Talk:ApeXtreme

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ApeXtreme article.
Article policies
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.
VG To-do:

it was really hard to excute the table

damn1 but i did it:D

>x<ino 22:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Released?

Was the ApeXtreme really released? I haven't been able to find anything to indicate it was; from what I can tell, Apex cancelled it at the last minute.


Plus, it says it has a 2ghz Athlon and 1.4ghz?


Well, it may...or was released...Maybe they ran out of quantity

Plus, it says it has a 2ghz Athlon and 1.4ghz?

!?

>x<ino 01:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Cleanup

My first instinct was to AfD this, but I'll mark it for cleanup (again) instead.

This article is in pretty sorry shape. The specs in the two charts are completely different. Everything stating or implying it was ever released is wrong, as it was cancelled in late 2004[1]. Even the pronunciation is wrong (it is Apex Extreme, not Ape Extreme).

What is left when you strip out the inaccuracies is not much, but I'm hoping someone can make this article somewhat encyclopedic.

-Phorteetoo 21:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


Ok...first I have cleaned it up!


For your complaint over the Tec Specs. [2]
see for yourself...I an't cleaning that up again..after the trouble I have been


Yes...the system was released...I must have misread the articles...the articles were just saying it was first shown out to the public, like E3


And last...The prounciation is correct! it is Apex Extreme. Even the name, covers up the "Ex". ApeXtreme...the X at the middle covers up the Ape Extreme.



By the WAy...i swear I added some information about how to never mind!

>x<ino 09:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contractions, formatting

  • This page variously claims that the console was to be released in 2004, and was displayed at CES in January 2006. This needs some clarification, if not a fix - this is clearly contradictory and confusing.
  • The formatting on this page is terrible. I've tried to standardise the layout of the system's hardware specifications sections (which needs to be substantially expanded, in line with other consoles like the GameCube), removed the unnecessary and distracting colour in the tables (again, to standardise the layout), and generally tried to clean up the article as best I can.

I've also modified the article's organisation, so that information is presented where it is actually relevant. RandyWang 10:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


  • I though I have already sorted out the released date? "cancelled"
  • The colours and background are alreasy sorted out

Ok

>x<ino 14:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
If it was cancelled, why was it displayed at CES? Was it shown there, or is that a factual error? This needs some clarification.
As mentioned above, this article still contradicts itself in a big, big way. For instance, it provides two completely different specifications for its CPU type (is it an AthlonXP 2000+, or a V3?), and two different specifications for its GPU (GeForce MX4 and S3 Graphics DeltaChrome, respectively). The article states that, "as of 2005, the console was said to have supported over 2,700 games": wasn't it cancelled by then? When was this system's cancellation announced, exactly?
This is totally unacceptable: we need to provide one list of specifications, and preferably one that at least has some distant relationship with reality. RandyWang 21:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and removed the first set of specifications. They totally contracted the second source, and are unsourceable. RandyWang 21:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


Everytime you make a change to certain articles, it really gets on my nerve!
If it was cancelled, why was it displayed at CES? Was it shown there, or is that a factual error? This needs some clarification. Shown at CES? It was shown at CES, for people to look at the system. It was like showing it to E3. For example.

  • We all heard the rumour of Nintendo Revolution

We heard about ApeXtreme rumours that it plays pc games

  • More info about Revolution was shown at E3

More info about the ApeXtreme was shown at CES
As mentioned above, this article still contradicts itself in a big, big way. For instance, it provides two completely different specifications for its CPU type (is it an AthlonXP 2000+, or a V3?), and two different specifications for its GPU (GeForce MX4 and S3 Graphics DeltaChrome, respectively). I dunno who added a different Tech Spec, someone changed it when adding a table I think. Or I might have got it confused with Phantom:P Or maybe some fake news article was lying. Anyway, throughout the contruction of this syustem, different tech spec were changed and used. So it is either known that GeForce was the Updated version for S3 or S3 is the updated version.
as of 2005, the console was said to have supported over 2,700 games": wasn't it cancelled by then You need to start reading articles yourself. First of all...I dunno how you found out about this "article"..but I might be guessing you must have review it at my profile. Anyway, you didn't know what this article is truly about!

NOOOO..The system doesn't have its own game! It plays PC games! Which means the producers have decoded a script for each 2,700 games. All the user as to do is connect to the internet via the ApeXtreme and download an update or patch! Which means each updated scripted games that has been released can now be played on ApeXtreme. For an example, if this game isn't cancelled, you will need to download an update for the next game due to release Prey. So...2,700 games have already been scripted.
When was this system's cancellation announced, exactly First of all...did you ever heard about this system during the 6th gen console war? Not many people knew all about this system nor the Phantom. So if this system was noticed by many people and gamers, they would have made a big annoucment on it. By the way there is a link provided...scroll up I think, someone said it was cancelled. But anyway...I will do more research and look into it!.


How can you say the damn Tech Spec Comparison Chart needs a source!? Can't you go to the damn 3 articles your self and compare them if they were made up.


If you look at those 3 articles, do they have a damn source!? A source giving out the system spec? I THINK NOT! So..then why does this need a source?


You just seem to be barking at the wrong articles...trust me...you need to find a better article to bark at! Maybe Nintendo related articles kids games released on GameCube might be the right article for you, because kids vandal and do alot in those articles. You just seem to be getting on my way:/

You go to an article without knowing what the article is based on! You havn't really set yourself a basic task, what you are suppose to be doing in Wikipedia. Like I have!

>x<ino 22:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


Xino, this is laughable. Before I reply, I’d first like to point you to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia: Civility – you’ve attacked me unnecessarily multiple times on this talk page alone, and I’m not particularly interested in any more of it.

As for your responses here:

  1. Re: Cancellation. You misinterpreted my question: this article seems to imply that the system was shown off at CES after its cancellation, and I was asking for clarification.
  2. Re: Specifications.
    1. We need to make sure the specs we provide are at least consistent, then, using the most recent source we can – they’re reasonable now, but I’d still appreciate some fact checking given the various specs this page has cited over time.
    2. This article provides information for which it has no evidence at all: the different between those three articles and this one is that the GameCube, PS2 and Xbox all have their specifications available in the public domain. This system was never released, and so all we have to go in are the articles that were written about it – so if we can’t source our claims, we have no way of proving that the specs we provide weren’t as much of a fabrication as the claims that it was an AthlonXP based system. This is in accordance with Wikipedia:Verifiability.
  3. Re: 2’700 games.
    1. See Wikipedia: Civility. This outburst was totally unnecessary.
    2. I never said that the system had its own games library, nor intended to imply it – in my own edits, I left that information intact, because I knew it to be correct.
    3. The system would have had to boast over 2’700 of those scripts to support every recent game: it’s a lot of work to produce that kind of script, and developing a library of thousands is a logistical feat, especially since two games rarely demand to be run in the same way. That warrants some mention.
  4. Re: Cancellation. You don’t need to provide a specific date for the cancellation. Simply saying “the system was quietly cancelled after CES 2004”, or something to that effect, was all I was asking – as it is, the article never mentions the approximate time of the console’s cancellation, which makes it that much more confusing to read things like “it was displayed at CES 2006”.
  5. Re: Your final comment. User:Katefan0 has already had to step in once to point out that nobody owns the articles on Wikipedia. If you don’t want your changes to be edited significantly, don’t submit them: more importantly, when they are edited, take the changes graciously. If you think you’ve been treated unfairly, seek mediation, because I’m not interested being flamed as readily as this without reason.

RandyWang 09:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Owning :P

Xino, this is laughable. Before I reply, I’d first like to point you to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia: Civility – you’ve attacked me unnecessarily multiple times on this talk page alone, and I’m not particularly interested in any more of it. Yes...sometimes my owning, and attacking is sometimes funny. I didn't directly attack you, you keep on getting in my way, and it's annoyes me! >:@


  • OWNING 1: Re: Cancellation. You misinterpreted my question: this article seems to imply that the system was shown off at CES after its cancellation, and I was asking for clarification.

Noooooooooo....someone must have changed the date to 2006...it suppose to be 2004. It was shown at CES just like E3 before it's cancellation. DUH even I said so, I even explained it like E3. By the way, no one should get confused with it, how can you cancel something and then show it off:/

  • OWNING 2: We need to make sure the specs we provide are at least consistent, then, using the most recent source we can – they’re reasonable now, but I’d still appreciate some fact checking given the various specs this page has cited over time. The source I have given is enough!
  • OWNING 3: This article provides information for which it has no evidence at all: the different between those three articles and this one is that the GameCube, PS2 and Xbox all have their specifications available in the public domain. This system was never released, and so all we have to go in are the articles that were written about it – so if we can’t source our claims, we have no way of proving that the specs we provide weren’t as much of a fabrication as the claims that it was an AthlonXP based system. This is in accordance with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Have you checked Lindbergh!?
  • OWNING 4: See Wikipedia: Civility. This outburst was totally unnecessary.It's called owning:P
  • OWNING 5: I never said that the system had its own games library, nor intended to imply it – in my own edits, I left that information intact, because I knew it to be correct.SO....
  • OWNING 6: The system would have had to boast over 2’700 of those scripts to support every recent game: it’s a lot of work to produce that kind of script, and developing a library of thousands is a logistical feat, especially since two games rarely demand to be run in the same way. That warrants some mention.

2,700 games, they will obviously start with 1995 games released on PC and successful games released on pc. And I bet it isnt that hard to script a game:/

  • OWNING 7: Re: Cancellation. You don’t need to provide a specific date for the cancellation. Simply saying “the system was quietly cancelled after CES 2004”, or something to that effect, was all I was asking – as it is, the article never mentions the approximate time of the console’s cancellation, which makes it that much more confusing to read things like “it was displayed at CES 2006”. It is sorted out now! But any user should know there an't any CES held this year even if they research!
  • OWNING 8: Re: Your final comment. User:Katefan0 has already had to step in once to point out that nobody owns the articles on Wikipedia. If you don’t want your changes to be edited significantly, don’t submit them: more importantly, when they are edited, take the changes graciously. If you think you’ve been treated unfairly, seek mediation, because I’m not interested being flamed as readily as this without reason. Since when did I claim this article mine!?

Please list out the points you feel I was refering to owning an article...even the Unreal Championship 2 article:/

>x<ino 19:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


Xino, how can I possibly "get in your way" if you don't believe you own the article? By definition, to "get in your way" in need to compromise your agenda for it, which stands in pretty stark opposition to Wikipedia's policy of developing articles through consensus. Unless you'd like to clarify what you said, I'm not sure how your actions can be interpreted other than a claim of ownership. Keep in mind, I'm not the only user who's seen your actions this way.
If I'm annoying you, why don't you have a nice hot cup of tea? Please take edits made to your contributions gracefully, because they're rarely made out of spite. While we're at it, please cut the abrasive attitude: referring to your own arguments as "ownings" is nothing short of insulting.
  1. Re: Specs. The specifications I was referring to were totally contradictory, as noted by User:Phorteetoo. You didn't read the second part of that point: I did specifically say that they're in a reasonable condition as they stand.
    1. The GameCube article does cite its sources on several occasions. The first, the article notes that the video's output isn't technically "digital", citing its source as a page on Nintendo.com. Secondly, the page provides the full specifications as listed on the Nintendo website. This article, though, cites its only source as being WindowsForDevices.com - a closer source would be preferable, or at least a note that the link contains the system's specifications. This is a move toward improvement, not a claim that the article was bad before.
  2. Re: "It's called owning". See above - your attitude is turning abrasive, and I'd appreciate it if you stopped.
  3. Re: 2'700 games: Have you ever written a shell script for a Unix based system, or a Batch File for Windows? Apart from the sheer logistics of writing a unique script for every one of those games, and then maintaining the database over time, it would face the additional technical challenges of slow optical I/O and/or long installation times, games that use DRM protection schemes like StarForce, and other problems. Each script would have to overcome at least one of these challenges, and that type of limitation is worth mentioning, if only in passing.
  4. Re: CES. The fact that there's been no CES this year doesn't answer the question of when the console was cancelled, which is the information I wanted added to the article.
RandyWang 06:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


Re: "It's called owning". See above - your attitude is turning abrasive, and I'd appreciate it if you stopped. Don't blame me...all American sukers used it on me, so I use it. Once agian, Americans are the one that created that word

Re: 2'700 games: Have you ever written a shell script for a Unix based system, or a Batch File for Windows? Apart from the sheer logistics of writing a unique script for every one of those games, and then maintaining the database over time, it would face the additional technical challenges of slow optical I/O and/or long installation times, games that use DRM protection schemes like StarForce, and other problems. Each script would have to overcome at least one of these challenges, and that type of limitation is worth mentioning, if only in passing. You seem to be forgetting, they can get some help and files from the creator:/

The fact that there's been no CES this year doesn't answer the question of when the console was cancelled, which is the information I wanted added to the article.what!? Trust me, you are just getting this confuse...

Lets just drop this thing! The article is sorted. The system is cancelled! You can do the honors and find the day and source it was cancelled!

>x<ino 16:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third Opinion Requested

Requested [here] "ApeXtreme needs a third opinion regarding the two users' dispute over various cleanup-type edits to that page. 21:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)" (this request now removed from Third Opinion request page as per policy).

To my eye the collaborative efforts of the two editors has rendered the current (11.06.06) page format reasonably clear. Regarding purely the organisation and presentation of the information, I can't see any reason for further major edits.

  • Regarding the pronunciation of the console, the online online references to the pronunciation appear to be various reproductions of an Electronic Gaming Monthly article from June 2004 ([Download.net], [OCWizard Forums]), but this source runs the pronunciation as 'Apex Extreme'.
  • Regarding the specs table, I think it is clear enough. However I think there is a bigger issue: that table has been reproduced in exact detail from the very clearly copywritten [Windows for Devices] website. Unless someone can show some permission for use, that table should be removed entirely as a violation of copyright. I'll watch this page for a week, then, if there's no objections and no evidence that the table has been released for reproduction, I'll remove the table from this page and replace it with a less detailed summary of the basic ideas. I don't want to be arbitrary here, as "It is not the job of rank-and-file Wikipedians to police content for possible copyright infringement" [policy], so if anyone can explain how this content is allowable I will happily leave it in place.

I'll now remove the request for a third opinion from the request page. I hope this third opinion is enough to reach consensus; if not, other forms of mediation are available.

CastorQuinn 00:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Issue

As mentioned above, the entire table explaining system specs was lifted directly and without alteration from a very clearly copyrighted source (original table taken from [Windows for Devices]). As per policy this was notified on the talk page in June, and with no feedback I have now commented out the entire section detailing system specs until someone has time to recreate the information in a non-infringing format, or else can verify the copyright status of the table and the permission to use it here.

I've followed the policy page here; if someone with more experience can see that I've done something incorrectly, instruction would be well received. CastorQuinn 04:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed?

What if anything still disputed regarding this article's content or potential content? -user:rasd