Jump to content

Talk:Nintendo Switch emulation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sourcing issues

[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Title change

[edit]
Moved per consensus

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)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: I agree. Current title is very clunky and I don't think it's even proper English. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 21:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thirded. Woodroar (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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

[edit]
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)[reply]

(
)

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

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and 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. SpodleTalk 03:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

State of this article, Yuzu and Ryujinx

[edit]

I think Ryujinx should have its own article, especially since Yuzu is gone now, leaving us with no maintained Switch emulator article. I can look for some more sources to expand it first, although I'd like to get some feedback. ja:GIGAZINE has a good article about ryujinx. There is also some coverage from theverge on Ryujinx re: the Yuzu lawsuit here, and some makeuseof articles about ryjinx, for example this one. I just skimmed google briefly so there should be more sources If we need them.

This page itself also appears strange to me in many ways. It seems like a lot of the information here could be put in just the Yuzu article. So my second proposal would be to delete this article after making a separate Ryujinx article and copying all the relevant points from this article into Yuzu/Ryujinx as appropriate. It seems like this was already discussed at some point based on the "Copied" templates above, but I haven't found those discussions, and looking at the state of the article now, it seems like it could be improved. Willing to discuss this and change my mind if there is a good argument not to make these changes. (Ping @SilviaASH @Zxcvbnm @Woodroar @Fujimotofan235 - the main contributors to this article.) J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is Draft:Ryujinx but it was declined as not meeting WP:N, our notability requirements—and I have to agree with that assessment. I don't think anyone disputes that Ryujinx exists, but there's a lack of significant coverage of the emulator in reliable sources. Now don't get me wrong, there are a lot of sources out there, but to be frank, they're not very good. Or at least they're not useful to us: roundups of several emulators with trivial mentions of Ryujinx, or mentions of Ryujinx in passing while talking about Yuzu, or content based on press releases or interviews. Ultimately, if reputable sources don't cover Ryujinx in significant detail, that's the best indication that we shouldn't either. Woodroar (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Woodroar There is fairly significant coverage from Wccftech: [1] [2] [3]. However, while looking at the RSN discussion for whether Wccftech can be used, I see you commented there that it is not reliable for notability. That said, I wonder if combined with the other articles is it enough? In my opinion, the theverge [4] and the PC Gamer articles [5] [6] could be enough to establish notability. Re the point about "roundups of several emulators," I think this is due simply to the format of news articles as a medium vs encyclopedias rather than necessarily a reflection of notability. News sources are generally going to discuss a topic more broadly, especially one not focused on emulation (which, there is no WP reliable emulation news source, which is lamentable). That means that they will tend to discuss "Nintendo Switch emulation" rather than a specific emulator. But I don't think that is necessarily a comment on individual notability. Note from WP:N: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" (emphasis added). I agree that the theverge article does not discuss Ryujinx in depth, although I'm not sure it should be considered a trivial mention. This sentence especially:

Another second-order effect: without Yuzu and Citra, all-in-one emulation providers like the popular EmuDeck have to look elsewhere for the underlying emulators. EmuDeck is falling back to Ryujinx for Nintendo Switch emulation and is testing Panda3DS instead of Citra

The mention may be brief, but I don't think it is trivial. The source is saying that Ryujinx's usage has increased due to Yuzu shutting down, essentially saying that it is now more important.
Lastly, all of the 3 Wccftech authors have been there for 9 years, so I think they could be considered more reliable. One of them [7] used to write for GameStar (albeit as a teenager) which is a reliable source. This relates to the point you made in the RSN post about some writers there being more experienced than others.
ps. I'm not trying to WP:WIN this argument, although it may seem that way. I am genuinely interested in what you have to say as an experienced editor. If you still disagree after this reply I don't intend to argue it further (although I still may seek more opinions to get a clearer consensus) - at worst I can just expand the Ryujinx section in this article itself, which is already proven notable, and there are redirect links to Ryujinx already anyway, so there is not such a great difference, although it also means that the coverage of it will probably have to be more basic (eg. no history section). J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From my experience in WPVG, "significant coverage" amounts to at least two or three sources from at least two publications, and each source must be at least a dozen paragraphs of at least three-four sentences each about the subject. The whole article or book doesn't have to be about the subject, but it needs to devote at least that much attention to it. The Verge article is simply too short. Primary content like interviews or press releases, even when rewritten—like those PC Gamer sources—don't count, as we're interested in what the journalist has to say. As far as Wccftech goes, it's really just a bad source. The authors here don't appear to be journalists, the articles are too short, and they're clearly based on primary video or blog posts. Which really just goes to show that Wccftech is a content farm run by mostly non-journalists. Actual games journalists would download the emulator and write something completely original based on their own experiences. Woodroar (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RyujinX is just not notable, there is not much more to say. No amount of squeezing blood from a stone is going to actually make it notable, which is why this page exists to summarize the overall situation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nintendo_Switch_emulation&oldid=1243743393"