Talk:M.U.G.E.N

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article M.U.G.E.N was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This is not a forum for general discussion of "community drama" or the engine's legality.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the M.U.G.E.N article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1

/Archive 2


Contents

[edit] Archive #2 Up

Let's try to follow the "Not a Forum" rules this time, okay? Blacklist 23:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links

87.161.163.186 (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC) I think there is no need to post two Portuguese sites dealing with M.U.G.E.N ... Let us clean it up a little. Either delete MugenBR or PaoDeMugen. I also cannot understand why "MUGEN Latino America" is listed there. Please clean the page up a little bit for my sake :D

[edit] Regarding Validity of new Elecbyte.com

A viewing of the whois database entry for www.elecbyte.com reveals that the domain was registered 1, June 1999 and will expire on 1, June 2008. Therefore the name's registration has not lapsed and been re-registered by someone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.211.224 (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the domain was registered by someone other than Elecbyte. Blacklist (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please consider one of the many M.U.G.E.N. clones. Oh right, shoot in your own feet........................................... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisaccountisreal (talk • contribs) 20:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh... they mean Engine clones, not Developer clones. Blacklist (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tone

Boy oh boy, this page is hard to read. It's like I asked a local weeaboo to explain M.U.G.E.N. to me... But, I asked Wikipedia to! This should be written more like an encyclopedic article and not a readme or something. Honestly, I don't even see a reason to have maybe even 2/3 of the content that is here; the history of the program may interest some, but is this the place for it?

The characters section is particularly narrative also. I don't see a need for the arbitrary backstory to the characters. The bit about Kung Fu Man should be only about as long as its first paragraph.

Suave Dude: He at the very least has a troop of minions at his disposal (some of which get defeated in KFM's introduction storyboard), and has the Mountainside Temple as his own personal hideout. The full extent of his forces or resources however is unknown and never disclosed or discussed.

What on earth?! We're not in a fantasy land.

It doesn't seem necessary to be so specific about the Maxine and Dragon Claw characters. Rather, a summary making the key points could get rid of both sections by mentioning that people commission characters, though few are completed (then citing a source), and that characters, noteably Dragon Claw, have been merchandised (cite source). I don't care how some guy paid a ludicrous amount of money for a girl version of himself he can use to whomp on people with, and I don't care that the Dragon Claw guy doesn't make enough money to cover his "hosting and such". Note the inappropriate tone in the phrase "and such".

The whole file structure section should be deleted. It's not useful information for the article, and it is WAY too long. If anyone cares about it, they probably can look at the files themselves, along with the documentation.

This article is longer than the entire article for Adobe Photoshop. Photoshop has had much more impact on things than mugen...

Other issues include:

[towards the end of the article...] ... distribution of updates, or as in the case of Mugen Institute a possible loss of revenue.

Things like this are all over this article, making it hard to read through a line in one go.

Although most of the authors have not registered copyrights pertaining to the code or graphics used to create the content ...

It hasn't been a law that you have to register copyrights (in the US) for years.

Much like hosting a videogame FAQ it is considered in violation of the author's copyright unless permission to host is given. [...] Typically it is argued that legal action is not sought for the misuse of most M.U.G.E.N creations because the origin of sprites and sounds has been ripped from commercial games even though the program code is crafted from scratch or templates.

Linking to something like derivative works could cut this chunk out. The same idea goes for many other parts of the article.

The debate ranges from original design by authors as well as derivative works or fan art often taken directly from previously released video game characters. A violation of ...

The MUGEN article isn't a place to re-explain copyright laws. Let Wikipedia do it. Also, that first part's a fragment, and a very confusing one, at that.


Summary: Too many words. Little relevant content. Informal tone, syntax, and constructs. Needs more commas.

69.65.232.61 (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  • You need a fucking job. Nanakon (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    • 69.65.232.61,If it needs more commas and stuff,then why can't you do it? 99.230.152.143 (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bloated, filled with non-notable information.

In response to these problems, I have taken the liberty of cleaning up the article to make it concise and more encyclopedic. Grawgzor (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll be the first to say while the article does indeed need work...that was a terrible edit on your part.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I might have gone overboard, but much of the content should be deleted. Suave dude has no relevance, and the reception section actually cites internet forum discussions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grawgzor (talk • contribs) 21:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Given he's Elecbyte's other character I fail to see the relevance, and the forum citations seem very few but relevant to the subject as far as temporary goes. Either way you have two editors objecting to your "trimming", I'd suggest not doing it a third time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
If you go through the problems with each section in greater detail, I may go along with your revision. Oore (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I say that the File Structure and noteworthy engine content gets axed, but getting rid of 90% of the article that was originally edited by Grawzor is not the answer. Blacklist (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't axe the whole sections either really, though File Structure really could be redone overall. TESTP additionally needs some mention in there, though it's a shame the only citable info about them is long gone save for their readme files.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)