wide range. I wanted to make it clear that some were not current, but of course they can still be used, just like you can still type a novel on a typewriter if you want. My use case is someone looking for an engine for a project, not simply sifting through every engine ever written, but there are other equally valid cases. Dgpop (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The Pinball Arcade[edit]

I don't know why you removed Category:DOS games from Judge Dredd (pinball). It is completely unrelated to The Pinball Arcade, so are some others. If you think the category for The Pinball Arcade is ok then you should not remove Doctor Who REGENERATED and The Addams Family Gold from it so it does not become incomplete. Furthermore you should nominate the Template:The Pinball Arcade for deletion if you think it should not be used and have a discussion about it instead of just removing it. Video game navigational boxes are a common practice on Wikipedia, see Category:Video game navigational boxes. It seems you just don't like it but this is no valid reason. --Tochni (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Dr Who REGENERATED and TAF Gold are just redirects, but fair point; I undid those edits, and I will undo any others where the game was available as a separate product, not as part of an emulated collection. I am okay with Template:The Pinball Arcade in general, but both it, and the related categories assigned to games included on that template, come across as promotional spam. Every game on the template is added to the category for every platform that The Pinball Arcade runs on, which makes those categories harder to use. (For example, the Wii games category has dozens of pinball tables included as a result.) [edit April 28] Dgpop (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

MobyGames question[edit]

Hi Dgpop, I've noticed that you're spending a lot of time removing external links to MobyGames. Why are you doing that? What criteria are you going by to determine whether an external link to MobyGames stays in the article or is deleted? -Thibbs (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Generally I've been removing MobyGames external links for old 8-bit games where all relevant info is in the article already, so the MobyGames link provides no value. For example, Apple II games where there's only one person credited. I've been removing such links as part of other editing; I'm not on a crusade to remove them. Dgpop (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, that sounds like a reasonable standard. Thanks for the explanation. -Thibbs (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

I am becoming increasingly concerned that your edits are reductionist and incrementally valuble information is being lost rather than corrected by improved referencing. I don't support your aim to remove section headings and sections by deleting and removing the remaining material into the lead. WP:LEAD suggests four paragraphs that are a synopsis of the whole article. Cross refer to Fortran to see the structure I am expecting when I read an article on a language of a certain age. I respect the quality of your editing but raise a concern about the direction you are following. ClemRutter (talk) 08:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi ClemRutter. Besides stale and minor projects, the only content I removed was a citation-free opinion about why Apple Logo was successful. That the name is not an acronym and that it's usually an interpreted language are both key points for someone reading about the language, so they make sense up front, not in single-sentence sections down below. Please modify the page if you think there is a clearer organization. Dgpop (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Gumball (video game)[edit]

It's one thing to pare down what you may determine to be in excess, but to completely remove from the lede its ability to summarize the article runs conflicts with our lede guidelines, the "good article" criteria, and common sense. Please discuss your edits on this article before committing them. Additionally, the chopping up of the Reception is unjustified—we avoid single-sentence paragraphs when the ideas are connected. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 18:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Czar. My view is that the development details are special interest and not needed in the lede (and the great majority of video game articles I've seen follow that standard). The sentences in the Reception section are all about the game, yes, but don't have a clear flow to them. It's simply a readability issue; it's hard to pick out individual sources when they're all in one paragraph. Regardless, I'll leave that article as is. Dgpop (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC) (Edited Dgpop (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC))

Template "Intel processors|discontinued"[edit]

Hi Dgpop, why remove the Template "Intel processors|discontinued"? I found this box quite useful. Mind you, it is for Intel processors - not for x86 processors. The 8085 etc. were specifically marked as "pre-x86". Do you object strongly to restoring the Intel box? Drahtlos (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The Intel box was adding the x86 category to the article, or at least removing the template removed the x86 category. I don't know why that's the case, but that category is clearly incorrect. If you can restore the box and keep it out of the x86 category, then please do. Dgpop (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the template was broken in 2013. I'll try to fix it. Drahtlos (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Fruity Frank[edit]

Hi, I don't understand this edit you made. And especially the comment: What is "Editorializing"? And how is Fruity Frank not a rocks-and-diamonds game? It has digging, rocks (apples) and diamonds (all other fruit)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medinoc (talkcontribs) 11:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Editorializing = opinions with no references. You can say that the MSX version is superior, but you need to reference the source of that statement. Fruity Frank is a clone of Dig Dug and Mr. Do, but "rocks and diamonds" is usually reserved for clones of Boulder Dash. The former games are arcade-style, while "rocks and diamonds" implies a puzzle game. YouTube videos should make the difference clear. Dgpop (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

So the issue is that Dig Dug clones are faster-paced than Boulder Dash clones, and "rocks and diamonds" is only the latter? Thanks. Medinoc (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd say that Dig Dug / Mr. Do clones don't involve puzzles or cascading falling objects. They're more about avoiding or killing enemies. Dgpop (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

MAME and retrocomputing[edit]

You previously made this edit removing a category from the MAME article.

I disagree with this, since the MESS project was merged with MAME. Computers in general were within the scope of MESS and therefore are still a part of MAME. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The retrocomputing category has since been removed--after official discussion--because there was no agreed upon definition. Dgpop (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for not checking whether the category still existed before posting. I should probably have sought another category that means something similar, but that would be a separate discussion. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Links to MS-DOS[edit]

Hi Dgpop, over the past months I have accidently run into various articles where you changed links to DOS into links to MS-DOS. I'm sure you did this with the best intentions, but please don't do this.

Links to MS-DOS are only appropriate when only MS-DOS is meant specifically. If the article does not refer to Microsoft's implementation specifically, or if the software in question also ran/runs under other members of the DOS family like PC DOS, DR-DOS, PTS-DOS, FreeDOS etc. or in the DOS emulator under NT, the proper link should go to DOS, not to MS-DOS, because otherwise it destroys carefully set up infrastructure, creates bias and undue weight and misleads readers into thinking something would only run under one specific version of DOS.

I haven't checked if you still do these kind of edits, but since I just ran into one of these edits again and it is getting more and more annoying, I'd like to ask you to please stop this. Further I'd like to ask you to reconsider and ideally go through your old edits (back to when you started these kind of edits) and change such links back yourself.

I certainly do not look out for this, but if I run into such a change again, my "threshold" might have been reached and I might then actually start to go over your old edits and systematically reestablish the proper link target, which however would probably cost me more time than you and it might cause your revert counter to be increased significantly. I hope this can be avoided.

Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Matthiaspaul,
~85+% of the games in the "DOS games" category were already using MS-DOS as the platform before I came along, even though they likely also work with FreeDOS, etc. Realistically, "DOS" is slang for MS-DOS, even though we both know that's not 100% correct. As part of normal edits I've replaced DOS with MS-DOS for consistency. But if this is a big deal, and those other 85% of articles should be changed from MS-DOS to DOS, then okay, I'm happy to step aside.
Before "DOS" links multiply, it may be worth renaming that page, as DOS is a generic term for Disk operating system and not simply an umbrella term for MS-DOS-alikes.
Dgpop (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer, Dgpop. I am, of course, aware of the fact that "DOS" is both, a term refering to the family of x86-compatible DOS operating systems, and to all "disk operating systems" in general. This has been a matter of discussion before and the community decided that the modern meaning is so much more significant, that the DOS article would primarily discuss the x86-compatible family of operating systems, whilst still mentioning the historically broader meaning. Unfortunately, there is no perfect solution for this.
However, the term "DOS" was also used by IBM (in the context of PCs), Digital Research, Novell, Caldera, etc. to mean the x86-compatible systems only, and this is also the term used in uncountable books when not one specific implementation was meant. So, I would not call this usage "slang".
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 03:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. Personal preferences aside, there is certainly an interesting split between the naming of Category:DOS games and the majority of the games in that category listing the platform as MS-DOS. Dgpop (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrogaming[edit]

I've done some cleanup and added citations on a section you labeled with "original research". Please let me know if it's alright to remove the label. If not, let me know specifically what is not acceptable. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kisewi (talkcontribs) 19:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks reasonable to me. Also, thank you for removing the arbitrary list of companies. Dgpop (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Dgpop. You have new messages at Talk:Elixir_(programming_language).
Message added 11:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've started a discussion of your proposed merge to Reia (programming language) with Elixir (programming language) AtlasDuane (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Deprodding of Draco (programming language)[edit]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Draco (programming language), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the file. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Pavlor (talk) 11:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)