Talk:M.U.G.E.N/Archive 2

I have archived the old talk page to give this a fresh, clean slate. If anyone has questions regarding certain informational bits, check out the Archived talk page to see if the topic in question has already been discussed. Blacklist 06:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that Elecbyte, LLC (creators of M.U.G.E.N) is back online . . .

What do this means for MUGEN users? What do Elecbyte has in store for their users?

It means absolutely, positively, nothing until they do something. As it stands all that's there is a webpage, that could've been put up by anyone. Anything beyond that fact is speculation.--Kung Fu Man 18:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether it's Elecbyte or a group of hackers, they're cashing in on the Google Ads and probably not going to do anything with the site. Borrada 14:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hackers. Click on the FAQ link on the site. It leads to some spam site about monkeys. 75.120.101.109 14:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that M.U.G.E.N is in the correct spot...

How should the spelling of M.U.G.E.N be cleared up? As it stands, the screenshot of the title screen is shown prominently. That screen and it being displayed here is the primary source of confusion. Here are couple solutions to this.

• Use a screenshot of the title screen without the N--deceitful although intentions are to clear up confusion, but might also create it.
• Use an alternate screenshot--doesn't display the main screen.
• Leave the screenshot with the misspelling with an explanation in the article--immediate confusion still remains for those who read pictures first in an article.

Discuss? Vote? I dunno. I personally like the first option. Messatsu 05:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd go with the first option: seems better overall to show the forward face of mugen itself, and leave other screenshots for the rest of the article.--Kung Fu Man 12:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Nitpicking

Is the following line even worth mentioning?

Creators of M.U.G.E.N content are from all over the globe, most notably including American, Brazilian, Japanese, Chinese, and French creators. Messatsu 00:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Honestly? It isn't. Just somehow got left in because everyone felt it was fair to the other parts of the community and all that good jazz.--Kung Fu Man 17:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

A "forgotten" acronym?

"However, M.U.G.E.N is a forgotten acronym, referring to the days when the engine was meant to emulate shooting games as opposed to fighting games as stated by Elecbyte, therefore the real meaning of M.U.G.E.N is and always will be unknown."

What does this mean? Did every one of the original developers die or something, taking the acronym's meaning to their graves? Now that would sure be worth mentioning. Humor aside, the real known information would be more useful. --Boradis 02:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Following my brilliant policy of "post first, research second," I looked through the discussion archive to find that the developers claim to have forgotten the meaning. It would still be better for the article to say something along the lines of, "The developers claim they have forgotten the meaning of the acronym." --Boradis 02:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed that section as per Boradis's comment and expanded a little to the point of "Pronunciation of Mugen" probably not being a good descriptor any longer. Left the "official" pronunciation more in the unknown category on the rewrite since the Japanese meaning is unverified. And I mean unverified in the sense that Elecbyte hasn't come out and said Mugen referred to the Japanese meaning. Considering including TESTP and UNITED in the article. Messatsu 04:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Freeware/shareware

The argument that the engine itself is freeware, and thus covered under freeware laws. In reply, opponents state due to the license agreement[1] obtained by Elecbyte, which in part may still apply, M.U.G.E.N itself is actually shareware, and covered under the laws governing such.

This doesn't appear to be true. I'd lean towards calling it freeware. Mugen is and has always been available for free. Although lacking made-available source code, I don't think the argument for calling Mugen shareware is very strong. Messatsu 03:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

'Warehousing' rename

Rename Warehousing title to Hosting Controversy possibly? While that section can explain the community meaning of warehousing, warehousing isn't referred the same way outside of the Mugen community that I know of. Messatsu 03:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've actually seen the term used in terms of sprite ripping communities and others, so it fits. Hosting Controversy sounds a bit too ambiguous.--Kung Fu Man 23:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well then please list some examples, I don't see why it shouldn't be called "Hosting Controversy" it's not like the controversy section in the article on Ebaum's World is called "ebuaming", warehousing is a derogatory term used by the mugen community, I don't see why that should be the name of the section it breaks the neutral point of view by enforcing a certain point of view while "Hosting Controversy" doesn't. Another example is if the section in the Jack Thompson article called "Video games and juveniles" was called "jackassing" if some forums used this term to describe his actions of threatening and insulting gamers.Sonic Hog 05:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's derogatory because it deserves to be. People hosting creations without permission is stealing and possibly copyright infringement. That's what closed source work is. Blacklist 08:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not a valid defence please read WP:NPOV "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views " , all the files in MUGEN are open source the creators should have understood this before they started crying "copyright infringement"Sonic Hog 22:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No, they're not open source once the creator deems it so. Read more. Blacklist 03:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

As stated 'warehousing' is a very common term akin to what's going on here (not every online community is free-free-free after all). Hosting Controversy may also lead to confusion as to if the subject of the paragraph is the engine itself or the content for it from the getgo.--Kung Fu Man 20:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but "I've seen it on other sites" is not a valid source. How does "Creation Hosting Controversy" sound?Sonic Hog 22:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe put an and between the first two words. Could "'Warehousing' (Creation Hosting Controversy)" also work?--Kung Fu Man 01:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No again according to NPOV, at least warehousing would have to be second there-> Creation Hosting Controversy ('Warehousing'). And that doesn't seem to follow Wikipedia's naming conventions. If the name change were approved, I had intentions to add in the first sentence saying "also known as warehousing in the Mugen community" or the like. Messatsu 00:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

While I'm thinking about it... there is a good deal of redundancy in the Warehousing and Legality section. Messatsu 00:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not wild about the proposed title though. It'd be too confusing to a newbie. And keep in mind if you due chop down the warehousing section, you're going to run into a possible problem of leaving some things uncovered or loopholes in the text there, so be careful of that much. As it stands, the title isn't meant to be "POV" but to cover an actual term used for the hosting of copyrighted materials without any hint of permission of the original author (again, see sprite sheet community and you'll find the term warehouses exists there...same for in regards to illegal MP3 site or so on: the term is by far not one isolated to the mugen community (and before someone else chimes in, keep in mind my examples there extend beyond just "what's on another site").--Kung Fu Man 04:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"Creation Hosting Controversy" is less confusing to someone that doesn't know anything about the subject than a community catchphrase like warehousing, if you can find this catchphrase being used by communities other than mugen please list them and even then it doesn't justify it being the subject title. If I was someone that didn't know anything about MUGEN I would understand quickly that section was about the controversy of rehosting creations/files for MUGEN, and if it was simply "warehousing" I would have trouble understand the section without reading the section, all section titles on Wikipeida should clearly reflect what they are about, please read Wikipedia:Words to avoid WP:WTA Sonic Hog 06:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem is, Sonic Hog, that you can't really even bother with mugen and not notice the term at one point or another: it's widespread to that much of a point. My main concern to is someone might read a topic title like that and automatically assume it's regarding the engine and not content for it (though the section explains it enough, it's still a possible problem point. Perhaps a blend of the two titles ("Creation Hosting Controversy ('Warehousing')") would cover it, as then you have what it is exactly and the key term combined without being POV to one side or another.--Kung Fu Man 08:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

you can't really even bother with mugen and not notice the term

The idea is to have a name that is identifiable by those infamiliar with the subject matter or the community surrounding it. Messatsu 21:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes this is the point that I am trying to make and he just keeps ignoring it, this article isn't solely here as a FAQ or help guide for mugen newbies, its a article to inform and educate anyone about MUGEN be it if they are a newbie, someone that is researching game engines, or anyone else, labeling a section so it panders to "newbies" is wrong.00:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• sighs* Gotta love ya Sonic Hog. But my reasoning is while a more exact title is a good idea, should still include the term as a part of it as I suggested (and later did in reaction to your change) the 'warehousing' bit as without it the subsection title comes off as a bit too vague. I've already stated my reasoning on that matter.--Kung Fu Man 00:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've already stated my reasoning on that matter.

Which is that niche communities use jargon that fits this definition? Messatsu 01:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Messatsu you know as well as I do "creation hosting controversy" doesn't cover the full extent of it, and if you did use that with some folks they might be confused given not everyone uses stuff like 'creation' to define content made for the engine (i.e. what if they call them conversions instead?). Either way, we should probably at least get more input on this from the people involved in watching this page regularly and see what they think at least before going one way or the other.--Kung Fu Man 01:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Messatsu you know as well as I do "creation hosting controversy" doesn't cover the full extent of it

I do? Well I did make the suggestion to change it. How about Content Hosting Controversy? There's little to no ambiguity with that. Content for what? Oh right, the engine this article is based upon. Content has no gray area. Messatsu 01:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Still just seems too vague. There has to be a happy medium between the two that works for both casual readers and people interested in the damn thing.--Kung Fu Man 02:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If Content Hosting Controversy is vague explain how. :) Messatsu 03:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Could imply there's controversy on the original files for the engine, or the engine itself, or any number of things related to it that could be hosted. It's a term I don't think I've even seen *used* before here. Also people do get pointed to here occaisonally for the definition of what warehousing in the community is. Maybe something more concrete in the first paragraph might kill any possible confusion however so who knows? In the current form it just does not seem to fit and makes it almost seem trivial.--Kung Fu Man 03:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe something more concrete in the first paragraph might kill any possible confusion however so who knows?

Including that information there doesn't follow WP:LEAD. I think you're using this too much as a platform rather than to be a good encyclopedia article.

Could imply there's controversy on the original files for the engine, or the engine itself, or any number of things related to it that could be hosted.

Under the definition of warehousing chosen, warehousing is equally as weak as Content Hosting Controversy yet CHC is NPOV and IMO more "anonymously" descriptive than warehousing (that implies that I think warehousing is descriptive, though I don't, but I'll leave it) and avoids using the niche description. Messatsu 03:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh my God... No, "warehousing" is a term made up by the MUGEN community (probably "Kung Fu Man" himself). "Warehousing" is confusing to people. And by people I mean encyclopedia readers, not MUGEN Fighter's Guild readers. Kung Fu Man, you should either quit MUGEN and stop spreading idiocy or prove me wrong by modifying the following: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=warehousing --75.132.7.7 09:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for showing you don't know what you're talking about. Here's your sign.--Kung Fu Man 12:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

And since when was Urban Dictionary an actual source for true and reliable information? It's nothing but POV statements and lies, if you ask me. Blacklist 17:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, it doesn't matter. It's an invitation for Kung Fu Man to continue his invention of a new term. The fact is that regular people don't know that "warehousing" or a "warehouse" is. This is just something made up by people who frequent M.U.G.E.N message boards and means nothing to normal people by itself -- plus it's not objective. Regular people understand "redistribution of M.U.G.E.N Works" just fine however, although "hosting creations" isn't that clear. And I always know what I'm talking about! --75.132.7.7 18:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The definition of warehouse is: "a commercial building for storage of goods." This is true with Mugen creations, as warehouses do exist that store creations, but most of the time, they're stored without the owner's consensus. WarehousING would most likely mean: "the act of putting things in a warehouse." It's not a made up term. You just think it is. Blacklist 18:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Jesus christ...the mugen drama team goes EVERYWHERE! Even on wiki, king of edit wars. Neofcon

If you don't have anything positive to contribute, don't post at all. The talk pages are not forums. Blacklist 02:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I forgot the part where the statement "Thanx for showing us you dont know what you're talking about" is considered a "positive contribution". And your argument with a user on wikipedia is not "contributing" more so than it is "spamming" so before you try to shoot rules at people, take a look at yourself and your friend. Neofcon

Flaming is also not contributing. What you said about statements was justified because it actually had to do with the topic at hand. You're here, as far as I know from what you said above, just to flame users. Please follow the rules, or I will have to report your actions. Blacklist 01:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"there's a link limit! >_<"

Please tell me where in WP:EL it says "Only 4 links are allowed" it just says "Links should be kept to a minimum" , I believe you're using this to control the links that are added regardless if they meet the guidelines. Sonic Hog 05:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The links that random people add are not notable. Plus, they are most likely warehouses. Blacklist 08:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Plus we were already shouted at before for having too many links for the article. Check its history and you'll see when that happened. Given I'm friends with both Ruben and Mature4Evr (the owners of the two sites added last time), I doubt I'm playing "keep out" over here.--Kung Fu Man 20:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the links should be limited to English sites unless offering substantially more information in the non-English ones. There are none that I'm aware of. Most of the "new" links popping up as of late are anonymous people discovering that they can add their newly started website after they found out about Mugen ~2 months ago. New information or contributes to the article? I don't think so. Messatsu 00:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review

Uh, sources are cited. The warehouse section does need sources, but the rest of the article is correctly sourced. Sources are sources, whether it's a FAQ or not shouldn't matter. Blacklist 17:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny, the only sources I see are in the warehouse section. Nifboy 04:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

While uncited, most of the stuff in the article originates from information in the provided Mugen documentation. The warehouse section is heavily cited because it has been removed on at least one occasion. Minus some changes, the associated filetypes section is a direct import from the documentation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Messatsu (talk • contribs) 11:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

With additional necessary info added to it: the documentation tends to be lightweight on a few grounds, oddly enough though people seem more likely to read something here than they would the engine's actual documents. o_O--Kung Fu Man 11:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, what I'm asking is that, when the information comes from the documentation, to cite it as such, because that makes it easier to weed out the stuff that isn't in the documentation. For example, in the history section is this gem of speculation: "but the development group decided to discontinue the project in 2003, presumably due to leaks made public of a private Win M.U.G.E.N beta that was provided to donators." Emphasis mine. Nifboy 19:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if this satisfies your complaint, but I cited where that information comes from. Messatsu 03:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Once I discovered what was actually being referenced (the .txt file included with the patch), I was moderately satisfied. I've attempted to make this a little more clear in the reference. Nifboy 05:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism Attacks

Since no one wants to complain here, and only in those little summary blurbs on the history page, I'll start a little something up relating to the recent complaints that are being dealt with.

First, I know that there is a user that is using an IP generator or proxy to constantly vandalize and un-revise the correct Warehousing section with his own biased opinion on creators. Stop it. You will be banned if you keep doing it and the article will be locked to non-registered users if you continue.

Second, the same person (assumed) is also putting a link to Mugen Fury in the External Links section. Stop that too. There are enough links of other websites and databases there. Last I checked, Fury also had a bad history of hosting illegal and stolen Mugen content. If you verify that you are no longer hosting illegal materials on your site in any way, your link will most likely be allowed.

If a conclusion can be reached on any/all of the issues stated above, then we can go on with life nice, and easy. Blacklist 05:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Better expand that to "on your server in any way", as he's still doing it for DBZ mugen stuff the last time I checked on a subdomain. At this rate though might be best to simply request a lock against unregistered users from modifying this page. At least then we'd have someone to file complaints about if it kept up.--Kung Fu Man 17:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I support locking it from unregistered users. Very few useful contributions have come from anonymous users. Messatsu 04:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Request made. Messatsu 06:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Request denied. Seems it would be logical to make fake vandalizations so admins would not use LOL not enough recent traffic LOL Messatsu 21:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Capcom

I emailed Capcom support, but they didn't put my question and their answer online. Being as that is, I cannot source that particular thing, but it is really just a rewording of the fanart stance on websites. Here is the two side-by-side:

CAPCOM does not object to fans creating fan-works which contain reference to CAPCOM games or characters, with the understanding that this is done as a personal activity and that you do not intend to receive revenue by the use of our property. Also, we will not object to the fan-work as long as it is not offensive or slanderous towards CAPCOM, our products, our employees or any other third party. This policy is in no way meant to be interpreted as creating an agreement or grant of license between Capcom and its fans. If you are a fan of CAPCOM games, and you have a fan-work that you would like to create, CAPCOM will not object as long as you are working within the above stated criteria. CAPCOM is grateful for your continued support of our products.

CAPCOM does not object to fans creating websites which contain reference to CAPCOM games or characters, with the understanding that this is done as a personal activity and that you do not intend to receive revenue by the use of our property. Also, we will not object to the website as long as it is not offensive or slanderous towards CAPCOM, our products, our employees or any other third party. This policy is in no way meant to be interpreted as creating an agreement or grant of license between Capcom and its fans. If you are a fan of CAPCOM games, and you have a website that you would like to create, CAPCOM will not object as long as you are working within the above stated criteria. CAPCOM is grateful for your continued support of our products.

Just guessing that what they mean by personal activity is non-corporate. Messatsu 05:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced stuff

The only thing sticking out that is unsourced, that I couldn't find was French Bread's statement on their games/sounds or whatever historical stance they had. I believe this to be true, but we need to find a source for that. Particularly their site on archive.org or documentation from one of their games. Messatsu 05:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

TESTP workfiles

I know it would be a shot in the dark here, but if anyone has any of the TESTP workfiles, please contact me on my page. Messatsu 20:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Woah, woah, woah, woah, WOAH

Why does this article talk about Mugen "file types"? Isn't "The engine allows for anyone to create characters, stages and other game objects through interpreted text files and graphics and sound compilations" (originally written by yours truly) enough? It's also filled with pointless drivel no one cares about. So Suave Dude is knowledgeable about cloning? Legally obtain a Windows compiler? Hahahaha. I'm not going to make changes, but seriously folks! And why the hell was this nominated for good article? --75.132.7.7 03:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I nominated it since the things mentioned in the peer review have been fixed for the most part. Messatsu 18:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

GA failed

I have failed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. The article has several {fact} tags and several of the images do not have fair use rationales. Also, make sure that inline citations go directly after the punctuation. Consider having an outside editor look the article, and make sure to view the GA criteria befor nominating again. Good job so far, this article should have little problems passing once these issues are addressed. --Nehrams2020 02:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Allow me, if I may, check out what you have addressed in one small list:

{fact} tags: There are only two, and they are around the area of French Bread's stance on M.U.G.E.N. I have good faith in Kung Fu Man, and the rest of the editing team that we will find proof of this and address it.

Images with fair-use rationales: This I am confused at. All of the images in the article have been properly tagged under, "Video Game screen shots," and they all have the words, "...qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law, as such display does not significantly impede the right of the copyright holder to sell the copyrighted material, is not being used to generate profit in this context, and presents ideas that cannot be exhibited otherwise." I'm sorry, but you need to explain this issue to me in more detail.

Citation placement: No problem. We'll fix that.

Editor review: We just had one, but I guess another would not hurt.

But I thank you for responding to the GA nominee, and addressing what will be required to make it one. Blacklist 06:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Added fair use rationales to the images. Simple enough. Citations will be fixed as stated. There's a problem though with finding the citation requirement though, namely the fact that I think the closest thing available would be to cite forum threads that note it. The site in question is both long gone and was in japanese, and I don't even think web archive took a snapshot of it.--Kung Fu Man 18:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Even evidence of a Mugen community acting upon the French Bread statement is going to be lost I believe. I was hoping by putting "citation needed" that whoever enforced it in the beginning would remember where they read that to attempt to retrieve that.

This is Messatsu only on another account because wikipedia = stupid at maintaining them. Borrada 16:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What will count as noteworthy engine content though?

Question says it all...here's what comes to mind for it immediately though -Evil Ken, DragonClaw -Borghi's works -Rikard's original works -Silent Storm & Tetsu (mabye KY group on the whole, as this did end up generating interest in the actual 'fighter maker' styled game. -EVE (as much as I dislike it...it is probably one of the most well known screenpacks :\ Can't believe I'm saying that). -Some specific full games? That will be tricky.

Basically it's a question of 'what ends up mentioned in the article as some of the original and/or best mugen work, and/or representing the history of it.--Kung Fu Man 17:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is in need of demolition.

From "Controversy over Redistribution of M.U.G.E.N Works":

The use of "warehousing" has the potential to drop the amount of visitors to the author's web sites, often causing the author to lose revenue and to lose interest in creating or updating their content.

I would go so far as to guarantee that "warehousing" has never caused Mugen developers to lose revenue, so it is somewhat of a stretch to say that it happens often. This isn't the only falsehood within the article, which is filled with misleading, ignorant, and irrelevant remarks. I would make an edit to change this to a proper article, but I presume that the changes would be reversed. I invite readers who would prefer that the article not be used as a soapbox to make notes of similar problems they have with the article. --D70306 11:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Great, you're going to be a winner...However you're right about that quote, it was off and a relic most folks missed. Changed it to something better and more accurate of the situation.--Kung Fu Man 14:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well not many people care about the quality of this article. It's also clear that the article has been seized by an Internet maniac, a situation generally not worth getting involved in. Go ahead and change it to whatever jazz you want. There's nothing that can be done about that while you're still breathing, unless you become zealous in some other arena (what was it before Mugen?). The reality is that there is no "loss of revenue" due to "warehousing," so it shouldn't be in the article at all, and it's not remarkable that Mugen Institute or Dragon Claw exists. Also, the opening four words of that section should be, "Within the Mugen community." I'm only scratching the surface, because it's a waste of time given your existence. --D70306 17:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

"Developing Content for the Engine" and "Associated Filetypes" sections are just bloat and should be completely removed. This is summed up well enough in the introduction:

The engine allows for anyone to create characters, background stages and other game objects through interpreted text files, graphics, and sound compilations.

Although that sentence has been poorly reworded since its original inclusion... There is no need for three paragraphs describing tools people have made to work with Mugen input, nor is there a need for a survey of file extensions and their consequences. Much of the other sections are excessive and should be condensed or wiped out, possibly keeping a few bits for other sections. --D70306 11:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw your motions on what is too bloated, and called foul on them too: you removed a lot of good information, and made it more to be something intended to create a jumble of fighting game content, which is to an extent impossible and inaccurate (not all aspects of fighters can be perfectly recreated, and not all content derives from fighting games nor do they exist as fighting game content).

Your original article was an uninformitive stump, giving hardly any information beyond bits and pieces and a ton of links. The info given here is handled in an encyclopedic manner: covers the tools made and the formats, something that you'll find if you actually looked on the sites related to this stuff is something many folks new to the engine have questions about anyway. So I don't see a reason not to cover the basic tools and file formats in an informative manner with detail. Keep in mind the article survived a peer review without these statements coming up, and other key factors being the ones noted as the reason for its failure as such (all of which by now have been remedied).

In other words, we're trying to create an informative, good article here: by far not what you had with yours back in 2005.--Kung Fu Man 14:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll give you that it can be informative to have implementation and tool info in the article, although what you've included certainly could be better composed, and parts of it are just too extraneous, e.g., "Coding can also be put in the CMD file (as shown with State -1)."

The two sections I edited (which you then reversed), however, I am certain were changed completely for the better. I reworded the text for clarity and removed superfluous stuff like: Elecbyte sent Mugen using the Internet's email subsystem, background music can be played at points a and b, you can make platform games, DOS programs may not work on ur Windows XP. The only thing I added was that "[Mugen] is commonly used to replicate those games' characters and gameplay so as to combine parts of various fighting games into a single game." That's just the way it is. What is the use of fighting this? It's a given that you can make original content or content from Super Mario World, but I find what the article's topic is commonly used for to be more relevant. If Mugen were a 2D game engine and not a 2D fighting game engine, things would be different. That a few people have used the system to make non-fighting games is beyond informative. It's like inserting into the macaroni article that macaroni can be used to make macaroni pictures. --D70306 16:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

By your recommendations, I improved the macaroni article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macaroni#Macaroni_Art Borrada 05:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha, much more informative, but you should have included a picture of macaroni art. --D70306 07:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you should take a one month break from this article, Kung Fu Man. See what happens when you aren't around, and the rest of the world is left to decide on their own, even if only for a few weeks. All your efforts to exercise whatever form of control you can in the Mugen scene is only detrimental to it, and besides, there's much better things you could concern yourself with. If you promise to take a month off, I'll be sure to be here daily to revert vandalism, remove any new links, and even keep the jab at the best source of content for Mugen intact. --D70306 17:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop trolling. Blacklist 07:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, that's just a suggestion which makes the point that KFM is a fanatic that cannot represent norms. "The MI Webmaster has stated he doesn't want 'home of the sharks' added" is trolling. This article is a complete joke because KFM's deemed himself its owner. You have no idea.--D70306 16:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Calling someone a, "fanatic" is a form of trolling by way of name calling. As for the Sharks, Aztec Soldier has said that himself, he doesn't want that name here. It is not an act of trolling, it is a justified gesture so that Aztec doesn't have to have him or his staff remove the saying. Before you say, "Well how do you know? You're a nobody!" I'm actually a part of the staff at MI. Blacklist 06:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, you are correct, especially considering your ties to the Mugen community. I don't just want KFM to take a break. Rather, I am attempting to provoke an angry response. Furthermore, I'm not pointing out fanaticism for the benefit of readers like you. I just want KFM to get angry. It's important to make sure people know of words that can be used to describe their actions. Who knows, maybe what I'm doing right now by responding to a troll has some important term to describe it. Hm, "last word syndrome"? --D70306 10:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

How am I a troll? You started the arguing (which never needed to exist) in the first place. Blacklist 01:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Just ignore him Blacklist, the guy isn't worth it. He's saying what he is simply to stir up crud and get his way (or at the very least entertainment from our anger). Let the twit ramble: Nifboy still has more to post that needs fixing apparently, and that deserves our attention a lot more amigo.--Kung Fu Man 03:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it was just a joke that I want to anger anyone, but it's true that I may as well not bother with such a dense if not merely defensive audience. I'm certainly not here for the sake of arguing with people. If I so wanted my way, I'd simply make the necessary revisions and out-revert Kung Fu Man, but I'd rather let Kung Fu Man get his way. What's actually happening is that this is a very poorly done article (or, I suppose a more agreeable way of putting it is that the article needs a lot of work, but it's a bit late at this point), and I would fix it, but there is an owner that won't allow that. Nifboy just pointed out a few obvious revisions that should be made and also went on to make some changes (where he removed more "useful" information than I had tried to with my futile edit), but was careful not to hurt anyone's pride. Besides this, he's some sort of expert user to begin with, whereas I just have a little sense (although not enough to prevent Kung Fu Man from interpreting me as an attacker that must be defended against). --D70306 17:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the questions of WP:OWN and WP:EL, I want to point out a lot of WP:OR:

• "some further support for the name to be Japanese-based." - This is the article trying to make a case for the Japanese name, textbook original research. Unless some other source has made this Japanese-name case, it's almost certainly not significant and should be left out.
• "It is uncertain just why Tag never became an accessable option, though it maybe be a result of the fact some characters for the engine, such as bonus stages, would do very poorly in this mode." - Or maybe Elecbyte never finished testing/debugging the mode? Or maybe they were waiting for public beta? If you don't know something, don't speculate to fill in the gap.
• "Survival mode was a last minute addition" - last minute from what? Elecbyte didn't have deadlines, to my knowledge, and this statement implies the feature was rushed or is otherwise incomplete.
• "In the event that T.E.S.T.P was a separate entity from Elecbyte," - again, if you don't know, don't speculate.
• "these game compilations (a combination of characters, stages and a screenpack) are usually hastily created and not designed with balance, solid gameplay, or stability in mind," - This is a fairly textbook value judgment, and as such isn't neutral.
• "The default AI has been called weak" - By who? Specifically who? Names, people, I want names.

This is just a partial list, and so I do agree the article needs a lot of work. Nifboy 19:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Really wish you'd mentioned some of this way back when actually...anyway, the article bits you mentioned should be fixed up and otherwise adjusted.--Kung Fu Man 21:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Six months ago I was operating under the assumption sources would be found and the article fixed up proper. Now that it's apparent we've exhausted our most readily available sources, it's time to cut the article down to what the sources will support. Nifboy 08:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Elecbyte return

What about it? www.elecbyte.com

No one knows for sure. Someone could have bought out the name, or Elecbyte actually could be re-emerging. Not enough is known right now. Blacklist 06:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It does say © 1999-2007 Elecbyte, LLC in the end.

Anyone could've typed that. :-/ Blacklist 02:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Better to just wait a bit and jump when there is actually something on there noteworthy...anything before would be speculation.--Kung Fu Man 02:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

I'd like to see a source and/or more information on how MUGEN character code can be copyrighted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.129.219 (talk • contribs)

Try the fact mugen character code can be *sold* (see documentation for the engine: everything but the engine itself is marketable. The reason you don't see much of this at all though is because 90% of mugen chars have some commercial tidbit within them (non-coding related).--Kung Fu Man 00:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Who says everything but the engine is marketable? The fact is that MUGEN characters' code can or cannot be sold has never been established by the company who created the program. It is ENTIRELY up to them, and it is thus impossible to claim copyright on code —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.129.219 (talk • contribs)

Um, you bother checking Mugen FAQ by Elecbyte accompanied with the engine and the comments regarding such here in this very article? Here, try a quote on for size.

Can I sell a game I make with MUGEN?

You can't sell MUGEN betas or redistribute them without our permission. What you do with the characters and files you make is your decision, but any distribution of them (whether for profit or not) cannot include the MUGEN environment itself without our approval. See the license agreement in readme.txt.

Engine dependent or not, it can be sold. And thus falls into the domain of copyrightable software to protect the rights of the programmer. All that needs to be said on the matter. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be more than happy to shove this as a reference over your citation flag.--Kung Fu Man 00:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you should drink a nice, stiff, V8, and get over the issue you seem to be so much hung upon, which is, whether or not MUGEN character code can be copywritten.

No, simply because an entire package can be sold does not mean individual portions of it are protected under copyright law. Anyone can take a pack of MUGEN characters and sell them on eBay and claim the customers are paying for the effort needed to compile such a list. I am asking for clarification as to how code created for MUGEN (MUGEN program compliant-code) can be copyrighted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.129.219 (talk • contribs)

It can be marketed, it can by copyrighted: even the character's individual files and programming source code to run the characters. Similar is plausible compared to programming languages that use a compiler of some sort to run the program given. As each is the source code for the character in question, the rights regarding it fall to the original programmer and any included parties.

You're welcome to keep pushing your citation, I'll just undo it as it's nothing more than unneccessary and absurd when the answer is given.--Kung Fu Man 01:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The short answer is: software is copyrighted (your jurisdiction may vary). Nifboy 02:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That's nice, my dear. Who is making software as opposed to engine-compliant code again? Oh, that's right, no MUGEN character creators.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.129.219 (talk • contribs)

Engine compliant code IS software. Just as traditional software code has to be written to the standards of whatever compiler is being used (C++, BASIC, .NET), character code has to be written to the standards of the MUGEN engine. Add to it the graphics (copyrighted) and sound (also copyrighted), and you have a fully-fledged intellectual property on your hands. Nifboy 04:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Pardon, I'm not up to speed as to how to properly reply to wikipedia discussions, and am more than happy to welcome tips. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.129.219 (talk • contribs)

I don't understand why you need to forcefully deny the fact that what KFM and Nifboy are saying is true. You come in here acting like what you think you know is true, with "It is ENTIRELY up to them, and it is thus impossible to claim copyright on code," which is not the case with Mugen. Blacklist 02:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, Sr. anonymous, sign your posts with ~~~~, and indent replies by adding a : to the front of each paragraph (additional colons for more indentation). Nifboy 04:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No one really cares about the coding besides creators, therefore it's never sold for money.

Gotta love POV statements that someone pulls out of their butt as a valid argument. Sorry, but your personal opinion on the matter holds about as much weight as lint.--Kung Fu Man 16:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd pay a kings ransom for Black Guile.

Are comments like this really necessary? Do they serve any purpose besides to make you feel cool? And while we're speaking about "POV statements that someone pulls out of their butt", I'd like to address a few things in this "article" that've caught my eye:

Those introduced to the engine the first time through compiled games tend to be discouraged to further use it, as these game compilations (a combination of characters, stages and a screenpack) tend to be unmodified for balance and gameplay, giving the image M.U.G.E.N is nothing more than a "jumbled mess".

Source? Do you have anything to verify this is true? Or is this just your assumption and feeling of how people should react to game compilations using M.U.G.E.N?

People interested solely in playing do not fully understand the ethics and reasoning behind the community's rules (some however choose not to care at all much to everyone's chagrin, see Legality and Controversy, below) and why they can't get what they would like to play with.

Give me a break. This is so full of assumptions based on what you want to to believe, that it's ridiculous. Where is the source for this? And what's this "ethics" nosense? Are you talking about what you consider "ethical"? "Everyone's chagrin"? Not everyone feels the same way you do.

Before you start going around accusing people of pulling "POV" statements "out of their butt" in the discussion page, maybe you should take a closer look at the revisions that you yourself have made to the actual article. 71.120.142.41 22:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Rather difficult to take Neofcon's point serious when it is just his opinion and he prior to posting it vandalized Blacklist's page.

Now as for the matter at hand, regarding reaction to the quality of mugen games, added a shoryuken thread reference, which I'll reuse in another spot in the thread later on after I'm done here. The second paragraph was rewritten to point out that some simply don't know or understand the community rules, while others simply might not care. Thus keeping it fair for both sides of the argument. Why I originally wrote "Players" is beyond me as it doesn't cover everyone, though I do recall planning on rewriting that bit anyway down the line.--Kung Fu Man 23:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Rather difficult to take Neofcon's point serious when it is just his opinion and he prior to posting it vandalized Blacklist's page.

I'd imagine that if you have a personal problem with him, the place to deal with it would be elsewhere.

Now as for the matter at hand, regarding reaction to the quality of mugen games, added a shoryuken thread reference, which I'll reuse in another spot in the thread later on after I'm done here.

I just finished reading that thread, and I only saw a few comments that would support your claim. Furthermore, I did a search for "jumbled mess" and got 0 results. If you're going to make a blanket statement that people tend to feel a certain way (how is that something you can ever know, anyway?) then you should have something more substantial that one forum topic about a M.U.G.E.N clone.

The second paragraph was rewritten to point out that some simply don't know or understand the community rules, while others simply might not care. Thus keeping it fair for both sides of the argument. Why I originally wrote "Players" is beyond me as it doesn't cover everyone, though I do recall planning on rewriting that bit anyway down the line.

I reread the paragraph, and honestly don't notice a single difference. All the problems I mentioned before are still there. No sources, and absolutely no factual backing. The assumption that people who don't follow what you consider "ethics" "don't understand" or "don't care" (when they simply might hold other beliefs), the reference to "everyone" feeling a certain way. You must remember that the intention is for this to be an encylopdia article. It is supposed to present facts, not viewpoints and community issues. I don't understand why someone who wants to know what M.U.G.E.N the engine is and comes to Wikipedia to find out needs to be informed of these things, unless you're trying to get them to adapt a similar point of view. 71.120.142.41 01:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't care. Moo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.77.187 (talk) 22:31, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Joe Mayama

In the original documentation, Kung Fu Man does not carry the name "Joe Mayama." Seeing that only Taruse mentioned it in his character (and is seemingly being perpetuated only by the creator Kung Fu Man), this doesn't seem to be relevant to the article at all. The storyline included with the character is enough information.

• It's worth mentioning regardless, even if it could be rephrased better which I'll do in a min, and the name's appeared in other usages besides Taruse or myself.--Kung Fu Man 22:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Such as? I'm curious as to which characters you are referring to as these are the only two instances I've noticed. After checking the definition of fanon on this site, it appears that the name doesn't fall under the rules as the majority of the Mugen Community doesn't call the character "Joe Mayama." You might as well bring up Evil Kung Fu Man, Kung Fu Girl, Kung Fu Marvel, etc etc
    • Thought about mentioning some in some form of extended canon, Mako and EKFM are really the most notable of that lot though for different reasons entirely. There runs the risk though of shoving too many original and noteworthy characters into the article at once. As it stands the name has been seen at Guild a few times and back on MugenDev, and before that elsewhere. At this point though it's slipping a little into obscurity. Hell think even MGBR had it mentioned once, the problem is the main citable points of the name's usage are probably gone by now. I'll see what I can dig up though if you don't object to having a citation tag shoved there instead of blind ignorant removal please.--Kung Fu Man 22:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
      • How is removing something with zero citation or backing "blind" or "ignorant"? It seems to me that you should have citation for something before you try to add it to the article. 71.120.142.41 22:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Point, it would seem any citable sources to this are no longer available. Thus, removed.--Kung Fu Man 23:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The Legend of Dragon Claw

To whom it may concern:

I would like to create a profile for Dragon Claw. I know there isn't much on him, but I like the character a lot. So may I creat a page for him, or at least place him in with Kung Fu Man and stuff? Thank you in advance. Neo Guyver 01:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

As much as Dragon Claw is noted for inside the Community, it is doubtful that he will pass notability and required sources for Wikipedia's standards. You can go ahead and make a page if you wish, but it will most likely be deleted as "Not Notable." Just saying. Blacklist 01:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess he could be notably if only by the fact he's the first merchandised character for mugen (with Reu selling Dragon Claw shirts etc off his site). Probably wouldn't deserve a full article in wikipedia, but it is notably enough for that much)--Kung Fu Man 11:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Nintendo stuff

Regarding the statement regarding Nintendo disapproving of emulation in any form, I don't believe that goes well with the statement that Capcom/SNK/whatever "show no ill will." Last time I checked, all companies disliked emulation of their games. The Nintendo emulation issue and game companies' allowance of sprite/sounds for fanwork have nothing to do with each other. 11:14 AM, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You should take that one up with Messatsu actually, Jango, as IIRC he was the one to add those bits in there, the rest just kinda conformed around it.--Kung Fu Man 15:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Full game legalities?

Direct quote from the M.U.G.E.N FAQ:

Complete game distributions, whether downloaded from the net or paid for, are in violation of the M.U.G.E.N licensing agreement unless explicitly approved by Elecbyte. We are not currently aware of any authorized third-party MUGEN distributions. Examples of unauthorized distributions that we have received support requests for are DBZ-ME2, Anime Brawl 2, the Saint Seiya game, etc. Elecbyte has never, and will never, offer support for these games. See the license agreement in readme.txt for further details.

And now the readme.txt

The MUGEN environment, defined as any or all of the 2002.04.14 executable, documentation, sample character and stage files, configuration files, and other associated data files provided by Elecbyte and necessary for proper operation of the executable, is copyrighted by Elecbyte and may not be redistributed in whole or in part, altered or unaltered, without Elecbyte's express written permission. Only the following files are exempt from this restriction, and may be freely distributed and/or altered: all files in the data/ directory, all files in the chars/kfm/ directory, stages/kfm.def and stages/kfm.sff.

Thus I don't see how someone can make "legitimate full games" with the engine.