Talk:Argonaut Games

Argonaut Software's Croc Prototype?
Supposedly, Croc had a prototype made for the Nintendo 64 that originally featured Yoshi. Is this false information, or is it real? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.217.80 (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Title Question
Can anyone explain to me how "Argonaut Software" is a play on Jez San's name?--FirecrackerDemon (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Jez's first initial is J, so J.San (pronounced like Jason) would be in charge of the Argonauts, ie: Jason and the Argonauts.

Cancelled System Code Names
Is there any truth to these names? I tried Googling the Hasbro and Apple codenames, and nothing popped up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.55.193.129 (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can't tell which source this is from, so I'm adding a not found tag. I'd be fascinated to read about these. 2600:1700:DA90:2AB0:ECD9:A036:86D7:17ED (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait a sec, I was able to find a brief mention of these in another interview on the web. 2600:1700:DA90:2AB0:ECD9:A036:86D7:17ED (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Argonaut Games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/6hf3BF2Ig?url=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F19980113111227%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.argonaut.com%2Fhtml%2Fbody_argonaut_has_moved_.htm with https://web.archive.org/web/19980113111227/http://www.argonaut.com/html/body_argonaut_has_moved_.htm on http://www.argonaut.com/html/body_argonaut_has_moved_.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Possible ref’s
http://wiki.carmageddon.com/wiki/BRender#cite_note-1

Putting this here after Toshiba3 tried to put the in External Links- shouldn’t be used as a direct source since it’s a fan-made Wiki (and it isn’t even a Wiki centered around BRender or Argonaut) but contains several citations to sources that might be able to be translated into the BRender section. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, good job Tristan taking care of your this article. Dismissing an external link to extensive and articulated information because it is from a fan-made wiki. Don't you know teachers advise against Wikipedia articles because everything here is fan-made as well? (checking your user page sets the tone) It really didn't cross your mind that the link could stay and help visitors reach more information until someone (maybe you?) actually rewrote the BRender section? Thanks to your quick intervention, the article now holds as little information about BRender as before I added the link. And fan-made Rat Movie is still cited as a BRender-based title. As well as an external link that's been dead for the past 10 years. If you're going to claim this article as your own, try to at least put some effort into it... This is the kind of behaviour that pushes people to double-check information found on Wikipedia and convinces them not to contribute. Toshiba-3 (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, way to try and include your own Wiki article that you yourself created and praise it for having "extensive and articulated information" Mr. Arrogant! Why don't you go ahead and tell me all about how I'm an absolute moron and you know than I am long as you're at it??
 * You point out that WP is technically a fan website in itself (which could be loosely argued, but it's so strictly encyclopedic and edited by so many people that I find it hard to agree with that claim), but does that automatically mean that it doesn't have any rules or guidelines to it at all in terms of the content put into it? Well, there are rules and guidelines to editing Wikipedia, believe it or not; the Wikipedia content guideline article for adding external links specifically lists in the collection of links to avoid adding to articles:
 * 11. Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)
 * 12. Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked.
 * Not only is your external link an open Wiki (which, in itself, is technically a fansite), but the only person who's ever edited the article is you (unless there's coincidentally another completely different Internet persona named Toshiba-3, which I highly doubt), and moreover, you're also the only person who's actually edited the Wiki at all within the past 30 days at all, which definitely isn't a substantial number of editors, and the Wiki appears to have been mostly dead for more than 2 years based on the date when the main page was last updated.
 * I'm not saying that this article isn't adequately-written, at least to a certain extent- I can tell that you definitely have put a decent amount of effort into adding information on BRender and the number of good sources that you found and added to the article definitely reflect that. In fact, that's why I added the link to the article here in the talk page- it has a whole lot of decent sources included in it, and it should definitely be kept in mind so that we can come back to the article and use the included citations and content to add info to the WP section. But websites such as Wikis aren't supposed to be used as External Links, and that's the reason why I removed it from the article.
 * Also, regardless of whether or not I'm "right or wrong", I would highly appreciate it if you didn't get your opinions across to me by straight-up insulting me as a WP editor in the most hostile and unfriendly manner imaginable- my user page is the way it is because it's personalized and I can say whatever the hell I want to there, and I have a life to live and a lot of schoolwork so I don't exactly have the time to rewrite an entire article section like you suggest I do. I may be 15 years old, but I'm not a flipping idiot like you clearly think I am, believe it or not.TheDisneyGamer (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems like I hit a spot? Not by insulting you nor your intelligence, but by pointing out your behaviour. I don't care about whatever you say about yourself. Just realize that you have blindly enforced a very debatable rule (#12) which encourages all contributions to be gathered on one platform and disregard others. If I had posted the very same article as a piece on a static tech-oriented website, there would be no problem linking to it, even as a single author (which is completely irrelevant and doesn't tell a thing about the linked article's quality). The arrogant user is you, dismissing a well sourced article in the bat of an eye, ultimately retaining further information from Wikipedia visitors, because you think you are Wikipedia police and can't put rules in perspective. Really proves my point that Wikipedia is a fan-site and explains why many alternatives try to take off.
 * Again, your reply embodies everything wrong with Wikipedia. Toshiba-3 (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, fair enough. You may actually be right, I’m not going to keep up an argument with you. I still think that you’re being unnecessarily hostile in your responses (keep in mind that I’ve been editing WP for only 2 or so years and I’m still sort of learning about how many things go, and I hope you also realize that in the end we ‘’are’’ essentially arguing over each other’s differing opinions) but that’s beside the point- you have a fair point here and I can see how I may have been wrong. I’ll go ahead and revert the edit I did. Sorry for being somewhat close-minded about all of this! TheDisneyGamer (talk) 12:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Surprising yet pleasant turn of events. Let's see how long the link stays there until another person removes it (or writes a section from its references, that'd be nice). For the record, I'm pretty sure you're doing everything right according to Wikipedia's guidelines and its community's state of mind. So thanks for challenging that a bit, this is was sets a human apart from a bot. Toshiba-3 (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Coming back 4 years later to say that you were completely wrong about this in my opinion and I regret being sorry about anything. I was very young and a bit of a pushover, and I let you bully me into submission through overly hostile means. The ensuing argument you had with a far more disciplined Wikipedia editor than yourself only proves my point.
 * By the way, I'm sorry if this breaks some sort of guideline by going back to a 4 year-old discussion and posting an unproductive reply. If such is the case, I will be sure not to do so from now on, but I was feeling petty about this and I have no regrets even if it is the case, as I am a dopamine enjoyer and a cherisher of brief satisfactions such as this one. Ciao. Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 20:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, this article is about Argonaut Games. An external link about an in-game engine used in Carmageddon is not okay. I'm not a bot, and I sure don't like being compared to one either. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 22:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, this article is indeed about Argonaut Games. You know, the people who made the BRender engine which powered some of their well-known titles. It's even mentioned in the actual article. Did you read it? Did you read the linked article too? How am I to know that such a petty edit as yours, which contributes nothing but removing quotation marks and further reading on the subject, isn't the doing of a bot?
 * Really you literally contributed nothing to this article, and considering what you just said it's even possible you didn't read it, yet you're happy to remove access to more information. I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia, do you get some kind of credits every time you make an edit with your phone? Is that your motivation? I see on your profile that you're even paid for some. Am I right then to think you're getting paid to make articles worse? If I pay you, will you add the link to the BRender article back?
 * Oh and don't try to get behind the usual rules to explain your edit, that would only be ok if you had actually contributed something in return, as in rewriting some parts of my article and using references to complete the BRender section of this one. I read on your profile: I have great respect and admiration for all my fellow editors. We're all volunteers, spending our free time on topics we care about, just so this encyclopedia gets better everyday. Does that respect only go to Wikipedia.org editors? Is my article not worthy of a mere link because we have our own wiki? Your lack of independent thought while reviewing articles is symptomatic of this community and exactly why so many people don't contribute to Wikipedia. Toshiba-3 (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you consider contributing to Wikipedia adding a link to "your" Carmageddon wiki, then please, stop contributing. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello again. I never said I was contributing to Wikipedia, on the contrary (thanks to the likes of you) I prefer to write elsewhere! And thus the linked wiki isn't mine, it is obvious had you just glanced at the link you mindlessly removed. Again you didn't read anything, problematic for an encyclopedia editor if you ask me.
 * Anyway. It is paradoxal how your one-liners speak volumes about the actual mental effort you put in your edits. I guess it is to be expected considering the usual short attention span of the average phone addict.
 * The link to my article might not meet some of the Wikipedia rules, but it being there definitely contributed way more to the subject than your edit. At least a 16 year old had more insight and critical thinking than you, and simply left the link alone. Just like all the other editors since then until your OCD barged in.
 * Maybe you should take your own advice. Because if you consider as contributing removing access to further detailed information without a second thought (hence, like a robot) then yes, stop that kind of contributing, you're making things worse. But in the end I guess you win, Soeterbot, good job being a drone. Toshiba-3 (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sick burn. Good luck with your wiki. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Argonaut Games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928041355/http://www.arwinglanding.net/articles.php?page=writeups%2Fjezsan to http://www.arwinglanding.net/articles.php?page=writeups%2Fjezsan
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050426084922/http://www.gamesinvestor.com/Companies/Past_Coverage/Argonaut/Argonaut_Overview/argonaut_overview.html to http://www.gamesinvestor.com/Companies/Past_Coverage/Argonaut/Argonaut_Overview/argonaut_overview.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Regarding the unconfirmed Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban PS1 game, I could find no evidence at all that it exists. Unless someone can provide any actual evidence, I suggest any reference to this game should be removed.

Currently, the source given is "a 2004 edition of PlayStation Magazine". This does not indicate which issue number or page number the game's existence was "alluded" to, and no relevant quote or image is provided.

The stated source could possibly be referring to issue 82 of the US Official PlayStation Magazine, July 2004, p.94. This is because Metacritic cites this as the source of the review of the PS2 version (ctrl + f for "Harry Potter"):

https://www.metacritic.com/publication/official-us-playstation-magazine?page=22

However I could not confirm this since I couldn't find any scans of this issue, such as here:

https://archive.org/details/officialusplaystationmagazine

I'll leave it as it is for now, but I'll remove reference to it soon unless a reliable source can be provided.

Onthedippy (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I have removed reference to it for now but it can be reinstated if a reliable source can be provided.

Onthedippy (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)