Talk:Higan (emulator)

Suggestions
Due to some issues (http://byuu.org/), Byuu has stopped working on the higan emulator.
 * Noted, but the article was locked before I could add a citationQuequotion (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, that is outdated information and development is ongoing. Buuun (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

A possible source: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2011/08/accuracy-takes-power-one-mans-3ghz-quest-to-build-a-perfect-snes-emulator/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.229.181.89 (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That article is three pages long and has over two hundred comments. I think we can say higan is notable now. Need to work that into some content here.Quequotion (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for merging bsnes into higan (emulator)
bsnes should be merged into higan (emulator). bsnes is now one of many emulators inside the greater whole that is higan, and no longer a standalone SNES emulator. It has been this way for a while, but it was only a few days ago that the first official release of the emulator under the new name higan was released. bsnes still technically exists; it now refers to the SNES emulator core that is part of higan.

The following pages currently redirect to bsnes:


 * BSNES
 * BSnes
 * higan (emulator)

If bsnes and higan (emulator) are merged, then BSNES and Bsnes should redirect to higan (emulator).

— SolarStarSpire (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. this says that bsnes was renamed. Therefore, the two should merge.

— Wyatt8740 (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I also agree, but how do you do this ? Hell Pé (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Took care of it.Quequotion (talk) 03:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Notability and tone
Per the templates I just placed in the article, here's the section for discussion.

On notability: This article currently has no secondary or tertiary sources, and at least one source appears to violate Wikipedia's policy on self-published sources. At the moment, there's nothing here to establish significant notability through reliable third-party sources. That can lead to further problems with verifiability. If any such sources exist, you should add them and properly cite them within the article. Otherwise, we will likely just merge it into the more general List of video game emulators article.

On tone: It appears several editors contributing to this article are engaged in some sort of rivalry, and statements that affect the neutrality of the article are creeping into your prose. Keep in mind, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and it is not the place to fight over rival projects. Any such behavior will result in swift blocks to prevent disruption.

Thank you. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 00:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've had a quick search and this looks like another emulator that can be merged to List of video game emulators. Samwalton9 (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to give these folks a bit of time to establish proper notability, but given that this has been a hot-button topic as of late, I don't think we should wait for very long on it. Will start a more formal AfM discussion next week if we haven't seen significant progress by then.  (This article is more than a stub, so we can't just merge or delete it without a proper discussion.) &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 01:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds more than reasonable to me. Samwalton9 (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I support this as well. Sergecross73   msg me   20:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Been about a month. Is there any opposition to merging? If so, then someone should go ahead and do it. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Left a comment on your talk page 2 weeks ago. Will assume you either concur or decline to argue if no response within next 2 weeks, and therefore reinstate article. 71.105.132.152 (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The article could use a few more links and sources. Given a little time, I could flesh it a bit. I did attempt to add more content to the article, but someone instantly deleted it (comment below). It was relevant content that demonstrates this particular emulator's innovations and adaptability that are distinct from others. I've gone over the content once more to make sure it's as neutral as possible and put it back where it belongs. Unfortunately, with byuu's forum reboot, a great deal of relevant content was lost (ie, threads wherein he collected donations to get chips that had never been properly emulated decapped).60.42.6.213 (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious? What did you do that for?
I updated this page and added several paragraphs in the article, including additions to the "Forks" section which were immediately deleted, along with content that had already been there, and summarised into about three words...

Thanks for keeping the link to lsnes, which is irrelevant since you removed the section for lsnes...

I am going to put my changes back. Right now.60.42.6.213 (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Again? You did it again? Let me make this clear: you didn't just revert my (valid, important) changes, you destroyed half of the original article. I am going to fix this again, immediately. You are going to stop doing this or you will have to ban me for uploading relevant content to an article. I'm trying to get the point across that higan is a notable work of software and worth having its own article, but this suppression doesn't help.60.42.6.213 (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please be mindful of WP:BRD - if there are disputes, you are to discuss on the talk page and only make them if there is consensus to change. I've protected the page to stop all the needless reverting of changes. As a side note, there are many problems with the information you keep adding to the article.


 * 1) We don't use links to other websites like that, and certainly not as section titles, for example.
 * 2) These articles are supposed to be written by what third party subjects say on the subject. For a list of commonly used ones, see WP:VG/S. I'd recommend someone start adding information from third party sources, as I don't believe it would survive a deletion discussion in its current state. (It looks like the only reason it survived 2 yrs ago was because everyone forgot about it.)
 * 3) Wikpedia articles are supposed to be written for "general audiences", so that any person could understand it. The version you keep reverting in has a lot of tech jargon that doesn't make sense to the average user. Sergecross73   msg me  20:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You think that one article constitutes notability, because its author (the primary source) says so. You think that reams of fancruft and tangiential topical relevance establishes, rather than demolishes, notability. You are mistaken about everything you've done and said.  Literally everything you've done, and every way that you've done it, violates all encyclopedic principles, as I listed clearly in the perfectly clear and helpful edit comments which you willfully ignored.  I have made a concerted effort to save this article from non-notability and from even a mere discussion of deletion; you don't get a "point across"; either it is or it isn't notable.  You demolished the article's encyclopedic nature, preemptively declared a threat of edit war WP:3RR along with your own banning, and made it all magically personal.  You must read and adhere to WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:3RR, WP:NPA, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:FANCRUFT, WP:NOTDIR before continuing to edit along these lines. Deleting content isn't what makes Wikipedia empty; non-notability or lack of reliable sources is what makes Wikipedia empty. — Smuckola(talk) 21:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * EDIT: I was mistaken about the user who reveted my changes. As such, the following comments have been adjusted.
 * Thank you for stopping the needless reverting, by which I mean Smuckola's needless deletion of my valid additions to the page.
 * If it really is Wikipedia policy, and not just your personal taste, I can of course move the links to somewhere more appropriate. Why not use links this way? It's incredibly comprehensible: The minor headings are big, bold links to the items they name--items not worthy of their own Wikipedia article and only relevant on this one. This is not a problem with the information by the way, it is a problem of style.
 * If I didn't have to fight to keep the article in one piece, I might have spent more time looking up sources to back up my statements. There's a great one at the top of this talk page; I already managed to add another to the article despite efforts to stop me. I am going to bed soon; if you'd kindly allow me to finish editing tomorrow I will be happy to prove you wrong (very happy; and I'll see what I can do about the "jargon" too).
 * It already survived one deletion discussion in a worse state than it was when I found it. Perhaps it is hard to understand that something related to video games is an important piece of work, but there's more to higan than playing nintendo. Lots of people care about this project; lots of time and money have been invested in it. It's also a highly controversial work that has garnered a good deal of attention and kicked off an era of accuracy-oriented emulators.
 * The content I added is relevant to the topic, filled with links to source material, and neither inaccurate nor offensive. The next time Smuckola tries to make point by deleting everything and saying nothing, don't buy it. You should know: if there are disputes, you are to discuss on the talk page.
 * Smuckola deleted content that was already there without cause! It looked the mouse was swept in a wide arc and the delete key hit without reading anything by the way incoherent bits of it were left behind; that's irresponsible at best. Because of this I very strongly get the impression that this is not about the content I posted at all and rather a personal agenda against this article's existence.Quequotion (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I added a third-party source and a paragraph to go with it and everything was deleted everything again. Why does Smuckola want this article to die so badly? And why are you complicit in his attempt to own (and destroy) the article?Quequotion (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Links definitely don't belong in section titles. I don't know the link to the exact policy, but I'm certain it's a thing. And adding so many direct links that link to outside websites, especially when they're all first party links to the subject, is seen as a violation of WP:PROMOTION. There's just no reason to link to a website that many times unless you're trying to get people to go there. Its not necessary.
 * You may add suggested changes on the talk page while the article is locked.
 * Please check the actual deletion discussion, it was only kept on a technicality that the deletion nomination recommended a merge instead of a deletion. There was a consensus to merge, it just never ended up happening. This article is on pretty thin ice when it comes to third party sources, which are what is needed for a subject to have its own article.
 * I protected the page because no one was discussing changes on the talk page. Me starting up a discussion is not a requirement for protecting a page. The proposed changes have many errors - external links in section titles, all sorts of tech jargon, it isn't written in an encyclopedic tone, etc.
 * Please assume good faith. Just because you don't approve of s changes doesn't mean he's out to get the article deleted. He didn't even nominate it for deletion or anything. Sergecross73   msg me  12:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Guys, I have read the deleted parts from History, and I agree with their removal. It was badly edited, and borderline incomprehensible to anyone not heavily involved with the architecture of the Super NES. I do suggest adding a "See also" or "External links" section to link to more notable forks, as the existence of forks in case of a dead open source project is highly informative. 38.125.36.194 (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, you shouldn't use numbered lists for talk page posts, it's really annoying. 38.125.36.194 (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additional input. That other person seems to have left, but it's still good to have this for future reference, or if he comes back. Sergecross73   msg me  00:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Higan (emulator). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120629055935/http://byuu.org:80/articles/emulation-3 to http://byuu.org/articles/emulation-3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Added disputed template to Byuu's death source
Hi

Saw on Twitter some discussion about Byuu and about the U.S. Federal government putting out the death statistics for June 2021 - apparently no American expats in Japan died around June 27, 2021. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel/while-abroad/death-abroad1/death-statistics.html I can't cite this source directly due to OS but since a government source is much more solid than a tabloid, I have marked the statement of death as disputed until further notice (possible backfiling of the last few days of the month like marcan states?). Please discuss. Thanks Kettleonwater (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It is original research and a BLP violation to try to conclude that because no American expat are listed around the day that Byuu died, that the death confirmed by reliable sources (including USA Today) must be false. Given that the author had been under attack from people that wanted to ridicule Byuu, the attempts to disprove the reported suicide are continued efforts on that and we cannot at all entertain those unless those themselves come direct from reliable sources. --M asem (t) 13:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Think this is a WP:Verifiability, not truth issue, and even if stuff changes, this will never be verified or reported on by a third party. Marcan still alleges that what was described in the USA Today article is true. I think there is a definite reason to mark the USA Today article as disputed, but I'll not follow up. Kettleonwater (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * At no point has it even been presented that the State Dep't list is 100% definitive - they lead off "to the maximum extent practicable" on that list meaning they aren't expected to track every expat death. So absence by omission from a list is nowhere near enough evidence to contradict RSes. Particularly given that this seems to be extending from people that support Kiwifarms (based on when I look at Twitter) that want to claim Byuu faked their death and is now DDOSing KF. We don't get into that type of BS on WP. --M asem (t) 14:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Looking at this now, I believe we should bring back the disputed template. Considering how only two sources reported on this with evidence to support Byuu's death (US Today and a Twitter account) and no concreate evidence supporting their death has surfaced (such as testimony from outraged family members at the denial of their death) I find it right to be skeptical in-light of the US Department of State's report among other things.  While it is true that this corresponds with the perspective of Kiwifarms, it should not be of the interest of Wikipedia to change information recorded here according to who it does or does not favor.  What input does anyone else have?  Mortal Crispy (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * That is not how WP works particularly around controversial deaths. The State Dept. poges are a primary source and unless they explicitly stated Byuu's death, we cannot infer that it was covered up. Further, USA today is 100% a reliable source (with its own work to validate the story) so you would need a source as good as USA Today to try to claim this was disputed. --M asem (t) 01:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable. I suppose I just wanted to see this source mentioned because it is the center of some controversy not mentioned in the article.  Perhaps someone could edit the article to include the debate whether Byuu killed themself.  That way, one could include the State Department page not as a source, but as a fact that it was used as a source by people who believed Byuu is still alive.  I do not know if that is appropriate for this page or the Kiwifarms page though; I am somewhat new to this.  Mortal Crispy (talk) 04:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is that no reliable source expresses any doubt or speaks to any of the doubt of the death. It is absolutely inappropriate at Kiwi Farms too - BLP/BDP applies everywhere (Though it is reasonable that if Kiwi Farms is assigned partial blame or more for contriubing to the suicide in RSes, that should be made there). --M asem (t) 06:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Dang. The best I have is Know Your Meme (https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/near-byuu-suicide) and some primary sources ( --ze un fo un ) [I included a space because it will not let me post the completed link] to write about the controversy itself, and I am unsure if we are even allowed to use them (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources).  I thought we could just say that Null doubted he was dead and cite his post or something, and we could not expressively support it.  I guess not though, since it is so obscure that major sources have not reported on it.  Mortal Crispy (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)