Talk:Paprium

Merge Development and Release sections?
@KGRAMR: I saw you merged the Gameplay and Plot sections, which I think makes sense since there's not too much apparent plot for this game compared to say the intro sequence of any of the Streets of Rage games. Granted, I only watched a Let's Play of the game shortly after it came out and haven't watched the "true" ending. Any thoughts on merging the Dev and Release sections together? Pier Solar's is merged given they're somewhat intertwined, and I think this game it's difficult to break the two apart given its history and that it's only been out in the world for a little over a month now.

Going to start adding to these sections when I get some time today, thanks again for finding all these citations, I had wanted to draft this article last month but couldn't find the time with work :) Cmahns (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * DON'T! Since the development of Paprium is extremely well documented for a homebrew Sega Mega Drive release, don't merge it with the release section, which is another whole can of worms that needs to be its own standalone section :) Roberth Martinez (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, makes sense to me! Cmahns (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

What's needed to move to Article space
For my own sake, I want to keep this list so I can start tackling these items in a more organized manner. Not sure if you want to add anything here @KGRAMR, figured I'd ping you since I'm using a lot of the skeleton you started here for the initial direction :)

What needs to be completed prior to move to Article space:


 * Full development history up to the release
 * Subsection for the soundtrack or music composition
 * Release section
 * Citations for Plagiarism subsection
 * Further expand Reception section

After move to Article space:
 * Upload Paprium art
 * Add additional artwork via thumbnails to add more visuals to the article.
 * Gameplay image
 * Tower of power image for Gameplay to highlight the sega cd / 32x features
 * Pier Solar box art for Development section
 * Clean up talk page of draft remnants
 * Create article Redirects
 * "DATENMEISTER", "Datenmeister", "DATENMEISTER Chipset", "DATENMEISTER Chip", "DT128M16VA1LT" -> Cartridge Hardware
 * "Grand Stick III", "Grand stick III" -> Grand Stick III

Nice to have's, not required for move to Article space: Cmahns (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * CC licensed pictures of the cartridge
 * Datenmeister chip
 * picture of the cart with the heatsink / both sides of the cartridge PCB pictures of the cartridge received from a sega-16 user and confirmation they've been released into the public domain
 * CC licensed pictures of the Grand Stick III pictures of both grand stick iii's received from a sega-16 user and confirmation they've been released into the public domain
 * Gameplay screencaps moving to after article space move, as i found the ideal image
 * Some image comparisons of Paprium sprites and other games to illustrate potential plagiarism
 * gallery view for this would be best rather than thumbnails in the side bar
 * Putting the above here on hold for now until the below topic, 1019402381, is discussed further about this article's future. Keeping this here for historical reference. Cmahns (talk) 05:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Discussion around 1019402381 has been resolved as per the below discussion. Cmahns (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit 1019402381
@KGRAMR: -- I had to take an unplanned break from this page over the last month due to some personal stuff that came up that took precedence. I saw your recent edit in 1019402381, undoing the dozens of hours of work I've done adding text around your initial citations along with bringing in additional references. As mentioned before by myself, your curation of the citations was immensely helpful for what I was able to write and I likely wouldn't have started this without you. I'm not sure I understand what the point of this edit was and given the time and labor I invested in it it's a bit hard to want to return to work on this page if any work I do will be undone without any discussion.

I'm assuming good faith here, if you were unhappy with the work I did on this page, or the aforementioned direction I was bringing this page in, I would've appreciated some guidance via another thread of discussion here on this talk page so we could try to work on this together. I understand that this Draft was started by you, and I never wanted this to be an article written solely by myself. That said, it's a bit of a hard thing to come back to this page to begin some more work and more or less seeing all the time and labor I invested into this page taken out without even a discussion. Cmahns (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll say that i was stupid in not mentioning you here first before that edit went live. But i'll promise you that what you wrote earlier will not go unused, as i plan to refine what you originally had on this draft of mine. 'Cause it would've been immediatedly nominated for deletion if it became an article in that state so, rest assured that once i come back to this and finish it, i'll mention you as the one who provided most of the article's information! Roberth Martinez (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the credit, but I want to push back on your statement that this article would have been nominated for deletion if it became an article in the state it was in as the justification to delete all the work you and I have done on this draft. Yes, I agree that this page needed some cleaning and refinement, and I had several items listed above in my notes that I wanted to flesh out before doing a big edit of what was written, prior to my unplanned break. I don't however think that warranted clearing out every edit made between February and March. I'm more than happy to work with you on cleaning up what was written and refining it so it can be moved to Article space, but I'd want all the work we've contributed to this page restored before I'd return so we aren't starting from scratch.
 * I'm not looking to start a fight, but your reply mentioning that this is your draft despite this being in the public Draft space (and linked to all users when searching for Paprium which was how I stumbled on it in the first place), gives me the impression you're not interested in outside contributions to this page. Please correct me if I'm wrong, as I was previously (and still am) looking forward to working on this page being cleaned up and published together. Cmahns (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * When I said it would be nominated for deletion, I was alluding that some admins. would have looked at this and do that. As the one who created the draft, it's not that I'm interested in outsiders working on this draft but I was not happy with how it was (overbloated with details about the cartridge it uses, the arcade stick, etc.). Let me finish an article I'm working on and I'll begin working on Paprium shortly afterwards using your work as a guide. Roberth Martinez (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Have admins previously messaged you about the contents on this page? If so these should've been made public here to help provide guidance to us or any other potential editor. If not, I don't see what the concern of that is with respect to your action. This is a draft in Draft space, as long as nothing under a restrictive copyright license is linked here (which I admit I had forgotton about when I linked several images in a prior edit which were deleted by admins/mods), there was nothing here requiring a swift deletion, and we were well within the allowed window for article to sit idle in Draft space pending an auto-deletion. Article space is another thing of course, and the draft that was up here was not at all ready for that move.
 * As for the comment on the two topics you mentioned that made it "overbloated", I would've loved to discuss that further since I am open to the opinion that maybe the contents I had were too much for that section, but this brings me back to my original point that you should've discussed these items on this talk page so we could work together on making this the best possible draft of this article to help bring it to Article space. I previously did this at the start of my contributions here to get a feel of where you wanted the article to move based on your draft, along with asking why you had removed one of the cited reviews when I wrote out the initial draft of that section, otherwise I took it from there on my own. Cmahns (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I restored the draft back before my edit. Roberth Martinez (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, appreciate your time with this, looking forward to getting back to this page soon along with working with you to polish it up. Cmahns (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)