Template talk:DJMax series

PC isn't a platform you write games for
I don't know why people cannot understand this. PC is not a one single platform nor one type of computer hardware you can write operating systems for. Please understand that PC is a acronym for Personal Computer. PC is one of the four (five if we accept Nano Computers) large upper category for Computers. When people talk they refer in spoken language and sometimes in written language PC, when what they actually mean is "100% compatible IBM-PC Intel Architecture Personal Computer which runs Microsoft Windows software platform". This kind of PC is also Apple Macintosh PC can also be a computer which uses Motorola architecture ARM processor and one of the many Gnu/Linux software platforms. So please. It's Microsoft Windows, not PC. And this is a bad explanation written in a hurry. --Mikitei (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's odd for a game to only work on windows. The DJMax Trilogy cover shows "PC/DVD" which means not just windows. that and since it's a korean game, not all of the areas have windows.Bread Ninja (talk)


 * It is not an odd thing for game to work only on Windows. 99% of the retail AAA titles are released only for Windows. PC/DVD refers to hardware. If you look for example older games they tell you "IBM-PC/CD-ROM" like the the Dig. IBM-PC is a brand for IBM's IBM-PC branded Personal Computers. This is a vary simple thing to understand. Amiga is a PC, Atari ST is a PC, NES is a PC, Mac is a PC, PSP is a PC. But IBM-PC's nick name is also a PC. Please read about this from Personal Computer. There are computers which are not personal computers. Such as mainframe computer or nano computer. PC/DVD tells you that it's made for PC compatible hardware. Which in turn refers to Intel hardware in this case. If you release a game for Gnu/Linux or Amiga, it will say PC/DVD on a box these days. It's confusing, I know, but this is the current terminological world we live in. DJMax Online and DJMax Trilogy only works on a Microsoft Windows platforms. Thus it should be the actual software platform like in most of the other wikipedia articles. PC is confusing, old term which doesn't imply the actual platform software was written for. As we move to the future, it will be left out from the boxes. And yeah, please look old game boxes. Also the fact is that if your desktop computer doesn't run Windows. You cannot play DJMax Trilogy. If your computer runs GNU/LInux. It's still a PC, but you cannot play DJMax Trilogy. This is very simple thing to understand if you know even a little bit about computers. --Mikitei (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well it's odd, but i only find info with PC. Maybe we can just say IBM-PC instead of just windows as it could be more verifiable than just "microsoft windows" because i can only find "PC" in reliable sources.Bread Ninja (talk)


 * Please understand, that people generally refer to Windows as a PC, even if it is a incorrect way of addressing it. But there's a historical background to it. I try to explain it in simple terms...
 * IBM-PC was released in a hurry. IBM didn't have time to think marketing strategy or proper name for the machine. IBM only had numbers to describe all their hardware. So IBM model 5150 might not say nothing to you. But for me it's the same machine which is also called IBM's first Personal Computer which was marketed as IBM's PC model 5150 which later on was shortened to form IBM-PC Model 5150.
 * Later on IBM added better model names. Like XT, AT, and so on. But it took them decade to actually give the machines their a brand. Which they called for example Aptiva later on.
 * When it was obvious that although IBM had invented the architecture and owned it for the most parts pirate manufactures such as Toshiba manufactured partially illegal clones of the IBM's PC. Those machines where called clone-pcs.
 * In early 90s there was a big change in attitude. IBM lost it's lead position to clone pc makers. At the same time Microsoft used neutral language and talked about those pcs when they refered to IBM-PC clone PCs. By the end of the 90s most software makers started to follow similar princibles calling their software a pc software. Despite the fact that PC also mean generally all personal computers. For example look at what it says on Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2's box. It's the last time I probably saw for IBM-PC/CD-ROM tag in a software box. When old paper boxes where erased and DVD plastic boxes came they all said PC/CD.
 * There's on going change in attitude from Microsoft to use the proper titles while at the same time make it understandable for the people. If you look at Games for Windows you notice this.


 * ...Some PR people even actually make use of it's double nature like the Apple. IBM-PC is a brand which doesn't exist anymore. Thus it should not be used. Most good Wikipedia game articles also refer to Windows these days. It is correct the way it is. If you don't like the Microsoft name in it we can take it away from it. But the actual and official name of the Microsoft's Windows is Microsoft Windows. Just like a Playstation Portable is not a Playstation but a Portable Playstation... Saying that DJMax is for a PC is not a lie but then there's going to be a question, which PC and for which PC OS it is for? And since the only (IBM/Intel-)PC DJMax games are for a Microsoft Windows I think it's a proper title. It's not that your source is entirely wrong. It's just that it is little bit misleading unless you know about this background in a great deal. And that's why I find it important to keep the actual title of the software platform. This is a thing which sparks lots and lots of emotions to some people. Especially when most of the time x86+Windows combination is dubbed as a pc and then compared to specific hardware platforms which have strong branding like the Playstation. Playstation 3 for example is PPC architecture PC. And it was actually even advertised as a such in a selected circles. But then SCE decided to close it down so that it wasn't open for development anymore. I think that's a sad thing... well you can probably guess that locking PS3 down after SCE sold it them as a computer stirred quite a bit of hate against Sony's computer department. --Mikitei (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * OH well...i think I'm seeing what you're getting at. Well whatever works for now. if more info comes out on it (probably not) then it could be changed in the future.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course. --Mikitei (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Redlinks
redlinks in navboxes should be provided only when they're about to have an article. other than that, it's pointless to have them in the navbox template. if their inclusion will be brought in soon, then you must inform the template talk page or so.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * When I wrote them into template. I had two reasons. First, I was keeping them at hand since I am making background research for them both so that I can contribute good basic articles later on. Second, there where some people whom changed the template so that DJMax was implied to be DJMax Online. I added them for the clarification that DJMax Online article doesn't exist. But I totally understand if you don't want them to be in template. But on the other hand there are also lots of templates which have redlinks in them. :/ --Mikitei (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * if they serve as navigation, and have not been previously discussed before about it's inclusion drawing near, then it's perfectly acceptable to removing them. I've also noticed a lot of them and removed certain ammount in DDR. some of them are often deleted ones. If you are making these articles, you can include them as long as you provide a sandbox or special page to show it's progress.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually I could start with actual writing process with those articles tomorrow. I pretty much understand how to write about it but there's going to be one big problem. That problem is lack of proper english language sources. I think that korean language sources are not good for english wikipedia but acceptable. I don't know what's your stance on this. --Mikitei (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Whatever you can find that is reliable. I think there should be some english sources, but the most difficult one i think might be mobile.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that DJMax Mobile will be hard one. Especially since there are at least two different releases of it which feature both different content and work on a different kind of mobile operating systems and hardware. If I remember correctly the first one was made for korean operator and their own Wipi-C software platform. The other was for Windows CE's mobile distribution. Even the korean Wikipedia doesn't have much information about them. Which is why I am planning to make one single article about both mobile revisions. I don't think they are significant enough to be their own articles. I hope that you agree... --Mikitei (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If they both share similar traits and not enough distinguishing then it's fine. i'm not familiar with mobile, but I'm sure some sources exist out there. i'm not good at finding foreign games unless released English somewhere.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Template structure
Bread Ninja. The style the template right now has is pretty similar to what many other templates in wikipedia have. For example Template:Microsoft Windows family... It is not about following the korean template. Besides if they do something right which is agreeable are you saying that we just have to be different just for the sake of being different? --Mikitei (talk) 10:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't agree... I bet you, you wouldn't base it off Koreans if it wasn't made in Korea. The difference is, koreans have two articles on Mobile which "could" merit it's own independent group within the template as for the english wikipedia only has one. No need for clarification if they're both included in the same article and no need to add three links to the same article.
 * And how did the other template prove your point? there is only one article under the "future" group similarly to "Other" has other. And the links each link up to each individual article.Bread Ninja (talk) 11:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What makes you think so? Windows template is just for general reference. It isn't the only template which follows the same principles. Either we take the word "DJMax" in front of them all, or we don't take it at all. If there are two different versions under the same name we specify the name and after that those versions in brackets like in the Windows template. For example see the Windows Server 2008, Windows Server 2008 R2 and Windows 2008 HPC variants. Wikipedia guidelines in manual of style disagree with you (WP:MOS). Since you write about relation of "future" and "other" groups, I am pretty sure that you're again misunderstanding the point here and not generally getting the idea... PS. I added the missing colon in front of your last sentence to keep the conversation together so that it won't fall apart. --Mikitei (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I changed "Mobile" to "Cell phone". It's not exactly a solution but better for now since it makes clear difference between the product names and the category. :) --Mikitei (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Difference is there isn't more than one link that links to the same article. Windows Server 2008 links to Windows Server 2008, Windows Server 2008 R2 links to the article of the same name and so on and so forth. DJMax Mobile (2009) and DJMax mobile (2005) link to the same article "DJMax Mobile". So there's no need to link them multiple times and there's no need for clarification because they're linked to the same article. If there were two articles of it, than yes. but they all link up to the same article so we can't add unnecessary clarification. the navbox is to navigate through articles related to the topic.Bread Ninja (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok. That's a good reason. Why didn't you say it in the first place? I'll do the edit. :) --Mikitei (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * a simple misunderstanding.Bread Ninja (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)