Talk:List of vaporware
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Wardog - Worthy of Inclusion?
I couldn't help but notice that the game Wardog is not on the list. It was supposed to have been in development by Rebellion in 2002-2003 but nothing has been heard of it since. No mention of a name change, no mention of it being cancelled... Would this be a good candidate for a vaporware title?
Here is an additional link of screenshots from 2003... 3D Gamers.
Here is a link that even references the game as possibly being vaporware... 2000 AD Review -68.118.192.39 16:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)-
ATC v2.0 listing
I strongly disagree with the adding of ATCC V2.0... Although it's a software that everyone has been waiting for a long time, it is not cancelled, and contacts are not broken with editors.
So, putting it in this list is inaccurate.
217.19.202.32 11:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
From The Jargon File, the definition of vaporware includes: Products announced far in advance of any release (which may or may not actually take place).
I see this def. as compatible with the wikipedia vaporware def., as well as including ATC 2.0. When it is actually released, the listing should be removed, as it has been done for some other list entries as well. --OnixWP 21:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Simon 3D~
Should Simon 3D be on the list? It was for a long time vaporware, but eventually was released.
/Q
--I removed Prey from this list, since very recently new screenshots and a possible release date have been released. --130.94.160.74 01:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
should we add Windows Vista?
- No. bob rulz 06:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Perl 6
Why is perl 6 on the list? You've got interpreters prebuilt for most operating systems nowadays. While not in a final release, it's most certainly fully usable. I'm not talking about parrot, parrot can stay on the list. :) Debolaz 03:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the entry now. It was pointed out to me that I should probably be a bit more elaborate about the reasons for removing it. First of all, the entry in question claims that perl 6 has been in development for at least 10 years, which simply isn't true (Please do provide citations). So if anybody knows anything about this, please do speak up. Also, perl 6 isn't parrot. This is unfortunately a common misconception outside the perl community. While parrot still isn't production-ready, you have other perl 6 interpreters such as pugs that are actually used by people. If the entry is to be reinserted, please provide citations for the claim made and a good reason for why perl 6 should be on this list that applies to perl 6, just not parrot. Debolaz 16:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WP:NOR
I've removed all entries in this list that had neither a citation, nor any mention of "vaporware" in the associated article. Feel free to restore any item whose vaporware-ness you source. --TreyHarris 16:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- These are the one's I'd possibly dispute deleting:
- If we accept the Wikipedia definition for vaporware then I think some of these are worth adding back because they failed to appear as products, having been pre-announced with some hype ("unwarranted optimism"), even if some of them were/are being developed to some extent. If you're asking for an actual citation of vaporware then that is more difficult, but I'd argue that these are generally well-known. Richard W.M. Jones 17:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- If they're well-known, then you can find a source saying they're vaporware. It's original research to read the definition on the vaporware article and make an analysis as to whether a product fits the definition or not. It's not original research to find a citation saying "X is vaporware". --TreyHarris 22:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
