Talk:0x10c

Requested move
0x10c → 0x10 ͨ – It's pretty straightforward; the proper name for the game is 0x10 ͨ, which was another redirect page I created soon after the game was announced. I believe we can move this without incident. D arth B otto talk•cont 01:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Invalid proposal Please see TITLE. What is this little square ͨ supposed to be? Is it a raised "C"? It doesn't display on Firefox or I.E. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you could try fixing Firefox, maybe? Or, you could have the title of this page be different than the real title of the game... D arth B otto talk•cont 03:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose MOS:TM And it requires fonts which obviously not everyone is using considering what In ictu oculi said. You can do it with a DISPLAYTITLE function that uses superscript instead of a special font character, since it is a superscript and not a different character in reality. 70.49.124.147 (talk) 05:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Trademark non-stylization convention -- MOS:TM. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn - I was anticipating having the page be designated with a ^c. However, the opposition is sound with its argument. D arth B otto talk•cont 18:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

"Official" Forum and wiki
There has apparently been a dispute over the "official" status of a forum and wiki for this game. As for the forum link, its status as "official" is more or less due to the fact that on the official website it is the only forum which is linked by Markus "Notch" Persson. I think that alone gives "official" status as much as any of them, and at least gives reason list this particular website as opposed to any other 0x10^c forum. If there are multiple forums listed on the official site in the future, we can decide to include or exclude those sites and debate them here. As a relevant source of information about the game, it certainly is a link that I believe should be listed. Since Notch hasn't explicitly called it his "official" forum, it may be inappropriate to call it "official" but listing it here on Wikipedia still may be justified. That is why I'm raising the issue here on this talk page.

As for the wiki at ( http://0x10cwiki.com ), I would like to include the site previously listed as it seems to be the site agreed upon by the "community". There have been several competing wiki sites, but a couple of them have agreed to cooperate rather than compete and have settled upon a common site to work on together. There is a separate site that has been developed by the Curse network that is quite anemic in terms of the content, but is being linked to by the "official" Minecraft Wiki (also run by Curse). There is sufficient information on this wiki to justify a link, but due to the fact that the game is still quite new and in the interest of being "neutral" in terms of picking which site will become "official", I'm game to wait and see how everything will fall out in the long run.

With 600+ pages and 100+ users actively participating with the development of the wiki, it isn't a one-man band and it definitely has relevant information about the game. I won't even get into the firehose of information that Notch is giving out in terms of data being used to create content on that wiki. Sure, the standards for the quality of the information may be much weaker than here on Wikipedia and viewed by some as fancruft, but that is also why these wikis are developed in the first place. As a relevant website for information about the game, I don't think links to wikis should be automatically excluded. Like I said, this doesn't need to be added right away as the game is still under development and relatively new even in terms of player communities that have developed around the game. --Robert Horning (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "Linked to" does not imply "offical" and such label, like any content, requires reliable sources to back it up. Mojang or Persson have nothing to do with the sites, therefore even if you list them, they should not have the "official" label. I don't have any strong feelings whether we should list the forum or wiki, but I do question how useful they are for a game that's not even in alpha yet. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The Curse sites for Minecraft are considered "official" so far as the Mojang staff uses them and uses the sites for interacting with the player community. That seems to be the pattern which Mojang is using, where they take an existing website run by fans and work with them.  At the moment the Curse Minecraft Wiki is also the location where bug reports are passed between the player community and the Mojang development staff.  Does that make those sites "official"?  I would think so.  They aren't necessarily "owned" by Mojang, but they clearly have precedence over other similar websites like Planet Minecraft (which is clearly not "official" by any stretch of the imagination).  How that applies to stuff for 0x10^c as a game is certainly something that is not a settled question yet.


 * As for a game that "not even in alpha yet", Notch has released "official emulators" for the DCPU-16 (such as this one: http://dcpu.com/highnerd/rc_1/) on top of the dozen or so other emulators written by the player community.  There are also another five documents (that I put into the article) released by Notch that go further into the design specs for emulator developers on top of some of the fans who have decompiled the source code for the above mentioned "official emulator" and have dug out some details.  On top of that there is also a "leaked version" of the game (that can also be obtained on this link:  http://www.0x10cforum.com/forum/m/4932880/viewthread/2861458) which allows you to look around one of the test rooms that Notch has been developing with a working DCPU-16 emulator.  Notch has also done a few "livestream" sessions where he has shown off some of the source code for the game and demonstrated some of the newer features he has added with a walk through of the game while it was under development (and showing him tweaking the code during the middle of the walkthrough).  There really is a firehose of information about the game considering it really isn't released yet.


 * As a side note, I'd love to put the link to that DCPU emulator (the RC1 version) into the article somehow, but I just don't know where to put it. Links to most of the peripheral specs are on that page (also noting that dcpu.com is owned by Mojang and is an official alias for 0x10c.com).  Any suggestions for that are welcome.  --Robert Horning (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Regardless, you need to provide a reliable reference that calls the sites "official". In contrast, the forum is listed as "community resources" on game's website. Mojang employees using the forum doesn't make it official, otherwise any website related to the game where they said something would become official. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. That is also why I didn't restore the links to the article as "official" sites.  I understand the reluctance at allowing these kind of links into articles as low standards for inclusion can have this external reference section grow like a weed farm where every fan site, blog, and random musing can end up in that list.  I'm just trying to establish standards for those who are participating with this article for inclusion, and noting why I'm adding these links as they are notable... at least within the fan community.  In particular, sites that are a "one man band" and generally of low quality should not be listed in that section.  The problem is trying to come up with an objective way to describe a web link of low quality.  --Robert Horning (talk) 13:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe the wiki is official, but it's still worth linking. Seeing as it has already a large number of pages for a Pre-Alpha game. While the fourms aren't stated as official, it's heavily implied. As it's the linked forums on the official page for the game, it's highly likely that it is at least moderated by Mojang staff or by Persson himself. Perhaps a compromise of just listing them and leaving out the "official" label would solve this? - CharmlessCoin (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Categorization
After reading about the game on the official website, it seemed that this would be a programming game (where you program as an integral part of the game). Should I add the Programming Games category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.35.32 (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's really neccesary. I think it's more of an adventure game with programming elements; but you do have a good point there. Anyone else? CharmlessCoin (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Name
The "0x" is a string that numbers in hexadecimal notation are prefixed with so I thought the name was "sixteen to twelfth power". 0x10C is just 268 in decimal. I would say the difference is not just a matter of stylization. It is 0xFFFF FFFF FEF4, to be exact. - 193.84.186.81 (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Although the title of the article is 0x10c to match Wikipedia naming conventions, the stylized name is 0x10c. That is, 0x10 (16) to the power of 0xC (12). I don't believe this can be directly addressed as far as the article title goes, but the stylization is fairly important to the actual meaning of the name. -- ferret (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been using 0x10^c as the title name, with the Caret character to separate the 10 and the c letters when I'm typing it out. I just created a redirect for 0x10^c to this page, so on a technical side it is possible to switch to this name if we want to reopen the discussion from above.  I'll admit Notch sort of pulled this number out of the air as a way to challenge naming assumptions in general.


 * Another possible name for this game that has been mentioned quite a bit is the word trillek, which is derived from a list of hexadecimal numbers created after a Slashdot discussion about naming conventions for hex numbers. The name "trillek" has been used within the 0x10^c fan community as a way to pronounce the name (on reddit, slashdot, the 0x10^c forum, and a few other places... none of them really reliable sources).


 * More accurately (and described in the back story), the number is correctly 0x1000000000000. --Robert Horning (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * After some contemplation, I have to admit that I do not think the argument against renaming the page to 0x10^c was sound in its argument. "0x10c" is meaningless for the cannotation provided by the context of this page and it was not merely a trademark idea. So, we may want to consider changing the name again. D arth B otto talk•cont 23:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Are there enough reliable sources to warrant listing "0x10^c" as alternative spelling? I don't see any and the above discussion is largely OR without reliable sources. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * How about 0x10c (video game)? 117.195.80.89 (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Game Guide
I've looked through this page and have noticed that it looks increasingly like a video game guide, rather than an encyclopedic page. What I mean by this, is that there are actually parts of this article with a bullet point description taken from the 0x10c website, as well as content written in an in-game universe form. Please fix this. D arth B otto talk•cont 23:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Trimmed it down. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The DCPU-16 peripherals is something that I think would be useful to mention somewhere as the specifications are real, at least for "virtual peripherals" (references to that content were deleted BTW). Since real programming is going on here, I'm not really sure where the line between in-game content and "real" content is crossed.  While these are in-game devices, discussion of these peripherals can be found on some 3rd party websites as well.  Is that the standard being sought here? (assuming a proper reliable source)  Speculation should be avoided, but these are established as "official" by the game developer in this case.


 * I'd agree that it may have been crossing the line in terms of appearing as a promo piece. Key features which have been announced and talked about on several (reliable source) independent websites doesn't seem to be going over the top though and wouldn't be speculation.  Pulling stuff off of the official website is perhaps over the top.  There are several features about the game which are mentioned on several websites as notable for this particular game (from the viewpoint of the reviewers and 3rd party sources).  I think that would fit within the guidelines of what WP:FANCRUFT was trying to deal with instead of just random trivia.  Throwing up stuff that has been mentioned in Tweets by the game developer is something I'd put more as either WP:PROMO or even unreliable (Notch seems to keep changing his mind on some stuff) so it should be from 3rd party sites and something they find notable. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Any programming involved is still within the confines of the game, so it is not "real" in that sense. The article isn't supposed to describe how the tools work, in the same manner we wouldn't describe how a keyboard works, even though there are plenty of keybaord specification out there. Just like peripheral discussions, there are tons of discussions on other subjects mentioned in the article, and we have already given a paragraph exclusively to the DCUP-16.


 * If there are any obvious missing announced and covered gameplay features, they can of course be included. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Programming that is happening is not just done within the confines of the game, particularly since there are fan-made projects to make the DCPU-16 in real silicon, and Verilog files for FPGA implementations (admittedly fan-made) have already been made. On this issue of saying it is all imaginary and therefore it really doesn't exist I completely disagree.  There is nothing in Wikipedia guidelines that precludes mentioning that peripheral standards do exist, or even listing bonafide references to those specification documents.  Even listing those documents in a table is not against Wikipedia guidelines, as long as they are bonafide references that can be deemed reliable.  Such discussions shouldn't overwhelm the article, but to say that they don't belong is misinterpreting the Wikipedia guidelines.  All the five pillars really require is that it is NPOV, verifiable, and accurate based upon reliable sources.  Dismissing such a listing out of hand because it is an element of the game is completely misinterpreting Wikipedia policies.  --Robert Horning (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please do not misquote me; I did not say DCPU-16 isn't real. I said that DCPU-16 as used ingame is exactly that - ingame feature. This talk page and this article is about the game, not about DCPU-16 or uses of DCPU-16. And as far as the game's gameplay is concerned, this is just one feature.


 * And the corresponding policy is WP:UNDUE (which is actually part of the pillar on verifiability) and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, followed by WP:GAMECRUFT. Going into such detail of just one feature is undue weight. We already have a separate section for it. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the DCPU-16 could be split off into its own article, assuming it meets standards of independent notability and other issues. I'm willing to drop this issue from now, as there are other things I want to put into this article without turning this into an edit war over such a petty issue.  I just don't think including additional information about the DCPU-16 is going to overwhelm this article and I'm raising the issue that I am disputing the edit that you made, where I may revert and add back some of the information you removed earlier in some future edit.  --Robert Horning (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Game History
There was a list of ideas presented in Reddit about the history of this game that I would like to incorporate somehow into this article. Some of it is already there, but there are a few details that would be useful to add which I think tell an interesting tale about this game:

http://www.reddit.com/r/0x10c/comments/tr1jf/history_of_prealpha_0x10c_wip/

Most of the links in this are very heavy in primary sources, and I think we could leave out the Reddit history stuff that really is meaningless fluff (and not likely to find secondary sources anyway). As an outline I think this is pretty good, although I don't think this particular link should be used by itself as a reference as it should be treated as a tertiary source on a level with Wikipedia itself. As a source of inspiration to expand this article, on the other hand, it is invaluable and this outline has received the input from a great many people who have been following the game closely. If anybody would like to help search for secondary sources to back up the claims in this outline, it would be appreciated.

Discussing how much of this is gamecruft and how much is actual information worth putting into the article is also welcome. Regardless, I think there is enough here in terms of specific details and references that it needs to be recorded somewhere linked to this article. --Robert Horning (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://0x10c.com/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think I agree with this removal. While it's true the site and the article are similar, the article clearly has been rewritten and is not copied verbatim from the site. As it is relaying the sparse details known of the game's plot at this time, it will be very difficult for it not to have a close resemblance. -- ferret (talk) 02:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The section was largely copied from the main website and was written by Markus Persson, so the claim of plagiarism and copyright violations certainly are appropriate. It isn't just similar, but almost identical.  I think the section should be restored in some fashion though, and I should note that there are other sources (especially secondary sources) which can be used to describe at least the main gist of the back story without resorting to necessarily a verbatim duplication of what was here before or a copy from the primary source.  There are also comments made by Markus Persson in his tweets, on Reddit, and in other forums that can be used to expand even beyond what was originally stated including information found in the peripheral specification documents.  --Robert Horning (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Please add the pronunciation of name of this game. Please. 117.195.80.89 (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

DCPU-16 redirects to article with barely a mention of it?
I was attempting to locate information about the DCPU-16 Notch developed, and the only Wikipedia mention of it is a redirect to that section of the 0x10C page, which does not exist. I personally do not have an authoritative body of reference work I could use to fill in that article, however I feel the redirect should not exist and instead should be it's own article.

I know there are emulators, compilers, decompilers and other resources such as a partially implemented Verilog for FPGA implementation for the DCPU-16 based on a document that Notch published. I don't remember the URLs and other information so I am not in a position to add the needed information on a device which is essentially existing in several forms beyond the game itself.

While the volume of information in the article justifies the redirect, the amount of publicly available information should be enough to build a much more solid article than the content provided. Citation of implementations if properly cited would strike me as permissible, citation of the original white paper on the CPU and possibly a description of it's processes, resources and implementation could also be helpful.

I admit I am not the most prolific editor of Wikipedia, however I am the type to present the idea for folks more equipped than myself to implement.

--Ice (talk) 07:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

macOS
Hello Would you mind explaining what you mean with we don't retroactively change sourced material? 46.127.26.206 (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The current consensus is to leave it as it was. See this and this discussions. At the time of game's announcement, development and cancellation, the Apple platform it was being made was for called "OS X". Changing it to "macOS" retroactively misrepresents what the sources at the time used and what the platform at the time was called. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've looked through all the sources in this article, and none of them mention OS X anywhere. How exactly will that misrepresent "the sources" if it is not even in any of the sources to begin with?
 * Also, I do not think that changing it to macOS will misrepresent what the platform was named at the time, since that is already covered over at the macOS page. 46.127.26.206 (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you just going to ignore this? 46.127.26.206 (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I pointed you to the previous discussions on this and it looks like pretty clear consensus to me. Anything else was just me summarizing it. If you disagress and want further input, you can bring this up at WT:WPVG or WT:MOSVG — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Mojang logo.svg

the Game's Story
The game's story isn't listed here on this Wikipedia page. 71.46.222.124 (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)