Talk:RetroArch

Section on libretro

There should be a section on libretro where it is explained how RetroArch is a frontend to libretro, the API.

This way the misconception that RetroArch is an 'emulator' can also be taken away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.26.108.111 (talk) 12:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Description of RetroArch

Right now RetroArch is described as an 'emulator'. This might give people the wrong impression. Over 39 of our (currently) ~45 cores are emulators, yes. But this does not mean that RetroArch itself is an 'emulator', and there are cores for game engines and media players now as well.

Somebody should think of the best way to 'explain' this - this ties into how RetroArch is a frontend to the API libretro. Perhaps some explanation into how the cores are loaded inside the frontend (either dynamically for most RetroArch ports or statically like on consoles) is also needed as well so that the modularity of it all starts becoming clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.26.108.111 (talk) 12:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't be merged with 'videogame emulators'

Resolved

We are not a 'videogame emulator'. RetroArch is far more than that - it is a frontend for an API (also developed by us) with which you can PLAY emulators among other things.

To call us 'just an emulator' is to misunderstand and insult our project at the same time.

We have enough notability - so this is entirely a non-issue.

1. If its not an emulator, we need to clean up the article some, as the opening sentence defines it as an emulator.
2. If it meets Wikipedia's standard for notability, great, but then we need to show it. There's virtually no content beyond some bare bones lists. There really ought to be some actual paragraphs that show this. Like a "Reception" section or something.
3. The way you keep saying "we" or "us" makes me think you have a conflict of interest. Giving some input is fine, but generally editing while having a COI is not acceptable on Wikipeda. Sergecross73 msg me 15:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Yes - I am one of the authors of this project. I am totally within my rights to tell the people who 'made' this Wiki page what my project actually is. I'll repeat again - it is NOT an emulator - read up more on what it is here - www.libretro.org. It is the 'oficial' reference implementation of the libretro API. This makes it suitable for all sort of ports for apps, such as emulators, games and movie players. Note that other projects are already adopting the libretro API - like XBMC.

Also, I dislike the way you people are now trying to make it seem like I have a 'conflict of interest'. I just don't want this page 'removed' and 'redirected to Videogame emulators' when that shows a base misunderstanding of even the most basic concepts surrounding APIs/reference implementations/et al. Get this stuff straight, allow us our own wiki page (which should be the very least to afford really - your own 'users' apparently seem to think it is notable enough since the created it) and allow us the same rights as everybody else. That is it.84.26.108.111 (talk)

I'm not necessarily advocating deleting or redirecting it. You'll note I haven't tried to do that yet. The tags just mean that the aspects are being discussed currently. (I don't think even you would argue that, right? It's what we're doing right now...) Anyways, no one or no subject is owed "the right" to an article. It all depends on if there are enough reliable sources that provide significant coverage to meet the notability requirements. If you don't understand what a reliable source is, read up here. I'd recommend you start making your arguments more based around that, or people are going to discount your opinion as a "biased opinion of someone closely connected to the subject". Sergecross73 msg me 15:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

'Notability requirements'? Have you even tried doing a Google search on the subject matter as of late? Saying 'this isn't notable' is like saying CNN isn't notable in the sphere of news - just sayin' - I have a reason to be confident. Frankly I have no time to be engaging in this 'political' squabble with you guys - I have better things to do. And I actually do stuff that is more important - than - you know - making little squabbles about subject matter he/she does not even have sufficient knowledge in. How can you be an arbitrator when you don't even have sufficient knowledge of the facts at hand?84.26.108.111 (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not a tech forum. As an admin, I instruct people on policy, as I am doing. And sorry, if I just took every "creator of a product" who boasted about their product a ton without third party sources, well, then Wikipedia would just be one huge advertisement platform. But that's not what Wikpedia is. Either take the time to learn what Wikipedia is, or stop arguing. You're not convincing anyone with your "This is madness" and "I'm bigger than the rules" comments. Sergecross73 msg me 15:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not promoting anything son - you'll notice I didn't even bother creating it myself. I just don't want people like you (who don't know what he/she is talking about) mistaking this for something it is not - which is why I go to the effort of 'correcting you'. If you don't think having factually accurate information on this 'encyclopedia' is not important, well then, I am doing you a favor right now by confronting you with the uncomfortable knowledge that you really don't know what you are talking about. Besides - by your own 'Wikipedia rules' which you seem to love so much to cite, RetroArch is notable enough. The Guardian is notable enough - Lifehacker makes it notable enough. So this discussion is over without you even realizing it. I don't need to 'boast' anything - I have plenty of mainstream sources already doing that for me. Now you again. And BTW, how am I to assume 'good faith' when everything you have done so far is exactly the opposite of it? I can think of a good policy myself - since you love policies so much - which is 'you must know what you are talking about before attempting to even make an edit'. How about that? That a good source for a new 'Wikipedia' hive mind rule for you? This political 'dickwaving' game is so childish, cynical and time consuming - pardon me if I am no longer going to participate in it. Delete the page for all I care - all you are doing is making yourself look like a joke.84.26.108.111 (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

84.26, you seriously need to stop claiming ownership here. You are clearly not familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and further, you are accusing virtually EVERYONE on Wikipedia of acting in bad faith and having some sort of political agenda against you. That is flatly not true, and continuing to accuse people of such will get you swiftly blocked.

The general rule of thumb is, if a project gains significant notability, someone who is not deeply involved in the project (and therefore doesn't have a conflict of interest) will make an article about it, citing reliable secondary and tertiary sources that cover the project in a neutral way. So far, the sources that have been added to this article are, at best, promotions and reviews of RetroArch on a narrow range of devices - these would be appropriate for a "Reception" section, but do not meet policies related to neutral point of view. Further, you have spent a fair amount of your time and effort disparaging other emulator projects that actually DO have reliably-sourced material, which doesn't help your claim of "not promoting anything" much. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

'Narrow range of devices' - like what - nearly every major platform in existence? Like said before, I didn't even create this article. But oh well, if you're so intent on having this page removed along with your fellow travellers, go ahead and do it - I won't stop you - I'll just stop giving a shit about Wikipedia then. I no longer give a flying shit to be honest with you. You're just in it to have it removed now - that is your entire angle.84.26.108.111 (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

'disparaging other emulator projects that actually DO have reliably-sourced material' - you have betrayed yourself now - good going. Reliable sources like what? A pathetic article on Ars Technica written by the MAIN AUTHOR OF THE PROGRAM HIMSELF, byuu? That is 'reliable sources' for you? Sounds like 'conflict of interest' to me, which you guys accused me of just now. Also, just that line alone leads me to believe there might be some ulterior motives as to why you want to see this page removed - hmm, the plot thickens.84.26.108.111 (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Man, who pissed in your cornflakes? If you'd just shut up and listen to me for a second, you'd realize that I'm trying to help you IMPROVE your article, so that it DOESN'T get deleted unnecessarily. I'm trying to help you understand what you need to do to address people's concerns, so that your article is neutral, unbiased, sourced, meets policies, and can enjoy the same success that thousands of other articles do on this project. But your combativeness is completely out of line, and frankly it ain't doing your project any favors. As someone who has an Android phone and is interested in emulation, I might have actually been interested in trying it out, but after seeing that its lead developer is, frankly, being such a jerk to people I've worked with for years, y'know? Maybe I'll hold off on that. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Being a 'jerk' to whom? Byuu? You're right, I don't like that guy. As does nearly everyone else who has ever had the misfortune of 'working with him'. Perhaps you should better educate yourself on who that guy is and what kind of a hostile person he is himself.84.26.108.111 (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I frankly don't give a rat's ass about what you think of another emulator author. That has no bearing on the merits of your article, or on how we apply policies around here. You are being a jerk to me, and to other Wikipedia editors and administrators for whom I have a great deal of respect. You are accusing us of being biased, of having an agenda against you, and of trying to shut down your project, all while demonstrating a clear lack of understanding (and/or a refusal to understand) how Wikipedia works. Your behavior speaks for itself - it is disruptive and it's unwelcome. The way I see it, you can either cool off and start working with us constructively, or you will have proven your point by getting yourself blocked. The choice is yours. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW - isn't that 'Conflict of Interest' on your part as well? Does everybody have to like this byuu character on Wikipedia in order for his project to be deemed 'notable'? Am I obligated to like a guy that actually *engages* in self-promotion by writing great glowing articles about himself on Ars Technica?84.26.108.111 (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no conflict of interest here. I am not involved in either RetroArch or any other emulator project. I'm not friends with any of the people you're talking about. And as far as I know, "Byuu" is not involved in this discussion. Nobody is saying you have to like someone. There is no brown-nosing here. If you feel that another page is being given special treatment, you're welcome to bring that up in a civilized manner, and we'll address it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

But we are not an 'emulator project' at all - hence this entire discussion up until now has been pointless. This whole 'blacklisting/scrubbing of emulator pages' therefore shouldn't even apply to us. You might as well delete the XBMC page too soon since it will be running the very same libretro cores soon through its 'implementation of libretro' called RetroPlayer. See how silly this is becoming? Seriously, it'd be wise if you would cool this down and actually allow us to better represent what RetroArch is about. It is *not* a multi emulator - it is the official reference frontend to an API that allows you to create cross-platform emulator/game cores.84.26.108.111 (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't actually matter what kind of project it is. You can call it a cure for cancer if you want. The fact is, people were unclear about what it was because your initial draft wasn't clear, was unsourced, and did not appear to be at all different from any other range of articles that are routinely deleted or merged every single day. And further (at the risk of going against one of our core civility tenets), my criticism has much less to do with your content and much MORE to do with your behavior. Accusing everyone around you of being on a "witch hunt" isn't doing you any favors. Inviting people to work WITH you on improving your article would have been MUCH better received, and perhaps this entire conversation could have been avoided. But instead, you chose to lash out at someone who legitimately thought the project would be better represented as a part of a larger category, and who chose to be bold about it. Then you lashed out at pretty much all of Wikipedia when we tried to reason with you and explain policies, including the one that allowed you to revert that person's changes.

It's honestly been a while since I've encountered someone so incredibly unfriendly. This is not YOUR article - people don't OWN articles on Wikipedia. But that doesn't mean you can't be involved and you can't provide good, useful information that would help make the article better. But if you want people to take you and your project seriously, then you have GOT to stop being such an ass. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

'It's honestly been a while since I've encountered someone so incredibly unfriendly.' - let's just say that there is a large contingent among those guys I just mentioned who intentionally have it out for this project and I need to take that into account everytime some stunt like this gets pulled. I was a very friendly guy before and I can still be a very friendly guy at times but sometimes it's hard to keep being that - not to mention all the requests and entitlements. 'Your initial draft wasn't clear, was unsourced' - but I already said I didn't even create the page or did any edits - so therefore, how can it be that I OWN any page when I didn't even create it? You admitted yourself to that guy who pulled the page that it was not a nice move to pull the carpet from under us in such a move - especially not when what it links back to - 'emulators' - is not even what it is. As for my behavior - well, I'm already trying to improve that right now by responding like this, aren't I? What am I to make of 'mass-delete' efforts on non-notable emulators (and that happens to occur to this page) when RetroArch is not even an emulator? Perhaps if that guy didn't engage in that sudden move we could have cleared it up beforehand and it wouldn't have turned ugly.84.26.108.111 (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll take that as a sign of progress. To the best of anyone's knowledge, the editor that performed the redirect has no direct connection to any of these "rival" projects you mentioned. And yes, I advised him that that may not have been the best move to make. But the way you responded to him was a severe overreaction that stepped way over the bounds of our civility policies, even stepping into personal attack territory, which is a big no-no here. Personally, I think you owe him an apology. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

As for my mention of ownership, please click this blue link and read the policy it directs you to. You'll understand what I mean then. That goes for all of the blue links I'm inserting into my responses - they are all links to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

As for what you are to make of 'mass-delete' efforts: First off, at the time that redirect was done, this article clearly stated that it was an emulator. Therefore, it was reasonable to think that it was one. Since you've gone to such great lengths to convince us otherwise (and some work has actually been done on the article to reflect this), perceptions have changed. But you can't apply that retroactively and expect that the user in question SHOULD have known that given what info he had available to him at the time. My criticism of him wasn't that the move was necessarily incorrect, but that he probably should have brought it up for a discussion first since the article was more than just a stub at the time. But my criticism of YOU is that you pretty much immediately accused him of having a political agenda against you, when in fact the evidence points to him trying to participate in a good-faith cleanup effort to improve the Video Games project in general.

Do you understand now where I'm coming from? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes I understand where you are coming from but really - the option of whether or not this page should stay has nothing to do about my character - you may dislike me or not but that has really no bearing on either RetroArch or libretro. Plenty of open source authors are not exactly the sharpest knives in the toolbox socially - just look at Linus Torvalds or Ulrich Drepper. So really, what else is new?

As for me, mostly I try to be nice and helpful to people but I have equally strong reactions to people that offer non-constructive criticism or - in this case - just mass-delete pages en-masse. I had plenty of reason to assume it was part of some ulterior motive, hence why I reacted like that. If that is not the case then I apologize. Anyway, I have other stuff to do now.84.26.108.111 (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see you issue an apology to User:Harizotoh9 (the user who performed the redirect) in particular for the overreaction. I will be happy to let the matter drop at that point. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

And yes, you're absolutely right - this article's merits have little to nothing to do with your character. That's why I've been clearly separating the two. You could be blocked for incivility and personal attacks and your article could remain completely intact. Conversely, your article could go away completely and you could still be allowed to edit. One does not predicate the other. I'm just pointing out that both will benefit from an attitude adjustment. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Following up: The IP editor has apologized, and I consider this aspect of the discussion resolved now. I move that we "start over" and work on improvements and sourcing that will help this article meet our community standards, with the presumption that nobody has an agenda. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW, you painted a pretty wide swath when you disparaged "other emulator projects" - notice I didn't mention any one in particular. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine if I was in fact referring to any specific project, or if the disparagement I'm referring to reflects a general pattern of self-promotion. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

If I was being 'self promoting' in nature, I would resort to writing great glowing articles on myself on Ars Technica - and also creating lots of justifications as to why my project is just that unacceptably slow.84.26.108.111 (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Look 84, we can argue all day, but it comes down to this:

1. You need third party reliable sources to establish notability. None of your tirades or rants are going to convince anyone here, so you can save yourself the time and leave them out.
2. You have a clear, obvious conflict of interest. You've admitted yourself you're a lead programmer on the project. Its fine if you want to comment on factual errors, but anything subjective, you should not be editing the article.
3. It's not "politics" or any other conspiracies you can conjure up, we're merely discussing the basic premise and policy for the project. Sergecross73 msg me 16:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

RetroArch iOS - not only for jailbroken devices

The change made to the wiki is also factually incorrect - RetroArch iOS can be installed just fine on non-jailbroken devices provided you are a registered Apple iOS developer.

https://github.com/Themaister/RetroArch/blob/master/ios/README.md 84.26.108.111 (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge Discussion: List of video game emulators

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Stale discussion: Result was clear consensus to merge. Article can always be recreated if more reliable sources appear. czar · · 20:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

---

It was proposed that this article be merged with List of video game emulators. I'm starting up a new section to discuss that topic, since the previous discussion devolved into a heated personal dispute (which at this point I believe is resolved). I'd like to approach the merge discussion from its intended point of view, considering all arguments for and against, as is our policy for such things.

• Oppose for now: Not the original nominator, and at the moment I believe there is room to improve this article's sources and overall structure so that we can make a clearer decision when it's not so much a work-in-progress. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Merge: At this point, I have to agree with the folks below that there doesn't appear to be enough reliable source material to warrant a full article. I say merge and redirect. (And that has only a little to do with the rather long and vitriolic dispute with the IP editor claiming to be this project's lead developer.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
• Merge - There's very little content here, its basically just a compatibility list right now. I say merge, and unmerge once there's substantial sources to create some actual content here... Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
• Merge. The subject doesn't appear to meet requirements for its own article, as all sources are either trivial or unreliable. Woodroar (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
• Merge (then redirect). As I originally said here, I can find no sources to confer independent notability. The default should be to redirect these emulators to the List until dedicated sourcing appears, and then only actually list the emulators that have received independent coverage (not links to their project pages). czar · · 21:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support Merge. Given the difficulty in establishing notability, a merge seems the most reasonable course of action. For lack of a better article, list of emulators seems the most appropriate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but at the time the proposal was made, the article either clearly stated or hinted that RetroArch is an emulation project. As of THIS writing, the text has been amended to distinguish it from an emulator, but still has a long list of emulator cores that it supports, as well as other aspects that make it similar to other mass-emulation projects such as MESS. However, an editor who says he's deeply involved in the project has stated that RetroArch isn't an emulator, per se, and I've encouraged him to continue editing the article and providing sources to back that up.

MESS is a monolithic 'NIH' emulator codebase - RetroArch is a frontend for an API (a very generic API at that for anything involving input/video/audio). MESS doesn't have an implementation of ffmpeg - libretro/RetroArch does (ffmpeg BTW is a video player library in case that needed pointing out). MESS doesn't have an implementation of ScummVM (which, BTW, is a game interpreter - not an emulator at all) - Libretro/RetroArch does. MESS doesn't allow you to make cores targeting OpenGL - and in a way that it scales across both mobile and PC (newsflash - OpenGL on the desktop is not the same as OpenGL ES on mobile - and it requires 'care' to get the same code to work across both). Libretro/RetroArch does. MESS' cores can't be plugged into other projects implementin the Libretro API. Libretro cores do. That's because MESS is a non-modular monolithic codebase - libretro isn't and is designed with modularity in mind.

There are about so many factual errors associated with lumping it down to an emulator that it's hard to pick and choose where to begin, but ah well, when the facts don't matter and only what the 'sources say', then anything goes. I guess Elvis Presley was really a 'King' after all going by that kind of logic.

You can cite 'Conflict of Interest' all you want but the ironic thing is that not a single one of you actually understand what you are voting on to date - so what is one of a legion of 'authors' to do other than point out that the factual comparisons being made are not even making any coherent sense? Wikipedia admin 'prestige' is being placed ahead here of actual factual knowledge on the subject matter at hand - I'd imagine a 'real encyclopedia' would take some time out to actually get literate in the subject matter at first before even trying to write a single paragraph - guess that is too much to ask of the 'web-based kind'.

Merging something with something that it isn't is pretty stupid to say the least. Going by what sources say instead of having somebody experienced actually research what it actually is doubly more so. Ignoring and dismissing the few qualified persons who actually would know what they are talking about (ie. the actual devs) triply more so, and what's more, it hurts the technical reputation of this site among techies. It can't be the case that ignorant end-user videogamers with barely any technical qualifications can run rough-shot over what things actually are. Technical articles demand technical people who are qualified in knowing what they write about. Leave 'videogamer' people out of it. 77.166.85.169 (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Just as a little example since people here are obviously technically challenged - it would be perfectly possible for somebody to port a 'web browser' to the libretro API if he so desired and have that running inside RetroArch and across all the platforms that libretro targets. It has nothing zero whatsoever to do with emulators on a technical level - it just so happens that the vast majority of them are emulator cores because that is what people like to play and that is what gets ported to it. You might as well redirect the Windows OS to a list of 'Emulators' as well if you're going like this because it happens to play host to a lot of homebrew emulators.77.166.85.169 (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, its pretty clear that the article doesn't meet the Wikipedia's standard for having an article. Would you prefer it be merged to a "list of" article regarding one of its functions? (emulation) Or would you prefer it to be deleted outright? Keeping it as is isn't going to work. Sergecross73 msg me 14:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

In addition to what Sergecross73 said, I think you misunderstand our purpose here. Wikipedia doesn't exist to be a technical resource, and we certainly aren't here for self-described experts to say whatever they want. We're here to build an encyclopedia based on reliable, independent published sources. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. The alternate—letting experts run the show—means that we'd quickly become a source of system architecture manuals, Pokemon strategies, and definitive guides to "what really happened" on 9/11. If they want to do that, fine, that's what blogs and forums and, well, everything that isn't Wikipedia is for. Woodroar (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2013 (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.

'Substantial sources'

The 'substantial sources' are the website and the API docs which I've linked to at least three or four times now. And no, you aren't ever going to get 'mainstream sources' which are going to talk at length about 'insert random API here' or 'insert random detailed explanation of a framework here' - that is all going to be explained on our own site of course. When you want to know how to implement an SDL port, do you go to the official site or do you go to Ars Technica? This is just silly - and the same applies to our project - go to our Github page if you want the nitty gritty on the API documentation and about how to implement it. No sane or rational developer is ever going to consult 'outside sources' for this stuff.

Anyway, I can link you guys to this stuff again. I of course am not going to do it myself, since I would just be accused of being in a 'conflict of interest'. So here are the links again for people who want to flesh out the page instead - instead of just complain about the lack of content -

http://www.libretro.com/pages/menubar/api.html

http://www.libretro.com/pages/menubar/mission.html

https://github.com/libretro/libretro.github.com/wiki/Documentation-devs

This is a user's draft of how the Libretro page will look like -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BlackLotus89/Libretro

The API is what is important here, not the reference frontend (ie. RetroArch). There is plenty of information here that you could either easily merge into this article or you could just let this current 'RetroArch' page redirect to something like this instead. Anyway, I don't have the time to be involved in this endeavor, and I'll leave it to outside forces to provide the bulk of the information. That way I can't also be accused of 'Conflict of Interest' or anything people would throw at me for being one of the original developer.84.26.108.111 (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

If they're not third party reliable sources, then it doesn't count towards its notability, no way around it. You can use first party sources to verify facts, but you can't use it towards notability. Sergecross73 msg me 19:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

How much more than people saying 'this is a really cool project' can you hope for from external sources? What do you expect The Guardian or Lifehacker to say otherwise? Do you actually really believe they are going to care about the 'underlying API' or anything of that? No, they're just going to recommend it because you can play really cool games with it. That is the extent to which it is useful for them.

If you want actual documentation on APIs and stuff like that, then there is only one place - www.libretro.com / Github repos. And this will be as authoritative as you can hope for - you really can't expect anything else. I certainly don't hope you think that outside forces will need to make doctorate dissertations on the libretro API before we have a 'reliable source'. I am not sure how much 'reasonable proof' you are even hoping to ask for at this rate - it seems almost impossible to reach for any open-source hobbyist project - even Apache probably would have problems reaching this kind of documentation proof of burden.84.26.108.111 (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, there's no "Well, there's no third party coverage, but random people think its cool" clause in Wikipedia's notability standards. Sergecross73 msg me 19:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Unfortunately, that's the way things go here. It's not a political agenda against RetroArch/LibRetro - it's the way the community has agreed policies should work. We literally cannot list every "cool project" that's ever been done, no matter how important that project might be to the people building it. We have to focus on the ones that are verifiable through the kinds of sources that discuss the real-world impact of such projects. As such, it doesn't appear RetroArch has reached that level yet - there are very few articles on, say, Android apps that are allowed to exist solely on the fact that one or several review sites have mentioned them. (And the fact that such articles exist and haven't been deleted doesn't necessarily mean we're giving them a pass - often, it's because we haven't been made aware of them.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I have already given you plenty of those sources already and even the guy who personally deleted the page agreed himself that The Guardian piece makes it noteworthy. Really, beauty is in the eye of the beholder - if you guys want ot convince yourself it's not noteworthy no matter what I say then I guess it's a self-fulfilling prophecy and you're just going to do whatever you want. I don't have the time or the energy or the patience to keep engaging in this kind of quasi-intellectual self masturbation and bickering over self-imposed WP policies and whatnot - if it becomes that much work to have a Wiki page then really -sorry but I am opting out of this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.26.108.111 (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

This is the first mention I've seen of The Guardian having something about RetroArch. Could you link me to the article? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It's on the main RetroArch wiki page rigt now listed as a reference - http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/appsblog/2013/feb/01/best-android-apps-epic-citadel-bt-cloud.84.26.108.111 (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Found it. Basically, the only coverage that gives you is placement in a list of apps that came out, along with the statement that the program (referred to as an emulator, btw) is "well-regarded", and that it's available on Android. It otherwise doesn't say anything specific about the project - in fact, the thing looks to me like it's one big disclaimer about whether emulation is "legitimate" - something The Guardian probably has to do to avoid looking like it's endorsing something illegal. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a step in the right direction, but we're looking for something more like this - that would constitute a substantial review. To my knowledge, there are very few emulation-related projects that have that. (And I repeat: If there are articles up for projects that don't have that kind of coverage, they probably should ALSO be merged into the main list article.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a mistake to apply video game 'notability standards' for projects like this precisely because as you point out - the standards are almost impossibly high to achieve for most homegrown projects - all it is going to ensure is that a lot of information on projects is going to get lost and it will also mean people will look elsewhere for 'credible' information on projects like these. Anyway, for what it's worth, Damien McFerran also wrote an article on PocketGamer elsewhere about RetroArch Android that is more detailed in nature - http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/Android/RetroArch+Android/feature.asp?c=48350.

Other than that, it just seems to me that this particular policy vibe is heading down a path where a lot of useful information will get lost for no real reason other than 'mass purging'. I'd tread carefully if I were you.84.26.108.111 (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but is that a threat? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not making any 'threats'. Chill out already -nobody is out to get you.84.26.108.111 (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW - I hope you realize the amount of patience I have shown by citing all these sources. I can pretty much assure you that RetroArch is among one of the better publicized examples in this category. I wish you good luck even reaching 1/10th of this same amount of coverage on these other projects, not to mention finding an author that wants to put up with 'proving his case that it is noteworthy enough' for you - most are simply not going to bother and will take a pass.84.26.108.111 (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You've got to get it in your head: everything thing needs to be held to notability standards. If the other ones are worse, then they should be deleted. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't work as an argument to keep something. It only justifies more deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 20:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be doing a good job in 'destroying' value from your wiki then. Really, at the end of the day it's your loss if you're just going to mass-delete everything. It's not like you're adding stuff of great value to compensate for it either, so it's just stagnation. And BTW - I don't need to 'get anything through my head' - stop the hostile attitude if you want me to remain civil to you. This is a two-way street.84.26.108.111 (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

(EDC) Yes, I suppose it is unfortunate that we're trying to treat this as an encyclopedia. Encyclopediae do tend to have "impossibly high" standards for the inclusion of content. (See: Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Lemme try illustrating what we mean: A bad source would be someone posting on a forum about RetroArch (our source policies specifically exclude forums and other "user-contributed" sites like that, including Wikipedia itself). A "poor" source would be an Android-specific review site in which RetroArch is merely listed as one of the available apps in a category of emulation-related apps. A better source would be one that has an in-depth review of the program, written by someone who doesn't have a direct connection to the project. A great source would be a mainstream news source, such as IGN (gaming-specific) or even CNN talking about the project, since that indicates that the project's scope has grown to the point that people who aren't necessarily experts in the field are getting to know about it. As you move up this chain, establishing notability becomes easier. That's basically what we mean. So if the best sources you have at the moment are chatter about "cool programs" in specific communities, and source documentation, self-published info, etc., then I'm afraid that doesn't meet up with the policies as they stand right now. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The Guardian is 'chatter' in a specific community? 'Lifehacker' is 'just some sort of blog thing' (I saw it being described as that by you guys)? A full-page article on Pocketgamer.com and Crackberry.com are not 'notable'? What do you expect- an article in the New York Times or Time Magazine or something? Or should I write an article about my own project like byuu did, publish it on Ars Technica and then I get off scott free?84.26.108.111 (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, for example, look at the Crackberry.com article. A vast majority of it is just how to install instructions or the author discussing emulation in general. The Life Hacker article is largely a compatibility list. It gets some coverage, but it's just very weak. That's why I advocate a "Merge" over a full on "Delete". Sergecross73 msg me 19:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge it with a list of videogame emulators - which it isn't? Why do you still insist on merging it with something it isn't? It is NOT a videogame emulator or even an emulator - it is a frontend to an API, and it has been ported to more platforms by now than most multimedia-oriented APIs except for maybe SDL. I'd say the onus is on you to prove how that is not 'noteworthy' enough - not me.84.26.108.111 (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

So, two things here: First, if it's not actually an emulator, then why do ALL of your sources refer to it as an emulator? Perhaps you need to clear up that misconception with them? And second, does the general public care about the detail of whether it's a frontend to a bunch of APIs? It's packaged up in the Google Play store as an emulator program. The details about how it's implemented really only matter to people who are going to develop for it - the people it's intended for, the gamers who will be using it to play games, care much less about its technical details. Wikipedia's job is to cater to the general public, not the tech-savvy few. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You could say the same about WINE - it is not an emulator, yet people think it is. Do they care about whether or not it is not an emulator? No, because it still does much the same thing for them. With RetroArch it's even more disingenuous to call it an 'emulator' - the only difference between a project like us and SDL (apart from scope) is that we do our own ports (and the maintenance of it) and that we just happened to like emulators and did a fair few of them. However, the underlying architectural base of 'RetroArch' has nothing to do with emulators. Which is why it also runs game ports (like Doom/Quake/Cave Story) and media players now such as FFmpeg (movie player). See https://libretro.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/libretro-ffmpeg/. A guy recently held a seminar at Flashback 2013 talking about using RetroArch as a multi-platform tool for demo development as well -http://auscene.org/forums/programming/retroarch-democoding-made-easy-material/68#p6884.26.108.111 (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but if we're going to abide by the policies that formed out of more than a decade of community consensus, we have to go by what your sources say. And your sources call it an emulator. Granted, a couple of them further clarify that, and it's entirely appropriate to clarify that point in the article as well. But if it's actually so important that this thing not be called an emulator, then you're going to need to make sure your sources are clear on that too. (Personally, I don't see why it's such a big deal.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Some more sources -

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/RetroArch

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/retroarch-emulates-nes-playstation-gameboy-coloradvance-and-a-whole-lot-more-android/

http://forum.xbmc.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=194 (An entire forum dedicated to a libretro implementation - not too shabby I believe)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/appsblog/2013/feb/01/best-android-apps-epic-citadel-bt-cloud

http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/Android/RetroArch+Android/feature.asp?c=48350 84.26.108.111 (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The Pocketgamer source is good. The rest aren't. Wiki's and forums can't be used because anyone can write them. They violate WP:SPS. The Guardian is a reliable source, but that's not significant coverage. Its one item out of a list of 30, and doesn't say anything other than "its regarding emulation". Sergecross73 msg me 19:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

And what is wrong about the fact it's dedicated to its emulation capabilities? You have something out for it? I'm sorry, you can say how this isn't a 'witchhunt', but it's certainly starting to feel like one. Do you blame SDL for having many emulator ports as well? Do you even know what an API is, or a frontend?84.26.108.111 (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You're doing it again. Back down. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I'm saying its extremely short. Its not even a paragraph. Not even 1/30th of the article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I want to tackle a specific point from this last comment: "Do you even know what an API is, or a frontend?" Well, yes, I do, personally - I am a software developer and thus it's my job to make those things. However, the vast majority of people who read Wikipedia would answer "no" to that question, and that's the point that really needs to be made here. If the important thing about RetroArch is that it's a frontend, not an emulator, then you need to find some way to write that in your article such that the average lay person who knows nothing about software development can understand that. You can't just hammer them over the head with their ignorance. And of course, as we've been saying, those points need to be verifiable and notable, which is done through third-party sources. Otherwise, all anyone has to go on is your word for it, and that doesn't meet the five-pillars. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The average lay person already knows how RetroArch is a 'frontend' due to the way they load a game with it - they first point it to a ROM, and then they have to 'pick' an 'emulator core'. An 'emulator core' here is a 'libretro core'. A libretro core in turn is a shared library - ie. an app in the form of a library. Thus, all RetroArch is, is a 'player' for being able to run 'apps' that target that API. Hence it is a 'frontend' and hence even through basic user interactions everybody would know exactly what this is. The fact you can 'swap cores' ingame also drives home this point. Really, it couldn't be communicated to the user better that RetroArch is a frontend.84.26.108.111 (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you get it. Every program that requires you to select from a menu technically has a frontend to its underlying functionality. That doesn't mean every program is a frontend. And more importantly, most people aren't aware of that distinction, and even less of them care. The fact is, packaged together with all its APIs and a set of ROMs, your average person sees this thing called "RetroArch" and uses it to play emulated games. To them, that makes it an emulator. The fact that your sources say this as well reflects that perception.

Disclosure: I said I'm not directly involved in any emulation project. That is still true. But I am very familiar with the emulation community. I have seen plenty of frontends and know the difference. I also know that even within the community, there are plenty who don't, let alone all the people who just use emulators without contributing anything. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Without meaning to go into an ad-hominem argument, I doubt you have used RetroArch Android up to this point - and I doubt you have seen many other projects that load shared libraries in this manner - and the shared library in this case being the entire app. That is almost never the case in any other project. That is certainly a unique feature of RetroArch in particular. Whether or not the user perceives this or this - I really can't say I give a damn about - the average user thinks WINE is an emulator when its acronym is 'WINE Is Not An Emulator' - you want to blame them as well for this perception? Anyway, I think I have shown enough patience so far with giving you all these sources but my patience is being severely tested. I can almost assure you no other emu author is going to want to put up with this stuff frankly - either take it or leave it. I frankly find it deeply offensive to even have to go down this 'questioning routine' with you guys - as if I'm being called for questioning or something. Really, RetroArch being on Wikipedia is not so important to me that I want to go through this entire routine and have the 'notability' of my project called into question.84.26.108.111 (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

See, this is why we keep saying you have a conflict of interest. Rather than objectively comparing the item against Wikipedia's definition of what is notable, you're taking it personally and getting offended over what you perceive as a judgement of your worth. You can't look at this objectively. Sergecross73 msg me 20:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

(EDC) *ahem* MAME and MESS both fit that description perfectly and have a myriad of frontends for people to choose from. I'm sorry, but RetroArch is not unique in any way in this regard. And again, it's not really ME that you should be convincing - it's your target audience. If all you're going to do is whack them over the head with their ignorance, instead of actually trying to educate them, you're going to find very few people willing to support your project. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, it's well known that WINE's name is a joke, following the pattern started by GNU (GNU's Not Unix). That's a pretty weak argument if you ask me. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but MakeUseOf is certainly a good enough source considering the subject matter. Or else you wouldn't have it listed on Wikipedia yourself - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MakeUseOf. Or are you going to start instigating a call to delete that as well? This is becoming silly.84.26.108.111 (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

We have an article about MakeUseOf.com because that site ITSELF is notable, and has its own coverage. That by itself doesn't make it a reliable source for other things. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a difference between "notability" and "reliability". You don't seem to be one for explanations on policy, so I'll give you an overt example. Urban Dictionary. It has an article, because its notable for having ridiculous entries, but it's pretty obviously not a reliable source of information. Not saying makeuseof.com is like that, just illustrating the difference and how that argument in theory doesn't hold up. Sergecross73 msg me 20:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the makeuseof.com article may be all right as well - it's more of a "how-to" article than a review. How-to articles can be good (as can direct documentation and manuals) to help readers understand how the subject is meant to be used, but those tend to be only for specific cases. (For example, a specific, notable button combination in a game could be sourced from its manual and doesn't HAVE to come from a third-party source. Plot details in games are also often sourced to the game itself or ancillary docs that come with it.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Another source:

http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/01/25/new-app-classic-open-source-multi-console-game-emulator-retroarch-makes-its-way-to-android/

Android Police is cited at about 40 other Wiki articles as well.84.26.108.111 (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, the AndroidPolice article looks like another good review. I'd call that a good source. Assuming others agree, we have two third-party articles that meet our sourcing standards, and that is a good place to start. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Comparison to MAME/MESS

'(EDC) *ahem* MAME and MESS both fit that description perfectly and have a myriad of frontends for people to choose from. I'm sorry, but RetroArch is not unique in any way in this regard. And again, it's not really ME that you should be convincing - it's your target audience. If all you're going to do is whack them over the head with their ignorance, instead of actually trying to educate them, you're going to find very few people willing to support your project. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)'

Sorry, but you're dead wrong and it shows your ignorance in this matter.

MAME and MESS do not use 'shared libraries' for portable, modular emu cores. All it is is a big monolithic blob of code that gets compiled into a binary. There is no modularity in it at all and there is no way to 'inject a core' into it either after compilation time. So yes, RetroArch IS certainly unique in this manner.

BTW - who are you kidding? 'You're going to find very few people willing to support your project' - I'm sorry but I have to laugh at that - we are the only thing right now that is happening in your dead, niche emu scene - bar none. We already have a bigger userbase across all these platforms than any one emu project could ever hope to dream of. Just to repeat since it doesn't seem to get through - the very same emu cores - iOS, Android, Blackberry, PC (that is Linux/Windows/Mac), PS3, Xbox 360, Xbox 1, Wii, Gamecube, Raspberry, OpenPandora, and on and on it goes. Can you say that of MAME/MESS - with one shared common codebase? Hell no you can't. You can't even say it of ANY emulator out there in existence. Only RetroArch and libretro gives you this level of portability.

Really, I'm not going to prostitute myself before you guys - I'm above this shit - take it or leave it. Delete the page if you want - I'm done here.84.26.108.111 (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I am well aware of the technical differences in how MAME and MESS are compiled. MAME is also notable for being one of the world's largest open-source projects, so technically ALL of it is "shared library". But that's not even really the point, and I'm dismayed that you're still harping on it. The average person who uses MAME or MESS doesn't CARE whether it's "shared library" or "monolithic blob". Most people don't know the difference. Most people don't have the expertise to even know what a Windows DLL file is compared to an EXE, or how the two relate, and most people don't have to care. They still see MAME, or MESS, or RetroArch, as a single entity that allows them to play games. You are apparently too close to your own project to understand that.

And BTW, MAME has in fact been compiled for and is playable on almost every one of those platforms. Last I checked, it wasn't available officially on Xbox 360 because Microsoft would never certify it, though there are homebrew versions available via XNA if you happen to have paid for a developer account. I don't believe I've seen a Gamecube or Wii executable because Nintendo would never certify it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

MAME is slow as shit and would never run on any of those systems. Ever heard of jailbreak? It's available for every console - you might want to check it out sometime. Besides - with the move to mobile (Android/iOS/Windows Mobile) we don't really need to rely on these silo'ed off consoles anymore so much - and what's more - an iPad 4's CPU is actually faster than a PS3 - so even less reason to bother with these types of consoles

Sorry, but if you are seriously going to compare MAME to RetroArch in terms of portability, you are making a big laughing stock out of yourself and it shows you really don't know anything. Why do you think I HAD to resort to a 2003 stone-age version of MAME? Because that codebase is 'really lovely' and 'performant' and all that - or that it scales all that well? I feel sad that it is guys like you I have to produce 'burdens of proof' for when you are not even in a position of authority to be demanding anything (other than your Wikipedia street cred I assume).

BTW - we are already way bigger in terms of userbase than MAME/MESS ever were - MAME/MESS has never hit userbases as big as the ones on mobile phones. I don't care if YOU don't know personally of it - lots of other people do. The only 'perception' here that RetroArch/libretro is not 'notable enough' is inside your head.84.26.108.111 (talk)

Tell you what, why don't I put out a general Request For Comment on this then, so that we can get lots of people from all over Wikipedia involved in the discussion? Then we'll see whether it's all just in our heads or if we might actually be interpreting policy. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Go do whatever makes you feel more powerful I guess. BTW - 'MAME is also notable for being one of the world's largest open-source projects, so technically ALL of it is "shared library".' - I can tell by this line you are not a coder. Just sayin'.... 84.26.108.111 (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW - MAME is not open-source as far as OSI is concerned. Just as a side-note. It uses a proprietary license and the name is trademarked.84.26.108.111 (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, attack me some more. Does that make you feel better? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Telling you that MAME has a proprietary license and therefore doesn't fit the usual qualifications of being 'open source' is not 'attacking', it is correcting you. The same with saying that a statement like 'MAME is also notable for being one of the world's largest open-source projects, so technically ALL of it is "shared library".' makes no technical sense whatsoever. I'm sorry, it just doesn't.84.26.108.111 (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Making a blanket statement about my qualifications is a personal attack, dude. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

MAME is also notable for being one of the world's largest open-source projects, so technically ALL of it is "shared library". - well, this just betrays a lack of understanding on what a 'shared library' actually is. So yeah, that betrays certainly *something*. It's your words - you have proven through a single comment to the entire world that your qualifications regarding this stuff is now at doubt to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear. I didn't do anything and it didn't involve an 'attack' on my part.84.26.108.111 (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you know, you can keep on thinking that if you like. Doesn't change the fact that I work for one of the largest software companies in the world and get paid very well to write large-scale systems that thousands of people use directly and millions of people ultimately benefit from. Yet, I'm sure you will never see a Wikipedia article on any of my work, and that's perfectly fine with me. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure that company will appreciate it that you're thinking a binary is the same as a 'shared library'.84.26.108.111 (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

(laughs) Now why would my company care about a silly little thing like that? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Microsoft doesn't care about shared libraries? Is that the reason Windows Phone 8 doesn't allow for apps that load shared libraries? Interesting.84.26.108.111 (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I never said I worked for Microsoft, now did I? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You didn't have to - it can be easily queried.84.26.108.111 (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh really? You have me curious now. By what form of magic do you know the identity of my employer? (And... why do you care?) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The 'magic' of doing a Google search - and of you linking *directly* to your Wikipedia account and all that - http://www.hrwiki.org/wiki/User:KieferSkunk.

Ah yes, you would happen to link to a page that's at least five years out of date, wouldn't you? Doesn't mean I still work there, or have any interest in Microsoft's development policies. Why don't you try again? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I could and I already know, but I don't want that. I respectfully ask that both you and I retreat from this discussion for the sake of neutrality. Let the other guys sort out what to do with the page - I won't interfere - and you already set that up so great.84.26.108.111 (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, such a sudden change in tone. Interesting. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I suspect you'll be updating that page shortly. It's good to see how 'non-notable' we are that we run into MS people in positions of Wikipedia authority that are trying to relegate open-source projects to an insignificant little 'list page'. That definitely doesn't raise all sorts of interesting dilemmas regarding 'COI' on its own there.84.26.108.111 (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no intention of updating the HRWiki page until I decide to actually start contributing there again.

In any event, who I work for has no bearing on what I do on Wikipedia, other than influencing the amount of time I spend on it. Neither Microsoft, nor Google, nor Apple, nor any other software company, has any form of leadership or control on Wikipedia, and it shows a severe misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is that you would imply such a thing.

Now, this whole thing came up because you tried to discredit my qualifications as a "coder" when I commented on the nature of the MAME/MESS project. You'll notice I have not once called into question YOUR credentials as a member of the RetroArch project, nor tried to make any jabs at your line of work. But, now that you've opened this can of worms, I'd be happy to send a record of this conversation to the admins at WP:ANI as a form of harassment. Wanna see what they think of this sort of thing? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I just said that your statement regarding shared libraries didn't make any sense - and I was right. Whether you are a perfectly fine software engineer outside of making that figure of speech blunder is besides the question - it was a technically incorrect statement on your part. And BTW - there IS a very clear Conflict of Interest here whether you choose to see it or not. I'll have to admit that you have certainly been more helpful than the other guy in this thread splitting hairs over the 'validness' of the sources - and for that I am grateful. BTW - it is not 'harrassment' when you choose to leave information behind on your particular webpages- you and you alone are in charge of your own 'information management' - everything you post can be used against you and doesn't entail harrassment in any way or form. Anyway, I think it's best for the both of us if we leave this subject matter alone for now and not make this an even bigger mess. Perhaps on both sides there were once good intentions but now nothing good can come out of this.84.26.108.111 (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I find your change of tone rather interesting, considering it comes immediately after I let you know I'd be getting them involved. Familiar with the phrase "Too little, too late"? Yeah... I'll let ANI decide. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no change of tone dude - whether you work at Amazon or Microsoft, you are still in a Conflict of Interest and you should be the last person involved in 'mass-purging' little innocuous pages on open-source projects given your corporate ties. Sorry son, it is a two-way street - you can't 'brag' about you working for a big software company and then go crying when you leave some information around and I confront you about your employer and how this could not possibly mesh with being able to make sound judgement calls on the 'notability' of open source software. BTW - I might just do you a big fucking favor and just redirect the page to 'List of videogame emulators' as well. Get this fucking thing over with.84.26.108.111 (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

OK. Did it now. It's fucking over with. Bye now fuckface - and the same goes for your colleague.84.26.108.111 (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

As I said on WP:ANI, it's not like I have any real intention of keeping my employer secret. I was just waiting to see if you actually had any real information or if you were just blowing hot air out your ass. And I'm still waiting for you to explain how my working at Amazon, or Microsoft, or any other large company, puts me in a COI position.

Yeah, maybe it was wrong of me to bring that facet up in the first place - ultimately, it makes no difference who you or I work for. Your saying "You're not a coder" had no place in that conversation, especially when my whole POINT was to tell you that this article should be written for non-coders. I simply brought up my occupation to let you know that I don't give a flying fuck what you think my qualifications are - you'd already made it clear you weren't going to listen to reason. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Ha? Ajax-x86 (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's definition of 'notability'

'See, this is why we keep saying you have a conflict of interest. Rather than objectively comparing the item against Wikipedia's definition of what is notable, you're taking it personally and getting offended over what you perceive as a judgement of your worth. You can't look at this objectively. Sergecross73 msg me 20:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)'

Wikipedia's definition of notability seems to be entirely arbitrary and changing with the day as guys like you add ever more bulk to it.

And besides, I only see two people here - not certainly anything to form a 'consensus' on as to whether to keep a page or delete it. You (Sergecross73) keep giving me hostile responses when the policy should be (assume good faith) which you are not showing me at all, and the other guy came into this page only when he got an 'abuse notification' by the guy who originally acted on 'redirecting' the page. Where is the overwhelming 'consensus' that feels this page ought to be deleted/redirected? Nowhere. It's all inside two person's heads who think they have to think for the public.

Besides, half the games you deem 'noteworthy' probably aren't in the slightest as soon as they are past their shelf life. So why not just create a big list for all of that too?

Sorry - but the overriding aim here is clear -you want to mass-delete pages - not help 'improve' any of them. And frankly, I'm done with giving you sources -I've already wasted enough time today hoping we'd be able to come to some agreement, but it seems it is a moving target of 'expectations' we have to fulfill for you guys and we are just not going to do that. You are not that important.84.26.108.111 (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

We can certainly get more people involved. Would you like us to move this fork of the discussion over to Wikipedia talk:Notability so we can turn it into a true policy discussion? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

And actually, no, I showed up here when I saw your tirade over at Talk:List of video game emulators, which was before I was notified that you attacked the person who redirected the page. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I have no intention of mass-deleting anything, let alone emulator articles. I wasn't even participating in the emulator discussion until it was reported how aggressive you were being. The only stance I've given is to Merge this particular article, anything else you've said is your own personal unfounded speculation. Sergecross73 msg me 21:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

YOu want to merge it with something it isn't - and you keep deluding yourself it is while I have already told you countless times it isn't - and if you were any kind of 'coder' - you could look at the goddamn code and see for yourself. You actually think ANY emulator author is going to put up with this kind of inquisitive questioning? Pretty please - I maintain relations with lots of emulator authors who have adopted the libretro API - nobody is going to put up with this kind of stuff - they would feel it beneath them to be questioned like this.

So yeah - go get the call out to get this deleted or 'merged' or whatever you want to do - having a RetroArch Wikipedia page is not that overly important to me that I am going to prostitute myself before a couple of end-user gamers with limited knowledge on the subject matter who have convinced themselves they are great arbitrators on what is 'notable' or not.84.26.108.111 (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

If it's really not so important to you, then why are you still here? Stop threatening to leave and just leave already. It's obviously of great importance to you, or you wouldn't be arguing so hard. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It takes two (or three in this case) to tango. How many hours have you sinked into this already?84.26.108.111 (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I happen to be on vacation today. Trust me, I wouldn't be devoting very much time or energy into this if I were at work - I would have just referred this whole thing to WP:ANI as pure disruption and let them deal with it. Wikipedia is a hobby for me, and I try to help people whenever I can. At one point, I was trying to help you, but you made it clear you didn't want help - you wanted us to fuck off. I don't 'fuck off' all that easily. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Like hell did you try to help. You haven't done any of that except split hairs over 'articles' that don't need splitting hairs over at all - they are valid sources - basta. Period. It doesn't require me wasting goddamn 4 hours over it with you. That is productive time I am losing and I don't appreciate that at all.84.26.108.111 (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, you know, if you hadn't launched into half a dozen tirades about how evil Wikipedia is and how much we're all trying to kill your project, maybe you could have avoided this whole discussion and spent those four hours actually improving your article? Just a thought. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Sergecross73 doesn't want me to do that because that would be a 'conflict of interest'. Or have you forgotten about that already? Kinda dubious these 'self-imposed standards' and these 'policy cards' that get trotten out from time to time to deny me the privilege to actually get something done, right?84.26.108.111 (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

If you hadn't gotten all defensive about your project when people started questioning the state of the article, chances are nobody would have had any reason to call COI on you. And just because you have a COI doesn't mean you can't be involved in improving the article. It just means that you have to be careful in what you put into it - since you're closer to the subject than someone like me would be, you stand the greatest risk to make the article non-neutral and self-promoting. That's the reason why we have a COI policy.

I mean, if you're going to get all up in our grills about "Byuu" and his Ars Technica article, then you clearly understand what conflict of interest is. Why do you think it doesn't apply to you?

And in any event, why do you think ANY of that justifies your behavior? Perhaps I've given you way too much slack, and we should have just blocked you four hours ago. Certainly would have been less disruptive. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Trust me - you will be in for a rude surprise if you think any emulator author is going to put up with the kind of 'treatment' you have shown me today. You'll actually find I am one of the few guys who would actually subject himself to this kind of 'doublethink torture' just for the sake of getting a few more hits. Most honestly - especially when there is no money involved- quite honestly - pardon my French - wouldn't give a flying fuck whether you' redirect' the page or not.84.26.108.111 (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Then, as I asked you earlier, why are you still here? I don't care if you think you're nicer than Jesus Christ. You have certainly made a complete ass of yourself here, and we've been more than lenient enough with you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

And you have unintentionally exposed that you have a definite Conflict of Interest given your current employer and the prior one. What else is new?84.26.108.111 (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Well then, please, do tell me who I work for and how that makes me have a conflict of interest. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Policy discussion and clarification as it relates to this article

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.

---

I am formally requesting comment from a variety of editors familiar with Wikipedia's Five Pillars policies. As you can see from the walls of text above, an IP editor claiming to be a primary developer on the RetroArch project claims that this article, in its current form and with its current citations, is notable and should not be deleted or redirected to another page. User:Sergecross73 and I have been trying to work with him, but he has been combative and has frequently accused us of either having an agenda against his project or setting standards unreasonably high, such that articles such as this could never possibly exist. The purpose of this RFC is to address the latter point - if necessary, we'll pursue other mediation avenues regarding his behavior, but in general I want to focus THIS discussion on policy.

The IP editor purports that we have no basis, other than some misconception "in our heads", to justify calling into question RetroArch's notability. Since SergeCross and I are at this point deeply involved in the dispute, we're no longer neutral. I won't attempt to speak for him, but I'm certainly willing to be shown that I'm misinterpreting our policies if, in fact, I am. I would encourage you all to look at the current version of the article snapshotted here and the discussion sections above, and comment. Beyond that, I have no specific requests. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's a pretty clear cut example of an SPA who is upset that their product doesn't really meet the GNG, but it would be nice if we could get some fresh people in here so we can stop being "the 2 evil Admin who are going to start he fall of Wikipedia because my products article is going to be merged". I mean, a core argument is "Well, it doesn't get coverage by third parties, but random people think its cool". Sergecross73 msg me 22:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Given the sources cited in the version linked above, I very much doubt that the article would meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk)

• Quite a few unreliable sources (close to blogs in fact) that have somewhat significant coverage, but that doesn't mean diddly. The coverage in reliable sources is standard passing mentions because they happened to be most downloaded one week, or day, or something else completely passing, without any significant coverage I've been able to find.

  To the IP, I'm sorry you are angered at the responses you've been getting from the two editors. One thing I must do is assume that they're doing what they do in good faith, to improve the encyclopedia, one of our standard principles. If you'd like more explanation on my view, feel free to reply here (start your line with ** to make it bulleted in), or come to #wikipedia-en-help ^connect, where I'm usually available by the nickname "charmlet". Charmlet (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the offer. I think it's wiser in terms of neutrality that I stay out of this discussion for the sake of everyone. Also, I regret how the previous exchanges between said mods turned out and if possible I'd like if there was a way to get rid of the ad-hominem exchanges and just clean up this talk page altogether to relevant stuff pertaining to its notability. We all lost our cool prior to this and I think it helps nobody to have the above stuff sticking out like a sore thumb like this. For what it's worth, I have offered an apology to KieferSkunk and hope he will accept. In the end, I'd like to state that neither me or anyone of our teammembers created this page - it was done by end-users. Therefore, the content on the page did not reflect what the project was really about - hence the 'it's an emulator' misunderstanding. If we had written it ourselves, it would not have turned out like this. To maintain neutrality I will not be involved in any edits anymore or be involved in any more talk.84.26.108.111 (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, we're all human (I hope, at least that's what this page says, but we all know Wikipedia is unreliable), so I'm sure everyone'll forgive (if it doesn't happen again). With regards to the edits, from the sources you've added, it looks to me like most sources are treating it as an emulator, at least parts of it/how it's practically used. Your statement about "neither...page" is honestly good, because what your project is about to you doesn't really hold any merit on Wikipedia as an argument. Wikipedia only reports what reliable, mostly third-party sources say about it, and the (unreliable) ones in the article now don't seem to say much other than "want to play old games? use this emulator like thing" (not exact quote). I personally feel it's not ready for an article yet, but that's just my opinion. Charmlet (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

off-topic accusations czar · · 20:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to point out that the guy who originally 'redirected' this page to a 'List of videogame emulators' is in an obvious 'COI'. http://forum.themaister.net/viewtopic.php?id=613. I have included all the links there to his Wikipedia edits on rival projects - the extent of his commits - and then his quick and abrupt 'deletion/redirection' of our own page (which is if not exactly in direct competition to them - at least remotely similar). This is in fact exactly what I told KieferSkunk at the very beginning but obviously he couldn't even be bothered to do a simple bsnes/higan 'wiki history' checkup to see what kind of 'contributions' this guy has been making to a rival project (whose main userbase has on more than one occasion instigated similar sabotaging efforts to try to derail our project. What you do with this is up to you - but I definitely know for certain that the same kind of standards with regards to notability are not applied equally and fairly if he hasn't so far cited 'notability concerns/issues' on the Higan/bsnes page. It is just outrageous that the only 'notable article' there comes from the main author/programmer (byuu) posting on Ars Technica writing about his own project. I hope I don't have to point out the obvious COI concerns there as well. Frankly, I feel that several Wikipedia editors here have treated me totally unfairly given that what I in fact told them from the beginning turned out to be exactly the issue and I hope that in the future they will do their homework better so that they don't get taken in by similar manipulations to 'destroy' pages of competing projects. If we are to relegate projects like these to a tiny list, then I only ask that the same kind of notability rules are applied to both sides of the pond and not selectively against just one. I just wanted to point this out and I will (as promised earlier) no longer get involved in anything relating to RetroArch on Wikipedia - but I do feel that it has to be very clear what this is all about and what 'triggered' this sudden 'notability dispute'.84.26.108.111 (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Aaaaand as I mentioned in my reply to Mr. 84.26, this has stepped genuinely into the realm of open harassment, which is not tolerated at all on Wikipedia. Referred back to WP:ANI. Wikipedia is not the place to fight over your rivalry, and such behavior will result in swift blocks to all parties involved as necessary to prevent further disruption. That said, you can get off your high horse about favoritism. I independently placed cleanup banners on the higan article pointing out that it also appears to fall short of WP's notability criteria. But again, that does not justify your harassment of established Wikipedia editors. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC) You failed to do your factchecking when said 'bsnes/higan' editor approached you (when I told you beforehand what it amounted to), and therefore your own standing is very much in doubt with regards to how 'seriously' you take exploring both sides of an issue. Sorry, but you are just trying to cover up for yourself at this point for failing to do what is needed (ie. gathering all the facts) before taking action - there is nothing even remotely bordering 'harassment' - you fail to take responsibility for your actions and fail to admit your own mistakes - hence you should leave it up to other admins to determine this article's worth rather than keeping yourself into the loop of this discussion.84.26.108.111 (talk) 01:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Glad to see that you're still "not caring" and "not having time for this" 24 hours later. Anyways, none of this changes hat the article pretty obviously doesn't meet the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 01:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC) You did not properly doublecheck the facts either, therefore you should be the last person to be involved in this debate at this point. Both you (Sergecross73) and KieferSkunk have evidently not assumed good faith, failed to check the facts, and hence it does not really matter what you think of the article and whether it meets GNG since you have already discredited yourself by your inability to check the facts. If I can do a simple 'wiki page history' check and establish what you cannot check, then that is a pretty poor reflection of your inability to form appropriate conclusions on 'conflict of interest'. I kindly request to other Wikipedians of good will that me, Sergecross73 and KieferSkunk from now on will no longer be involved on this page for the sake of neutrality. If anything, I should be the one issuing those 'harrassments' - this is also plain as day to see for anybody at this point.84.26.108.111 (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Sorry, you are pretty off-base in your interpretation of policy. "Checking for off-wiki rivalries before taking a stance" is not a responsibility of admin, and I haven't done anything to the article other than add some tags and discuss on the talk page. How are you crying foul over that? Sergecross73 msg me 02:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Because he's not getting his way, silly. :P — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support Merge. Given the difficulty in establishing notability, a merge seems the most reasonable course of action. For lack of a better article, list of emulators seems the most appropriate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

And now, back to your regularly scheduled program

Just as an FYI to anyone else who's still reading: 84.26 was blocked earlier today for disruptive editing. In the meantime, let's get back to the original discussion - if there are good sources to support this article, let's find them and add them so this article gets the attention it deserves. If there aren't, then I vote we do a proper merge, along with other similar project pages that have the same shortcomings. Either way, I would like to resolve this soon. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 08:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I sti support a merge. The significant coverage is limited to 1 or 2 sources, and it doesn't seem likely to expand upon its current "brief description and compatibility list" status it's currently in. Sergecross73 msg me 14:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Moved my !vote above. List of video game emulators seems to be the best place, as that's what the few sources seem to call it. Hell, if the sources called it a ham sandwich, I'd say we move it to List of ham sandwiches. Woodroar (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The IP editor's arguments basically revolved around assertions of WP:Inherent Notability and WP:Other Stuff Exists, but I think he might have had a point buried deep within those nasty, hostile rants. If you look at MAME, UAE (emulator), etc, you'll see that most of them don't even make a token effort to establish notability. I honestly don't care whether this page is merged, deleted, or maintained, but there does seem to be some precedent for low standards of notability with regards to free emulators (and, indeed, free games, such as Nethack and SuperTuxKart). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, but that doesn't make it right though, it just means it hasn't been noticed/addressed yet. We are starting to work on this over at Wikiproject Video Games though. A number of other ones are having deletion or merger discussions as well. Sergecross73 msg me 16:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)kn

True. Most of these articles probably belong on Wikia.com. I'd support a merge. I did a few searches, and I couldn't find any reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for hearing me out, and for looking into it. If you don't mind, can you mention your stance up at the merge discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RetroArch#Merge_Discussion:_List_of_video_game_emulators ? If not, that's fine, but it'd be nice to have the clear consensus represented all in a centralized place. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 19:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

off-topic czar · · 20:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Should we close up this RfC? I mean, its basically asking "Should we follow policy?", something that is a landslide "yes" except for the person who was blocked for not following policy. I think it may be confusing, having this run alongside the merge discussion. Just a thought, by all means, let this run its course if someone thinks that is better... Sergecross73 msg me 12:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC) You know Sergecross73, I wonder how 'notable' some of your game pages are and whether we should apply the same standards there - such as a 'cancelled' port of an Earthworm Jim game on PSP. Perhaps we should subject those to some 'notability' standards as well methinks - how many 'ports' and 'cancelled game' pages does a 'true encyclopedia' really need huh? Secondly, how notable can you really consider 'sources' such as IGN when it's well known their journalistic standards are about as low as your average UK tabloid paper? Since these are the 'notable sources' you seem to fall back on for 'questionable pages' such as (to reiterate) a 'cancelled' Earthworm Jim port for PSP. So every ínsignificant' little cancelled videogame of no significance is 'notable', but the same doesn't apply for homebrew and emulators? And who decides this exactly - you and your "VG WIki admin' circle? Sounds like a case of wikipolitics. Have fun defending their notability. I'm pretty sure a 'true encyclopedia' would only consider covering videogames of 'notable interest' to the mass market instead of every little insignificant 'cancelled' port/remake that 'random people think is cool'. Sorry, that is not how Wikipedia works :D. Considering you have pretty much zero understanding of Wikipedia's definition of Wikipedia, and every article I've ever created has at least 4 to 5 reliable sources, which is almost always enough to keep an article from merging/deletion, I imagine you'll get no where. (Especially since this is a pretty clear statement of bad-faith editing. I imagine you'll be blocked real soon if you keep it up.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Please see WP:VG/S for consensus on what is and is not a reliable source. You'll see IGN has consensus for being reliable. Sergecross73 msg me 14:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Reliable for what? Munching on Doritos and washing it down with Mountain Dew? Those are your 'standards' - 'videogame journos'? How laughable. Doesn't matter. There is consensus. Until its changed, its what we go by. Get to work on that if that's your thoughts. (and best of luck, you'll need it.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC) So let's get it straight - your 'niche stuff' is 'notable enough', but other communities' 'niche stuff' isn't? And somehow, you need a Wikipedia article/guideline to tell you how this reeks of double standards and just sheer delusion? Wikipedia sure doesn't promote common sense thinking going by you, now does it?77.166.85.169 (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC) How many times must this be said? My articles have many in-depth sources providing significant coverage on the content. RetroArch has a bunch of unreliable sources, and a few reliable ones that have little to no content to them. Its the opposite of "double standards". Its one single standard- WP:GNG. My articles meet it. This one doesn't. Sergecross73 msg me 14:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC) This guy has made it clear he's going to ignore everything we say in favor of whatever bee's in his bonnet at the moment. No matter about policies, or the fact that I've encouraged him to start discussions at the policy pages if he has a problem with them. Never mind that we've acknowledged that other pages have problems that need to be addressed. How dare we continue to talk about his precious project? Oh dear. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Yes, I think we can close up this RFC. We got a few outside opinions, enough to form at least a small consensus, and what research I've done makes it pretty clear we're not going to find new sources at this time to support this article further. If such sources become available in the future, we can always bring the article back once it does meet policy. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:29, 3 July 2013 (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.

Sources

This source has recently been published by the German version of zdnet.

http://www.zdnet.be/app/150796/retroarch-speel-duizenden-retrogames-op-je-android-toestel/

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to keep tabs on sources discussing RetroArch, and will open up notability discussions again if I see there's lots of new sources. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Sergecross73 msg me 23:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

http://www.knowyourmobile.com/games/nvidia-shield/21220/nvidia-shield-retroarch-ultimate-retro-gaming-combo

An interview with the lead dev. I'm not familiar with the site however. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Me neither. Feel free to post it and/or any others to here for feedback on the source, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 14:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Another site: http://www.technorms.com/37945/retroarch-combines-open-source-emulators-for-android --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't count that site as a RS. Some guy's blog czar ♔ 06:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I know this is a years-old discussion, but Eurogamer recently published a sprawling examination/interview regarding RetroArch and the Retron 5 debacle from several years ago. It might be useful for expanding this article. Link. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation unsourced

The English IPA for 'RetroArch' in this article corresponds to 'reh-trow-arch', as in China. Arch likely stands for architecture, but it turns out the pronunciation is a matter of contention with no official stance from the developers. I found a Reddit comment stating that the internally used pronunciation is the one the article gives, but either way it's a position taken on a matter of minor controversy with no appropriate citation.

The current article's IPA was first introduced in this edit. SeparateTitan92 (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not like the article benefits greatly from that information being included or not, so it seems rational to remove it for the time being. silviaASH (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 21:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4: "benefits greatly" is subjective, and knowing how to pronounce something of wide usage is relevant. It's been months. Do we know how to say the name yet?--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 18:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

ROM sources

I guess that the RetroArch just provides the common platform and the cores, and users have to source the ROMs, games or whatever they want to run on the cores from whatever people obtain their ROMs. However it is not explicit in the article. Can you make it explicit that RetroArch on itself is not much useful and how to make it useful? If I am wrong, can you explain it better in the article? -- Error (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)