User talk:Newspaper98

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Newspaper98, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  NickelShoe (Talk) 13:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] AfDs

Are you planning on contributing to Wikipedia, or are you only here to nominate artcles for deletion? PT (s-s-s-s) 22:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] High Schools

Please stop tagging high schools for speedy deletion. They almost always survive Afd, so you are just wasting everyone's time. --Usgnus 00:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletions

While you are making some good catches, I think you want to be a little more careful with the Speedy Delete tags. (I did the same thing when I was first starting on Wikipedia.) Look at the speedy criteria carefully. Nonnotability is not a speedy criterion -- it's failure to assert notability, and that only for people, groups of people, or musical groups. Thanks, NawlinWiki 00:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Prod

You may like to use {{prod}} tags instead of marking every article for speedy delete and then listing them on AFDs when the speedy tag is removed. It will be far more effective use of your and everybody else's time, as you will only have to list them if the prod is removed without a acceptable reason. Yomangani 00:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternatives to AFD

I don't want to discourage you from listing articles for deletion when necessary, but you might want to suggest merges to other appropriate articles with {{merge}},{{mergeto}}, and {{mergefrom}} or add {{cleanup}} tags and give the editors a chance to rectify the problem(s). Also, discussing what you see as problems on the talk page may help. I don't believe you are acting in bad faith in putting forward the deletion candidates (I've seen you've cleaned up at least one article and you aren't putting forward any obvious keeps), but it seems some people are resentful. Yomangani 00:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Somari

I noticed a few months ago you proposed to delete Somari with the rationale:

"Another Pirate/ROM hack with nothing but graphic changes. These kinds of games do not deserve their own article, because any one over the age of 4 could do this."

This is absolutely incorrect. It is not "nothing but graphics changes", because Somari is a Genesis game running on NES hardware. There's a lot more involved there than mere "graphics changes", especially because how the original game worked was not nearly as well-understood back then as it is now. It's not something "any one over the age of 4" could do, or anything close to it; it's one of the most impressive hacks ever done. Please be more careful when nominating things for deletion. I have put the article up for deletion review. - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I would like your comments on the deletion review page, whether or not I actually change your mind. - furrykef (Talk at me) 09:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The Somari article has been restored and is back on AfD. - furrykef (Talk at me) 07:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] zeal

new page patrolling is important and mostly thankless work. But your deletion requests seem to be misguided and over-zealous. I can only repeat the advice you received above: use {{prod}}, {{importance}} and {{merge}} more, and be aware of our actual deletion criteria. Creating lots of afds that result in keep anyway is simply a waste of everyone's time. dab (𒁳) 11:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] List of Japanese N64 games

I noticed your one of the people that wished there to be a list of Japanese games online for Wikipedia which I tried to make for the Nintendo 64 a few months ago, but just like when they where added to the orginal List of Nintendo 64 games they are trying to delete the new page List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games here's a link Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games to the discussion, how about giving your view. (Floppydog66 16:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Unofficial translations

I noticed you had been deleting a lot of info about unofficial fan translations for a lot of video game articles, and i appreciate the help (especially since some of these articles are horribly neglected). But i was wondering if there was a discussion somewhere or some guideline you were going by when you deleted all of this. I know that this info can be seen as advertising or whatnot, but shouldnt something be mentioned about how fan translations exist? Evaunit♥666♥ 02:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I second this. For many of these games, one of the most important things about the game (to our English-speaking target audience) is that it has been translated into English. An article would be incomplete without mentioning that. — PyTom (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
ONLY if the translation is official, if it's unofficial, it hasn't "really" been translated into English. For one thing, it's not notable, and anyone who wants to translate something can actually attempt to do it themselves, which doesn't warrant mention. I've also noticed "so and so is working on a fan translation right now", which also does not deserve mention at all. Another thing I noticed for some of the articles, the people translating these games are the ones putting this information in the article just because they want their projects to be downloaded. Newspaper98 (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
One more thing, if the unofficial translation had some effect on future sequels/etc. or on any other video games, then yes it is notable and deserves to be there, but needs to be highly sourced. Newspaper98 (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty clear that a game that has been unofficially translated into English has been really translated into English... If I can download it, it's real, or at least as real as any digital construct can be. When there are sources that have written about it, it's also verifiable, which is the threshold for inclusion of information in an encyclopedic article. It's probably not notable, but notability is only required for the topic of articles, whereas the lesser standard of verifiability is all that's required to include information in an article.

Please also see that we have an article on the Gray Album, and that the article on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows includes a fairly long section on online leaks. Rose (Doctor Who) discusses how the episode was leaked to the internet. And so on. — PyTom (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It may be translated to English, but it's unofficial, and not notable. And I said before, there are special exceptions like if the translation has an effect on future releases (such as using names from the unofficial translation), if the author of the translated work mentions it somewhere, if the company files a lawsuit etc., then it belongs. This is why I haven't removed mentions of other translated like material (like this little gem [1]) in that article. If ROM hack mentions in articles get deleted, if hacking tools mentions gets deleted in article, then so do fan translations (which is a form of hacking). Newspaper98 (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
One more thing, in unofficial translations, the authors can claim they're translating from Japanese to English exactly, yet they could be using wild guesses, or using an online translator (Which are rarely accurate) to translate the game. Thanks to online translators, ANYONE can attempt to translate a Japanese game to English. This is why they are not "real translations" - we don't know if they are exact, and obviously OFFICIAL translations released by the same company who made the original game are as accurate as possible to the original Japanese game. I could make a "translation" of an unreleased short 8-bit game Japanese Nintendo game in one day, does that mean I deserve to have my work mentioned in the article just because I "translated" it? And like I said, some of the mentions of translated work were put in the encyclopedia article by the person who made it just because he wants his/her work downloaded more. This is an encyclopedia, not an advertising site. Newspaper98 (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
May I ask what proof do you have that any info on fan translations was added by its corresponding translation group?AceWhatever (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Look at this: [2], I'll find some others later. Newspaper98 (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Your zeal is appreciated, and I encourage it, but you must either; cite the policy or guideline you are using to justify this, or start a discussion to establish a consensus for such a move. Please remember, several of the articles are FA that you removed this from, and you should check to make sure it was added after the successful nomination, because if it was there during nomination, no one objected, and its probably ok to have. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Again. The problem is not notability. I agree that most, but perhaps not all, fan translations are not notable. However, that doesn't matter in this case. Notability only mattered if we wanted to have a Final Fantasy V Fan Translation article, which we don't. For inclusion in the article, the relevant standard is that the information is verifiable. (When you reply, look below the edit box. It says "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.") And in all these cases, the information about the fan translation is easily verifiable, so it should be included as part of the coverage of a notable game or other works. — PyTom (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

S you're saying I could make a "translation" of an unreleased short 8-bit game Japanese Nintendo game in one day, does that mean I deserve to have my work mentioned in the article just because I "translated" it as long as I have a website about it? Newspaper98 (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Notability only affects if the article should exist or not, if the only English version available is the fan translation, it is a fact and should be mentioned in the English wiki since it is a part of the history of the game, and the history of the game is obviously notable if the game itself is notable. MythSearchertalk 03:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
So why are hacks and modificationsof those games, ROM Hacking Programs, as well as pirates BASED off the games warrant removal of mention (which I fully support), yet just because anybody can attempt to translate, their work is automatically entitled to add information providing the unofficial translation? The hacks are as much as "history" as translations. Mario Adventure is gone, Pokemon Quartz is gone, Lunar Magic is gone, Pokemon Brown is gone, the list goes on and on and on. Not only are the articles gone, but all mentions of most hacks (although some were probably not caught and still should be removed) are gone. Lunar Magic isn't even mentioned on the Super Mario World article.
Like I said, fan translations doesn't mean they are REALLY translated. First of all, it isn't made or supported by the original video game company, and anyone can use an online translator to translate games (which I've seen before.). These translators are rarely accurate (Try translating a sentence from English to Japanese, and translate it back and see what happens.), not only that, they could add any kind of crap they wanted and the majority would believe that the original Japanese version had that. Translations made and supported by the original company are usually as accurate as you can get (and yes I know there's a few exceptions.) So I still have no idea why these should be mentioned. Newspaper98 (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe it would be inline with wikipedia policy to mention hacks in the article about the game the hack is based off of. I don't know anything about lunar magic, but it may not be out of place to add it to the super mario world article.
It's insulting to imply that amateur game translators are all hacks. I've played several translations of Visual Novels, and I've met translators. These are dedicated people who spent several years learning Japanese to do this, The result of their translations is often well-written, well-edited text. They're not just throwing sentences into babelfish or whatever. Many of them have also done official translations of doujin games. Occasionally, a fan translation can be more faithful to the original than an official localization, which can change character names and so on. The later Phoenix Wright games come to mind. And it's not like the official translation of Zero Wing was that great.
I think you're editing Wikipedia without understanding the subject matter, and are removing encyclopedic information based on inaccurate preconceptions about fan translations. — PyTom (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The answer is yes. If the hypothetical famicom game merited an article, people could add verifiable information to the article, including information about the existence of fan translations.
Oh, and it's probably a bad idea to revert people's reverts of your changes. Wikipedia works on a bold-revert-discuss cycle. You boldly make a change, someone reverts it, and then it's best to discuss the change, rather than edit warring by re-making your change. — PyTom (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Pytom, that is true for SOME translations, but I've played translations where the sentences are very hard to read and I have no idea what's going on. Second of all, Also, I did two runs of removing mentions of fan translations, and I didn't really keep track of what articles I edited, so a few times I might of removed information from the same articles twice after someone reverted my changes. I didn't check the history of any of the articles i edited in those two runs, and I couldn't remember all the names of the articles I edited in my first run (I edited more than 100 of them so obviously not.) I knew people were going to revert some of my changes, which is what I was waiting for so I could discuss it with them.
Anyway back on topic. Whether it's more "true" to the original is based on opinion, not fact. If someone can prove these are true, clear and legible translations with a GOOD notable source explaining about it, then yes, it could be added. But no, just because someone makes a hack doesn't meant its going to be added, so if you got the sources proving they are indeed good hacks, go ahead and add them. Although, they should be from a second neutral party source, since the maker of such translation would be most likely to praise it to death because it's his/her work. Example "My fan translation is good because" should not work, but from a reviewer (NOT THE HACK AUTHOR) from the notable and good site should state "This fan translation is good because..." is acceptable. I hope this is a good compromise. Newspaper98 (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree that there should be a quality bar for mentioning translations. For one thing, in the visual novel community, high-quality translations are the norm, not the exception. So the reliable sources generally don't mention the translation quality... it would be like saying the sky is blue. Simply finding a reliable source giving the existence of the fan translation should be enough. I think we simply have to use our judgement and knowledge of the subject matter to decide which verifiable translations are worth including in articles. — PyTom (talk) 04:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Alright then, but the link can't simply be a link on where to download the hack on any geocities or digg site, or the hacks page on romhacking.net. Someone else has to acknowledge it's existence. Plus I think it would be a good idea if we played these hacks in order to tell if their any good or not. Newspaper98 (talk) 04:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(popping out) While I'm not sure policy makes it strictly necessary, it's always a good idea to source from a second party reliable source, rather than the primary source that released it. So, in practice, yeah, I support this. In general, I think it's fair to say that verifiable fan translations should be judged by people who've played them. If the translation is a reasonable one, it should be included. (Non-verifiable translations should, of course, be removed.) — PyTom (talk) 05:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record--when a game is notable enough to warrant its own article, and the game has not been (and often will not be) made available in English--which is the generally accepted target audience for the English Wikipedia, or whatever--then a fan translation is important to people that want to play the game. Translations can be screwed up, but in all honesty, it's commonly accepted that a translation is going to be of a stronger quality. Fans are interested in these things, and shouldn't an encyclopedic source include relevant information that would be of interest to the people who search for the specific articles in the first place? And it's being argued that translations can be of a horrible quality due to lackluster translation--but in all honesty, even if a lackluster translation is not preferred, isn't it still easier for an English-only reader to play than a Japanese version would be? As such, then yes, it would be useful to note. If a far more comprehensive translation becomes available, then yes, by all means remove the less useful translation (unless its existence had continued relevance), but as mentioned before, fans that want to play the games in English will want to know if that's possible. It's not as if people who aren't interested in the games will be actively searching the Wikipedia articles for said games, so wouldn't the translations therefore be relevant? —shanealt 05:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No, just because a game isn't officially translated in English doesn't mean if theres a fan translation it has to be featured. Encyclopedia articles are NOT about getting people to play the game and advertising projects, or simply being "English Friendly". And yes Pytom, I believe this discussion is over, disregarding the previous comment. Although one more thing: comments such as "The fan translation is not done"/"Fan translation will be done on a certain date"/"This translation seems to be canceled" should NOT be put there, only FINISHED translations should be considered for being put there. I'll begin rooting around pages again to see if fan hacks able to be mentioned in encyclopedia article. Newspaper98 (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Hm... well, let's not end the discussion prematurely. Even though we're basically in agreement, others may have their own point of view. I agree that generally, information about incomplete translations shouldn't be included. But that depends a lot on circumstances... if Square were to sue somebody over an incomplete translation of a game, that would be verifiable, and interesting, and worthy of inclusion. If someone announces a translation, doesn't release anything, and then drops it... probably not. Editor discretion is key, keeping in mind WP:V.
At this point, we should probably take a couple of days, and see if other editors show up with differing opinions. Newspaper, what should we do about your hundred or so edits removing translation info? At some point, we should put back the verifiable information, only. — PyTom (talk) 06:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Well I'll go through them and see if they meet this. If so, I'll revert, and if not, I'll leave them as they are. And yes you are right. This is what I like the what I like to call "The Ernie and the Muppets Take it all Off Case" [3]. If a company gets involved with incomplete translations or translations being worked on, then yes the deserve mention. If a hack with it's only edits is making the Muppets naked and drawing penises on them gets mentioned because of company involvement, then so should unfinished translations. Newspaper98 (talk) 07:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
One more thing, I just noticed several of the translations I removed are unsourced, and COULD be readded if one were to add the PROPER sources. Newspaper98 (talk) 07:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you make a list? Generally, sourcing articles is better than deleting them. — PyTom (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
That would take a while, I guess the best would be to check my edit history if you want to contribute. Actually, let me look through all of these and then yeah I'll make a list. Newspaper98 (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Newspaper98 wrote: "No, just because a game isn't officially translated in English doesn't mean if theres a fan translation it has to be featured. Encyclopedia articles are NOT about getting people to play the game and advertising projects, or simply being "English Friendly"."

With all due respect, you missed my point. I'm not saying it should be to advertise something, or that it should go out of its way to get people to play the game. But logically, if someone was going to look up a game, they more likely than not have some sort of interest in it.
Assuming the above point is valid, then consider who they themselves are. As this is the English mirror of Wikipedia, one can assume that their primary language is English.
While you dubbed it as being needlessly "English Friendly", I contest that listing information about a viable English translation--one that is completed or is significantly near completion (presumably with the translation finished and insertion in progress)--would be important for someone already interested in playing the game. From my understanding, Wikipedia serves to be a resource collecting valuable, noteworthy information about various content, which would then be made available to any interested parties. It is my strong opinion as one of these interested parties that a significant and/or completed fan translation would be valuable and noteworthy, should an official translation not already exist.
People are not always aware of the fan translation sites and whatnot. Many consider Wikipedia a source that would include all relevant information on a game, and the notion that a game would be newly opened up to a significant reading populace certainly seems relevant to me.
Yes, it's not official, but you cannot deny the impact fan translations have had on the gaming community. Such translations have made games widely available, whereas before they were ignored, which in turn fueled demand for official releases.-shanealt
I already said anyway, if a hack has the proper sources, and completed, it should be fine. Newspaper98 (talk) 07:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that sources should be required for mentioning of fan translations, but I disagree that the fan translation has to be completed. Dragon Quest VI has a highly notable fan translation that was not fully completed, yet that translation is how the majority of English speaking Dragon Warrior/Quest fans were able to play the game. EisenKnoechel (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
If you have a source stating that the translation was indeed notable then put that in the article. Newspaper98 (talk) 08:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to create a list of pages that were edited for containing information about fan translation here: User:EisenKnoechel/fan translation edits. Feel free to update it if I have missed anything. EisenKnoechel (talk) 08:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, check the similar list at the bottom of the page for articles that say (or said) that theres a fan translation, but no source is present. Newspaper98 (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment - You've reached a consensus among yourselves? Good, your half way there. Now you need to go to the talk page of, say, WP:RS, and discuss it there as you now probably have a proposal, so it can get officially hashed out, which will give you a consensus and then you can prune away. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
One more thing, character name lists that state "Akira (John in in the unofficial fan translation)" are a no go. We don't need the unofficial names by (and no it doesn't matter if it's easier for the person playing the fan translation to compare the names of the characters on the game and from the encyclopedia article. All the ones I removed anyway were unsourced. Newspaper98 (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The fan names aren't official, but you can't deny that they have become prominently known in the gaming community as being associated with the game (in some cases at least--Seiken Densetsu for one). They're what people recognize, and are prominent enough to be worthy of at least some mention for people that are searching the game, at least until an official translation has been released. I understand your perspective here, but you aren't taking into account what information would be considered relevant to the people who would actually view these pages in the first place.Shanealt (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
If you can provide a source backing up your claim then they can stay. Newspaper98 (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
...what exactly are you expecting me to need to find a source for? That these names are how the English-speaking gamers have come to know the characters? Given that the fan translation is the only way to play the game in English, that's sort of common sense. Or do you want people to provide a source to prove that the names are what they are in the translation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanealt (talk • contribs) 03:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
No. I need a source backing up your claim "They're what people recognize, and are prominent enough to be worthy of at least some mention for people that are searching the game, at least until an official translation has been released." Even with fan translations, the official Japanese names are the most notable from what I've seen. Why? Because they're official names, English or not. Newspaper98 (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, almost all of the guides for Seiken Densetsu 3 on GameFAQs are based on Neill Corlett's patch. The RPG Classics shrines for Final Fantasy V, Dragon Quest V, Dragon Quest VI, Tales of Phantasia, Live a Live, and Earthbound Zero are all based on unofficial translations. Is that enough for His Majesty Newspaper XCVIII? --Kahran042 (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Somari again

I already explained to you why you should not have listed Somari for deletion. We went through deletion review, it was determined that the initial deletion was not fair, it got placed back on AfD, and it was kept. Now I see you put it on AfD again for the same spurious reason you did before without any further explanation. Please do not do this. - furrykef (Talk at me) 20:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because a hack is "impressive" does not make it notable and does not warrant an article. I've gotten several more impressive hacks and pirates deleted using AFD in the past, and just because a hack or pirate is "good" does not bear any meaning on if it deserves an article or not. I don't care how many years of work went through to make it, I don't care what kind of special software was used to put it all together, all I care about if it is notable or not and fits into Wikipedia guidelines. So please come up with a better reason than that. Newspaper98 (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
You could have explained that instead of calling it a "hack with nothing but graphics changes" again, which is very far from what it is. As I said before, if we're going to vote on whether or not we should delete an article on Somari, we should first understand what Somari is. Grossly mischaracterizing it to ensure the article's deletion is not the way to go. - furrykef (Talk at me) 20:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I fully understand now what Somari is (unlike a year ago). I played the game, and I still believe it should be deleted like all the other pirated games articles. Newspaper98 (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Then why did you call it a "graphics hack with no changes" in your nomination? - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I called it a "Another Pirate/ROM hack with nothing but graphic changes." because that's what it is. You told me that it's a Genesis game working on Nintendo, so it's basically the original Sonic the Hedgehog on NES, but the hacker replaced Sonic with Mario. Perhaps I should of been more specific. Lets say I wanted to transfer a Genesis game to NES the same way Somari did, and I changed the characters to whatever I wanted and retitled the game and gave it to the video game pirating people, would that mean that my game deserves an article? Newspaper98 (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
But the way you phrased it makes it sound like something trivial, as if indeed somebody just fired up a graphics editor and a few minutes later ended up with Somari. Part of what makes the hack notable, in my opinion, is the whole non-triviality of it. Yes, I know you said "I don't care how impressive it is" and all that, but the way you phrase it is still a gross mischaracterization. Much more fair would be to call it an unlicensed port or conversion of the game with a small graphics change, because the fact it is a conversion is important here, because that is what fascinates people about the game. The Sonic/Mario replacement is just icing on the cake. As for your example, no, it wouldn't mean the game deserves an article. The difference is that Somari caused something of an internet buzz, if on a small scale, and is extremely well-known as far as ROM hacks/pirate carts go. - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for FINALLY telling me the main reason you think this article should exist. Do you have a notable source of this "buzz"? Newspaper98 (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Fan Translation mentions that need proper sources

Notice: If the fan translation information is not there, please check the article's history and try to cite a proper source by reading the for-now conclusions on how to handle this. Translations that have the statement of incompletion, ones already with sources, or others that cannot fit the for-now conclusions are not listed. If you get a source and it warrants mention, keep the information short, we don't need to know everything about the translation or how it was made. A simple "This game was fan translated (source)" will do.

Newspaper98 (talk) 08:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:FFV fan trans

I honestly don't care that much. Looking at the references, they don't look too reliable. At any rate, the only reason I reverted was because you asserted it wasn't notable in the face of "one of the first blah blah". I would, however, ask that you not remove the screenshots from the fan translated version until suitable replacements can be found. Thanks. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright that sounds fair. Newspaper98 (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Plus just to comment on, I've ran into about 6 fan translations the last few days that had the same exact claim, but were years apart from release. Newspaper98 (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Adventure Island Translation

15 years ago, I played it in the console in Japanese. Last year, I only found its English fan translation somewhere, It was OK. I don't think these sort of things needs any references at all. Please leave it as it is. With the citation tag, so if some one reads it, he will know that: "IF he searches for it, he will find the fan translation" , cheers,--Pejman47 (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

These need sources, PERIOD. Verifiability is one of the base principles of wikipedia. For something to be included in the encyclopedia it MUST be verifiable. I don't care if you claim someone can find it in 2 minutes using Google, it still needs a source. Newspaper98 (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policenauts

The Policenauts fan-translation got a mention in 1UP.com, which last time I checked, was a major news site. Jonny2x4 (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Then source it and the mention can stay. Newspaper98 (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)