Talk:Nintendo Switch emulation

Sourcing issues

So first, great job on this standalone article, BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4! I mean that.

I do have some concerns about sourcing, though. There are a lot of claims cited to unreliable, primary, and questionable sources: a WP:FORBESCON source is cited several times, as are primary developer sites/GitHub, and HotHardware. (As far as I can tell, HotHardware's "news" is just rewritten press releases.) This results in undue weight given to features and capabilities, and also to Ryujinx in general. It's important that we focus on what reliable sources say about Switch emulation/emulators. I'm hoping to have some time to work on it in a day or two, unless BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4 or someone else gets to it first. Woodroar (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Woodroar I have removed the dubious sources and some undue primary claims, sticking to simple and hopefully uncontroversial facts about Ryujinx in particular. Also thanks to ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ for helping reword the article to remove some of my unintentionally POV language; I've made further edits in this regard in an effort to further ensure its neutrality. Hopefully it's improved enough that we can now say there aren't any actively present major content issues. silvia ASH (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 04:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I removed WP:IBTIMES and WP:FORBESCON, both unreliable sources, along with a bunch of self-serving/promotional claims cited only to primary sources. I think what's rest is all cited to vetted reliable sources. Woodroar (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I missed those. I was editing on mobile at the time, so I guess I didn't catch the other hothardware cite? Or maybe I thought I removed it, but got it wrong. Oh well. Thanks for taking care of those. silviaASH (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 20:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Mobile is the worst, haha. I try to fix a typo and delete three paragraphs by mistake. Woodroar (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

One thing I'd think there needs to be some consensus on established somewhere, not only about this article, but about similar articles to these in general, is what, in the context of an open source unofficial emulator, is an appropriate use of a primary source, and what would be deemed a promotional/self-serving claim. I've observed that this has been something repeatedly raised by people discussing their articles, most recently in the VisualBoyAdvance AfD where, some folks claimed it looked promotional due to its abundance of primary source usage, though some others disputed that given the software is not a for-profit product. I'm not certain what the best way to come to an agreement on that question might be, but just to give some small thoughts of my own:

It is often the case that media coverage of an emulator, which is natural to focus on including first given that it proves the notability of the software, often only focuses on saying "x game can now be played on it" and does not mention a lot of other information that would be of interest to us in encyclopedically describing the emulator, which is where primary sources can be useful. At the same time, I totally respect that we don't want to just list off all the achievements that emulator developers have made if they're not reliably cited to secondary sources since we don't want the article to in effect become a "congratulations on your emulator" or be able to be read as such. Even if one would disagree with me on that, it is definitely true that many emulator articles are based on primary sources in a natural effort by editors to cover blind spots in the secondary coverage (like, when did this start, how does it work) and so I think because of that, some subject specific guidelines on the appropriateness of their use (as well as how to prove an emulator's notability in general) could be in order. I may try to draft those up at another time and ask the community for feedback. In general, I don't think we should completely ignore primary sources, but there is definitely a fine line to be walked between filling in gaps in knowledge left by the secondary sources, and promoting the emulator, which a number of these articles do very arguably fall afoul of. That's only my opinion on the matter, anyway.

Getting back on topic to the matter at hand, I do think that removing most of that information about Ryujinx in the context of this article is fine given it's not the main topic of the article, and the admittedly excessive level of detail like the username of the developer, the mention of OpenGL, Puyo Puyo Tetris, and all that stuff, which I'd agree in hindsight is not all that necessary. But what's here now seems like an over-correction to me, given it now does not mention even when the emulator began development or what devices it runs on. Given this, I'd propose a single sentence in the "Ryujinx" section, cited to an absolute minimum of primary sources, which can say something like:

"Ryujinx, written in C# for Windows and Linux, began development in 2017 and was first released in February 2018."

And then the rest of the article can remain as is. silviaASH (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 21:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Actually, upon reconsidering, I've decided that this edit would not be good- it would make the section look incomplete, which may attract unhelpful edits from well-intentioned users trying to add back the undue primary information. So, never mind. Let's just leave the section like it is for now. silviaASH (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 22:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Title change

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

If this article sticks around it should probably be moved to Nintendo Switch emulation per WP:PLURAL and for consistency. I didn't open an RM because it may not need one if everyone agrees. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm: I agree. Current title is very clunky and I don't think it's even proper English. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thirded. Woodroar (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 01:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the developers of the digital rights management software Denuvo have developed an anti-piracy measure to prevent games from being played on Nintendo Switch emulators? Source: https://kotaku.com/nintendo-switch-botw-emulator-pc-piracy-denuvo-drm-1849451287
  • ALT1: ... that Kotaku revised an article about Nintendo Switch emulation after Nintendo complained that the previous version encouraged piracy? Source: https://www.destructoid.com/emulators-play-an-important-role-in-video-game-preservation/ https://kotaku.com/metroid-dread-is-already-running-great-on-switch-emulat-1847833403
  • Reviewed:

Converted from a redirect by BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4 (talk), Woodroar (talk), and Zxcvbnm (talk). Nominated by BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4 (talk) at 22:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4 Great article! I would recommend ALT1 for the hook since the first hook seems less hook-y. Denuvo is pretty well-known (infamous) for their anti-cheat software, so making an anti-piracy measure for the Switch doesn't seem that surprising considering their history. Spodle^Talk 03:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Alright then! I'm good with ALT1 as the choice hook, so I guess it should hopefully be good to go. Thanks for the review! silviaASH (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 05:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)