This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The term "server emulator" is not consistent with the established definition of the word emulator. At best, its introduction into various articles on Wikipedia is a breach of Wikipedia:No original research. At worst it is vandalism.

A heated debate over the topic occured here: http://www.runuo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70528#10 - however, the author of a popular "server emulator" in fact confirmed the use of the term as not accurate. This article should be deleted. Kethinov 21:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: Please sign all your posts on talk pages with ~~~~ - Jestix 20:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: Please do not delete my posts on talk pages! :-) Its somehow rude... Jestix 21:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: This article is extremely poorly written and inaccurate. I have to agree with the assertation that it lacks original research and needs a complete rewrite. dts 2:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I plan to add a section to discuss general issues about what can be considered as legal and what ca be considered illegal. But I wont as long there is a deletion request hanging from above. (In short summary: recreation is not illegal, since a painter repainting the mona lisa creating HIS mona lisa for example does violate a copyright... there were several court decission on this already. However on most MMORPG games the companies nowadays have some form of EULA, where you agree not to do so. This EULA clause has to my knowledge never been before any court yet. Jestix 21:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like wikipedians think this article shouldn't be deleted.

However, if it is to stay, it needs to do better than this. It has extensive spelling, grammar, punctuation, brevity, relevance, and scope issues and needs a near-total rewrite.

In addition, in order to comply with factual accuracy and NPOV, the opening statements of the article should make clear the fact that the term is wholly innaccurate, however widely colloquially accepted among the gaming community--not computer science at large.

I'm willing to set aside my distaste for this article and make it presentable, assuming these terms are agreed to. Kethinov 00:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to note that no one "sets terms" on Wikipedia. Articles are edited through consensus and discussion, not ultimatums. — Mi ra 03:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm just trying to be nice here. If I start making tweaking this article without discussing it with Jestix first, he might get a little miffed. Kethinov 05:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

When I invited you to make a "critism" section about the usage of term, I didnt mean go make a near-total rewrite. Yes please improve grammar, punctuation. But not make it in total a POV of your site of views only. Jestix 05:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem, Jestix. You can't write a Wikipedia article from a one sided perspective, then shove everything that disagrees in a criticism section. See NPOV

What's worse is that this isn't a matter of opinion. The term is wrong. Just because a lot of people have started using it in the last 5 years doesn't make it correct. As the author of RunUO himself has told you, the term is wrong. You have demonstrated that the term is widely accepted enough to the point that it is worthy of a Wikipedia article, but let's not distort the truth of the matter. Technically inaccurate terms that are colloquially accepted are still inaccurate. The opening statements of the article should declare the term's lack of accuracy, then it can go ahead and talk about its history and common usage as it does now.

Also, I'm not sure you understood my comment about a rewrite. I don't intend to change the message of the article or lace it heavily with references to the term's lack of accuracy. Like I said, a few brief sentences in the opening paragraph are enough to satisfy that requirement. I just think the article should be presentable, as right now it's filled with English errors and other problems. I can help with that, and I do so in good faith. You have your article now. I'm not here to sabotage it. Only improve it's accuracy and quality. Kethinov 17:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Look its not MY article. Articles in wikiepdia don't belong to anyone. Please improve the article in a way that you think is approperiate, but please do it in a way that shows some respect to other opinions. With the critism section I really tried to show respect to your opinion. Ah, and you should at least force equivalent energy to the Terminal emulator page, and there is even a whole category of terminal emulators, as they are pretty equivalently right or wrong about the use of the term emulator. I looked at the Wine FAQ. First you don't have to take the name soo litereally. LAME Is also an mp3 encoder altough its name is "L"ame "A"in't a "M"p3 "E"conder. GNU also has a quite showable unix implemention alough the name. If you look at wine FAQ they will tell you: "Wine is not a (cpu) emulator"! (literally) And right they are. However you only think of emulators to be cpu emulators, and no the technical understanding of an emulator is proofable not that narrow. even in the scientifi field! take a look at scholar.google [1] it is even used there. (Since i'm studying at a university of economics and social sciences I currently don't have access to any real scientific article-databases from a technical field, only economics, so scholar.google is the best i have now). As I see now the term is used even wider than only MMORPG, and used before MMORPG so this way the article should be improved, as it is way too much MMORPG centric. Oh, and If you insist I can bring up surely more authors of other emus that will ensure you that their product is to be considered as an emulator :) but please lets discuss with reasons, arguments of people that just repeat "this is so because I say it" What do you make of it? Jestix 17:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll start small to avoid edit wars. Kethinov 17:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I will not edit war. ;) If I object to something I will write it here. okay? Jestix 18:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion is a very good thing, and it's good that you are trying to conduct one. However, laying down terms doesn't seem like the best way to go about it. (edit conflict: That goes for all users participating in this discussion.) — Mi ra 05:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There I just added a "Critism of the term" section - I hope you like it! Jestix 06:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a question, why is UOX and RunUO in italics, L2J and EQEmu not? Jestix 07:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I went through and italicized things as their articles had them. Computer programs generally are italicized, but I wasn't sure if I should or not without confirmation from the articles. — Mi ra 22:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed references to VMWare server because virtualization is not emulation. Not that server emulators are actually emulation either, but they're not virtualization either. The reference was not valid. Kethinov 17:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The reference to VMWare said that the name "server emulator" is sometimes WRONGLY used for the VMware server edition. You do agree with this, don't you? Jestix 18:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that VMWare is not a "server emulator" but I don't agree that it is at relevant in this article. Kethinov 18:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It is as disambegation. when i googled at "server emulator" there were some hits to vmwares server software. So I wanted to make it clear the article does NOT cover that, and i think that wasn't a bad idea. Jestix 18:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Then make a section defining in what circles the term "server emulator" is not considered acceptable. I know of several. The point is, it doesn't belog in "see also." Kethinov 18:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Kethinov the EULA's do say EMULATORS literally! Just take a look at them. The Ultima ONline does name emulators just this way in their EULA! Jestix 18:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

They use the term incorrectly too. This reference does not validate the term. It is colloquially accepted. Not technically accurate. Stop arguing with fact. Kethinov 18:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but when I say EULA usually forbid you to use server emulators, it just that. they write "dont use server emulators". at least the ultima online does. you cant argue this away. and now you really calling the whole world to be false. Wikipedia is not a place to offend the correctness of word use in OSI/EA's EULA! Jestix 18:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I just wonder, what does "stop arguing with fact" mean??? Jestix 18:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The changes I made to the opening paragaph do the following necessary things. 1. define the term, 2. declare that it is not accurate but colloquially accepted.

No further criticism of the term needs to follow. The criticism section can be removed. Kethinov 18:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

As I stated in this link [2] it is even used in scientific community to mimic another servers behaviour! (like the article that descripes a google emulator, as server emulator for example).

I think as there is Defenitly NOT a consensus about its technical correctness or incorrectnes the critism section should stay as it expresses both views. Maybe give it a better term. "arguments about technical accuracy of the term", or something like that. Jestix 18:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Jestix, the term is wrong. That is a fact. That doesn't mean the article has to constantly belittle the term. It doesn't even need a critical section. The new opening paragraph declares that it is inaccurate in one, nice, clean sentence. That's all we need. The rest of the article can be all about where it's used and why. Kethinov 18:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Kethinov the term in NOT wrong. That is a fact. As I said emulators are not just cpu emulators. You just say, cpu emulators are the only thing that may be refered as emulator. this is wrong. I disagree with the opening sentence. And as I said since there is no consensus and not likely to become one, please leave to critical section in, for a place to express both views! Jestix 18:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please Reread! I looked at the Wine FAQ. First you don't have to take the name soo litereally. LAME Is also an mp3 encoder altough its name is "L"ame "A"in't a "M"p3 "E"conder. GNU also has a quite showable unix implemention alough the name. If you look at wine FAQ they will tell you: "Wine is not a (cpu) emulator"! (literally) And right they are. However you only think of emulators to be cpu emulators, and no the technical understanding of an emulator is proofable not that narrow. even in the scientifi field! take a look at scholar.google [1] it is even used there. (Since i'm studying at a university of economics and social sciences I currently don't have access to any real scientific article-databases from a technical field, only economics, so scholar.google is the best i have now). As I see now the term is used even wider than only MMORPG, and used before MMORPG so this way the article should be improved, as it is way too much MMORPG centric. Jestix 18:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Jestix, the author of RunUO, a clear expert on the topic, sides with me. Nobody sides with you. Is that not clear enough evidence that RunUO is not an emulator? An article about "server emulator" and what the term is commonly used to describe is perfectly acceptable. You've demonstrated that clearly. But that doesn't make the term correct. All we need is a single sentence in the opening paragraph making clear that the term is not technically accurate, but commonly accepted by gamers and we can move on with life. Kethinov 18:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Kethinov, Look I dont want to discuss Ryan here. Thats definitly not the place nor do I want to at all. Some time in the past I contributed myself a long time to some other server emulator and guess I did accumulate quite some knowledge that years. But any "testimonial" of anything will not make a fact, especially if he does not argue but just repeat his "fact". sorry about that. Look, I tried to bring up so many reasons that the term IS technically correct, or at least definitly no incorrect, but you are not responsive to them.. If you can convince me that every of my argument is wrong, then i will also be the one that will go zealot its not technically corerct, but until now I brought up a dozend of arguments that it is NOT incorrect. Jestix 18:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If the author of RunUO telling you RunUO is not an emulator is insufficient evidence to convince you of this fact, then this is unresolvable.

Jestix, I want a quick end to this dispute as much as you do. I invite you to speak to me on instant messaging. I am on most popular services with the same username that I use on Wikipedia. Kethinov 18:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think making threats is a useful pursuit of time on this article. Besides, if the author of the program makes is abundantly clear that his program that he wrote is not a server emulator, then I think that pretty much closes the book as he wouldn't need to argue the fact, he knows for a fact what the program is and is not.

And Jestix, what you wrote is extremely hard to follow. Can you please take the few extra seconds to proofread your comments before posting so it's legible to the rest of us. dts 2:48, 10 July 2006 (EST)

RunUO is with great distance not the only Server Emulator out there. Look [3] Jestix 19:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I asked you to show respect to other opinions when editing the page... when I look at it now, they are all wiped away. Jestix 19:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I created now a more neutral opening sentence (I think more neutral than mine original and more neutral than the reedited. Jestix 20:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)