Talk:PlaneShift (video game)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the PlaneShift (video game) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "PlaneShift" video game – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 19 October 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 31 March 2010. The result of the discussion was delete. |
This article has graduated from the Article Incubator. |
Wikipedia is not a strategy guide or instruction manual. Wikipedia articles should focus on the games themselves, not on how to play them; they should not contain tips, tricks, or cheat codes. That information is available elsewhere (such as on our sister project, Wikibooks), in printed guides and online, and does not belong in an encyclopedia entry. Please do not add your own hints or opinions of the game. Verifiable content about the history, design, and overall description of the game is welcome. If you have questions about whether specific information should be added, ask here first. |
Notability of founder
editExtended content
|
---|
Question: Why does Luca Pancallo even need to be mentioned in the first place? Tuxide (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The founder of the game, being unnotable, is of no real significance to the article. The point is not to verify that he exists, but that he is significant enough to warrant addition. SpigotMap 12:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand how this has generated so much discussion. Questioning the notability of a person can't possibly be construed as a personal attack or any insult unless that same person is the one perceiving the question. Either this guy is written about or he isn't. Spacexplosion[talk] 07:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Notability is not used to judge article content Given the length and digression of the discussion, I've bolded the beginning to denote a shift in discussion. Having had a look at the threads here and some in the archive I see much of the discussion here has been contentious, and strangely so to me. And while I can understand the desire to curtail pure enthusiasm for the sake of the article, the application of notability on this issue is patently misapplied. Quoting from [WP:NNC], the directly pertinent portion of the notability policy:
All the notability policies, including those regarding biographies of people who are not well known do not apply. With regard to content, see [WP:VG/GL]. Content on development and history is deemed essential. If there is a creator or founder or whatever, I for one consider that relevant. Though we don't want trivia or just random facts, that doesn't mean every fact has to be of particular interest to any potential reader. If I look up Toledo Mudhens to see if they had any other popular culture references outside of M*A*S*H, I don't care who founded this minor league team, but I'd expect it to be in a serious encyclopedic article. Same for video games. With regard to due weight, simply naming the creator, or even current project lead on an alpha/beta level project does not overly focus on that person. As to the call for reliable sources, I'm wondering if there is any doubt out all, let alone significant regarding this fact. This is a start class article, and I'm not even asking if there is a basis for the doubt, but if there is no real doubt about it, this seems a minor aspect of the article. That said, I'll note that, in this case, even a primary source should be acceptable. Though secondary sources are the preferred sources, where there is no issue of interpretation and no question of reliability of the information inherent in a primary source, it will be enough, and even more appropriate. For example, a book itself should be citable for the author, we don't need a review to confirm that. At this point, I've only seen Pancallo listed on the site documentation as project director/leader. For now, is there any challenge to that fact? IMHO (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
|
Verifiabilty of Atomic Blue
editExtended content
|
---|
Just amazing. Trying to rewrite history, eh? Now you are questioning that Atomic Blue exists, and even that Luca founded the project... Pretty hilarious. There have been few notable people in the past who tried to rewrite history, hiding the truth, not people I like really. I suggest you to inform yourself better and read all the sources provided, and maybe you will understand who runs the project and what is the team. Or is that the next bit of information you are planning to remove from the page? Maybe having a "developer: Unknown" will suit your needs. Xyz231 (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Since the only mention of Atomic Blue is from a third party download website, which is not a reliable source, I'd suggest we remove Atomic Blue as publisher until we can confirm they are an actual publishing company that actually exists. SpigotMap 13:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, this is the talk page, if you're that eager then you are free to bring up how it should be expanded any time you want to, Xyz231. Tuxide (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
One again, you are more interested in attacking other editors instead of discussing the improvement of the article. SpigotMap 18:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Xyz231, I have no interest in such a thing and I don't know where you get such a crazy idea from. All I was interested in doing was improving the quality of the article by bringing in more reliable sources, and Atomic Blue was an interest to me because it has been in the past. I had no idea this was going to turn into such a major issue. Tuxide (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Verifiabilty of Atomic Blue: http://www.wysk.com/index/texas/austin/tdmwn7y/atomic-blue/profile |
Notability of Videogames
editExtended content
|
---|
I'm pretty sure SpigotMap and Tuxide have something to say on Notability of videogames in general. Maybe those are not notable enough, so we can start to petition the deletion of the videogame portal on wikipedia. Obviously this will mean that this page will be deleted as well. Please share your insightful thoughts on the subject. Xyz231 (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC) |
Screenshot; I'm waiting for it
editWeren't you supposed to add a screenshot to the page? I'm still waiting for it. Xyz231 (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Time to open up a neutrality discussion again. Xyz231, please explain why more, only beneficial, information needs to be added to the Reception section from one particular review. Spacexplosion[talk] 22:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, seems pretty evident to me that the addition of more criticism is seen as a good thing, in fact this change was seen as a good one and reverted here saying that the article is a very important reference. But then when I added positive text from the same article, then that's something to revert and not acceptable anymore. This is unacceptable. A review is valid or not. If you want to invalidate my changes, then we have to invalidate also the other text. This evidently breaks NPOV Xyz231 (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Please just stop. This is out of hand. This article has needed mediation for a long time. Admin's Noticeboard entry started. Spacexplosion[talk] 23:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've reverted both changes, so it's now in the state agreed by multiple people. If you want to add more criticism discuss it first, because you already know it's against consensus. Xyz231 (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Please just stop. This is out of hand. This article has needed mediation for a long time. Admin's Noticeboard entry started. Spacexplosion[talk] 23:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Reception side of the article needs more than one source to go on for either praise or criticism also I believe the heading is incorrect reception is typically used for a game that has been released not one that has been put forward for alpha testing. critical reception therefore can't be gaged at this point as reputable sources won't have reviewed the material in question. 00:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)~84.9.144.114 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.144.114 (talk)
Development.
editIt appears an addition to the article was removed and claimed as vandalism. I'm not sure why I checked the information quite carefully before hand and even cited a source. Keith Fulton is a founder of Atomic blue the corporation behind planeshift infact I believe he is the main signatory involved and Talad aka luca pancallo is as part of his duties in atomic blue lead audio design. 84.9.144.114 (talk)
- The information is wrong. Talad is the project leader, and Keith Fulton is mentioned in your source as "registered agent". A registered agent is someone who files the documents for the corporation and may be anyone, even not affiliated with the corporation itself. Don't edit the article with wrong information please. And anyway I don't think more information about the team members is very relevant, as it may changes through the years. Unless we do a kind of history of all developers, like they do for band line ups, but I've never seen this on a gaming article. Xyz231 (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Your being disingenous Keith Fulton was not only a Signatory and the person who filed the papers but he was also on the board of directors for atomic blue. He was recently removed after leaving the planeshift team. Saying he isn't a founder is a lie. Also as part of his role in project lead does talad also not have to run lead on audio design and vet everything else? prehaps my wording could have been better but to judge my additions as vandalism is both unfair and an attack on my character. 23:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)84.9.144.114
- I'm reading your reference and he is mentioned as "registered agent". Your other claims on Talad primary role has to be backed up with reliable sources if you want to add them to the article. My revert didn't want to be an attack to you at all, but there are so many people trying to destroy this article that I'm quite "on alert" Xyz231 (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Removed Reception section
editI removed the Reception section as it was a tar pit of patently POV citations and poorly written as a whole. Citations I felt bad about in particular: citing the game's own website for the "Voted most promising Linux game" passage, as well as an advertisement whitesheet for an open source consulting company. The second paragraph may be more acceptable if it were rewritten more encyclopedically, but the driving citation is a non-notable and amateurish gaming blog. I think the section can be salvaged if we can find higher quality sources, though. Any comments? 184.15.3.39 (talk) 07:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Looking at the history of the page, looks like there has been a discussion on that section, and it has been edited and approved by multiple editors in the past. So I will be careful in removing it. You should ask more feedback about the removal and not just go and edit the page. In particular for this section I think it was representing well some of the major milestones of the project, including some praise and criticism. As for me, I'm against removing it. 206.217.211.108 (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- I endorse this version of the article... SpigotMap 13:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm very puzzled by what's going on in this article. I feel many editors here have WP:COI and are not acting in the interest of documenting the game. I think the removal of the reception section was hastily done, and wrong. 209.85.99.22 (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- The reception section contained nothing but content pushed in to the article to both praise and discredit the game, when in fact no reliable sources exist to support either side of the debate. No reliable sources seem to exist period to support this article, in the end they are all blog posts or user submitted reviews. SpigotMap 15:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm very puzzled by what's going on in this article. I feel many editors here have WP:COI and are not acting in the interest of documenting the game. I think the removal of the reception section was hastily done, and wrong. 209.85.99.22 (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- I endorse this version of the article... SpigotMap 13:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, if you really look at the history of the article, that section had long been a source for contention. Ironically, the uneasy truce was finally broken when someone reviewed a cited source and fixed the paraphrased content to be more of a direct quote. I'm fine with it being gone, at least until there are reliable sources to warrant it. Spacexplosion[talk] 15:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- By removing this section, you have removed plenty of quite interesting sources on the game, and seems there is no consensus on the removal. 209.85.99.22 (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, if you really look at the history of the article, that section had long been a source for contention. Ironically, the uneasy truce was finally broken when someone reviewed a cited source and fixed the paraphrased content to be more of a direct quote. I'm fine with it being gone, at least until there are reliable sources to warrant it. Spacexplosion[talk] 15:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I rewrote the reception section (which by the way is part of the standard videogame suggested template) to be more narrative and having better use of the provided sources. I've used a more neutral style compared to the previous authors. I hope this is appreciated and settles down some of the disputes in here. 209.85.99.22 (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- You're still citing the official website for the award, I don't think that is satisfactory. I do agree with dropping the the second paragraph though, that was a mess. I'll hold off on reverting until we discuss this some more though. SupaGreen 16:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- It's certainly an improvement. It needs to be copy-edited, and there are a few instances of biased wording. During copy-edit, I'll remove the following: "being one of the first free mmorpg in existance" and "one of the most sophisticated open source multiplayer games at that time" for biased wording not included in source. And "Most Promising Linux Game" because it's essentially unsourced as stated by SupaGreen. Spacexplosion[talk] 17:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think you should read better the sources. "one of the most sophisticated open source multiplayer games" is actually contained in the CSC study, and the fact it was one of the first free mmorpg is present in multiple sources presented, including the articles from year 2003. Be sure to document yourself before doing changes. 209.85.99.22 (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- It's certainly an improvement. It needs to be copy-edited, and there are a few instances of biased wording. During copy-edit, I'll remove the following: "being one of the first free mmorpg in existance" and "one of the most sophisticated open source multiplayer games at that time" for biased wording not included in source. And "Most Promising Linux Game" because it's essentially unsourced as stated by SupaGreen. Spacexplosion[talk] 17:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm concerned about the reputablity of the thread in happy penguin. Is user submitted content allowed to be used an as example of a reputable source? from what I can tell the 'linux game tome' awards are entirely user driven doesn't seem that notable an achievement especially as the sample size was relatively small. Thoughts? 84.9.144.114 (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Speaking of the CSC study, is it really relevant? As far as I can tell, CSC is a consulting firm with no relation to the video game industry, and the whitepaper you cited reads largely like an advertisement for their services. SupaGreen 17:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- 209.85.99.22's grammar is very similar to blocked user Xyz231's. SpigotMap 17:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm after seeing you mention that. he does write in much the same way including the usual mistake of using gender pronouns as you would in latin derivative languages to describe things. is there any way we could prehaps get an admin to check out if 209.85.99.22 is a ban evasion or even get the article protected from further edits until the issue has been cleared up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.144.114 (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- The forum's thread is posted by happy penguin's owner! People not reading sources, doing hasty removal of content and also telling other users are block evading. o_O 209.85.99.22 (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm after seeing you mention that. he does write in much the same way including the usual mistake of using gender pronouns as you would in latin derivative languages to describe things. is there any way we could prehaps get an admin to check out if 209.85.99.22 is a ban evasion or even get the article protected from further edits until the issue has been cleared up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.144.114 (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- 209.85.99.22's grammar is very similar to blocked user Xyz231's. SpigotMap 17:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- User:209.85.99.22, I see that quote in the CSC source now. It would have helped if the citation included a page number or something. I didn't expect the quote to come from a caption on a picture, my fault. Could you help me find where in this[1] source it mentions the 100k registered users? Spacexplosion[talk] 21:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't have much time to chase all this, but looks like the proper source was deleted, the 100k source is present in some earlier version of the page, for example here. 209.85.99.22 (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- "one of the most sophisticated open source multiplayer games" is completely non-encyclopedic, unmeasurable, and baseless. How can such a conclusion be made? I can understand the existence of such a line in Wikipedia when a multitude of reviews make claims like that, while some of them mention that it's been dubbed 'one of the most sophisticated' by many other reviews. The current paragraph is full of irrelevant material, weasel-wording, and bias. The "infancy" part should be replaced to be more encyclopedic and less narrative. "100,000 players" is irrelevant. Open/close source hybrid should be clearer, this is not just team organization but license as well. Either way it should be split from the second half of the sentence, as they are two completely different subjects, which is the 'sophisticated' part that should be removed anyways. The negative line regarding visuals and latency seem a bit unconnected to the rest of the paragraph. Due to dispute I'm not going to touch any of this. (Added after posting: I believe the 100k players used to be sourced from the game's server statistics page) 109.186.247.58 (talk) 10:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Be bold. I'm interested in seeing what it looks like after your edits. The worst case is you get reverted. Spacexplosion[talk] 16:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Please take a look at my edit of Development and Reception categories, also I fucked up some ref tags and I don't know how to fix it. I believe the current version makes more sense though. Regards 109.186.247.58 (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Be bold. I'm interested in seeing what it looks like after your edits. The worst case is you get reverted. Spacexplosion[talk] 16:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- "one of the most sophisticated open source multiplayer games" is completely non-encyclopedic, unmeasurable, and baseless. How can such a conclusion be made? I can understand the existence of such a line in Wikipedia when a multitude of reviews make claims like that, while some of them mention that it's been dubbed 'one of the most sophisticated' by many other reviews. The current paragraph is full of irrelevant material, weasel-wording, and bias. The "infancy" part should be replaced to be more encyclopedic and less narrative. "100,000 players" is irrelevant. Open/close source hybrid should be clearer, this is not just team organization but license as well. Either way it should be split from the second half of the sentence, as they are two completely different subjects, which is the 'sophisticated' part that should be removed anyways. The negative line regarding visuals and latency seem a bit unconnected to the rest of the paragraph. Due to dispute I'm not going to touch any of this. (Added after posting: I believe the 100k players used to be sourced from the game's server statistics page) 109.186.247.58 (talk) 10:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't have much time to chase all this, but looks like the proper source was deleted, the 100k source is present in some earlier version of the page, for example here. 209.85.99.22 (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- User:209.85.99.22, I see that quote in the CSC source now. It would have helped if the citation included a page number or something. I didn't expect the quote to come from a caption on a picture, my fault. Could you help me find where in this[1] source it mentions the 100k registered users? Spacexplosion[talk] 21:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Looks fine. Fixed refs. SpigotMap 20:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Last edits
editThe last edits have been very bad, by removing a lot of references, and plenty of useful information. In particular:
- The reception section now contains only criticism, while before it was having both and was a lot more balanced. Multiple sources have praised the game, and this is not reflected at all in the current article.
- The releases, which are an interesting encyclopedic information, have been removed
- This statement: "At that stage the game had very little functionality" is totally pointless, because it's open to any interpretation.
- This statement: "Four different public versions of the game came out since then, with different changes in functionality between them." is very generic as well, and gives no information.
- A number of references have been removed and not used properly
- The concept that the reception chapter cannot be used because the game is still under development is just plain silly. The game is played by hundreds of players since years, and definitely there is a "reception" to discuss/document.
- The article overall has been cut and sliced up to making it very bland. The edits I started some time ago, where much better and made the article more interesting to read.
So, I took a decision, I will just ask the PlaneShift team to host a wiki page on their site, which will be edited by people who play the game, and like the game. Other players who want to read an article (and not this piece of half-truth butchered by people who dislike the game) will go there are read it. Wikipedia is a joke. Never trust it. Xyz231 (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- If you have a problem with the article, be bold and fix it! Anyway, last I heard, Talad was pretty happy with this page. I think the PlaneShift team has more important things to do than starting up their own Wikipedia. SupaGreen 02:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, so now you speak with the lead of the game regularly? And we should all trust this I guess, eh? Xyz231 (talk) 10:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact, I do. But I really don't see what that has to do with anything. SupaGreen 11:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, so now you speak with the lead of the game regularly? And we should all trust this I guess, eh? Xyz231 (talk) 10:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- In reply to Xyz231 the game has had many more negative reviews than positive but at this stage of development it's not justifiable to put the reviews in the sources for this all tend not to be reputable and thus aren't worthy of being mentioned in a wiki article. After all in my search for a reliable source for reviews of the game I came across a very harsh review of the game done by 'something awful' Your second point doesn't seem to be vaild the first versions of the game did have little functionality from what sources i've been able to read the game was essentially a 3d chatroom for much of it's existence which makes the statement correct the only reason to remove such a statement would be based on verifiability. Three Wikipedia is not meant to be about entertainment, information should be factual and correct well sourced and written from a neutral point of view ignoring marketing and advertising styles of writing. Wikipedia is about disseminating knowledge. Many of the references sited are not from reputable sources. again to your last point Wikipedia is not about entertainment. RadStyles (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Welcome! Another one who never played the game, is not informed, and decides "what's the status" of it based on "something awful", which has his mandate to speak badly about games just to attract visitors. I'm running out of here, at the maximum speed possible. This article is a joke, and there is no way to fix it with such a bunch of trolls around. Xyz231 (talk) 10:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Actually I have played the game briefly I did so after reading this article I personally wasn't very impressed with the quality but then my personal point of view of the games quality isn't relevant to the article neither is yours. If you notice I actually said somethingawful isn't a reputable source. How ever your claim about the reviewer being mandated to review negatively is disingenuous whilst the reviewer does make mostly negative reviews he wouldn't be able to do that unless there was opportunity to do so with the medium in question. as for how informed I am I, I very much disagree with you I've spent the last few hours reading up on planeshift both via primary and third party sources very few of them would be considered reputable however. I dare say I am vastly more informed than you but again how informed a wikipedian editor is has little influence on whether they should be allowed to edit or add to an article as long as what they add is well sourced and written from a neutral point of view it's fine Now with that said can we get back to discussing how to improve the article instead of slinging mud at each other. RadStyles (talk) 11:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that someone has or hasn't played the game is of no consequence here. In fact, if they have played it then they have a conflict of interest. The concern about the article being bland is also of no concern here, it's an encyclopedia, the articles are meant to be bland, that means they are neutral. Obviously you are fanatical over this topic and perhaps, for the sake of your editing privileges, you should try editing other articles as long as you have a conflict of interest with this article. SpigotMap 12:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- If you want to speak about conflict of interests, you should look at yourself! Or maybe yours doesn't count? Xyz231 (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that someone has or hasn't played the game is of no consequence here. In fact, if they have played it then they have a conflict of interest. The concern about the article being bland is also of no concern here, it's an encyclopedia, the articles are meant to be bland, that means they are neutral. Obviously you are fanatical over this topic and perhaps, for the sake of your editing privileges, you should try editing other articles as long as you have a conflict of interest with this article. SpigotMap 12:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Actually I have played the game briefly I did so after reading this article I personally wasn't very impressed with the quality but then my personal point of view of the games quality isn't relevant to the article neither is yours. If you notice I actually said somethingawful isn't a reputable source. How ever your claim about the reviewer being mandated to review negatively is disingenuous whilst the reviewer does make mostly negative reviews he wouldn't be able to do that unless there was opportunity to do so with the medium in question. as for how informed I am I, I very much disagree with you I've spent the last few hours reading up on planeshift both via primary and third party sources very few of them would be considered reputable however. I dare say I am vastly more informed than you but again how informed a wikipedian editor is has little influence on whether they should be allowed to edit or add to an article as long as what they add is well sourced and written from a neutral point of view it's fine Now with that said can we get back to discussing how to improve the article instead of slinging mud at each other. RadStyles (talk) 11:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Welcome! Another one who never played the game, is not informed, and decides "what's the status" of it based on "something awful", which has his mandate to speak badly about games just to attract visitors. I'm running out of here, at the maximum speed possible. This article is a joke, and there is no way to fix it with such a bunch of trolls around. Xyz231 (talk) 10:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Please note that a large portion of the information wasn't removed, but rather moved to the Development section. I understand you have deep feelings regarding the way the article should appear, but do understand that the information that has been moved to Development section simply doesn't have anything to do with Reception. If the Reception seems lacking to you, and \ or missing positive information for balance, you are perfectly free to add more such information. Do note the title of the section, however. It was very confusing when half of the Reception section talked about Development issues.
- Regarding releases (point 2 and point 4). Not only are they not interesting encyclopedic content, they made the paragraph bland and un-read-worthy. Pointless filler to be skipped while reading, which completely throws you out. This isn't about truth or verifiability, this is about separating the wheat from the chaff.
- It seems like the starting line for the Reception section, mentioning the game's current unfinished status, has been removed. It is actually an important line since it puts the information which follows in correct perspective. Planeshift's visuals and gameplay are lacking as part of its unfinished status. It doesn't mean they'll be lacking forever, it doesn't mean they'll be better in the future, and it's not an excuse for them to be lacking. It's simply the current status, which the visuals and gameplay are part of.
- Overall it seems like the only mentions about the latest Development \ Reception edits are about the negative implications they may have on the game itself, completely ignoring any attempt at balanced editing which even included mellowing of negativity. Such a response is sincerely limiting the will for further dealing with this article. Regards 109.186.247.58 (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- I really liked the "unfinished status" sentence. I agree that it gave the reception context. If we have a reception section I'd like to see it back. In this case the Reception section is difficult to write because of the unusual fact that the game has no v1.0 release and most reviews are questionably reliable. Frankly the game might not be notable enough yet to have reliable source reviews. So it really doesn't matter to me if this section exists as long as it's not an advertisement. Spacexplosion[talk] 16:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- What's the source for the "unfinished status"? Looks like original research to me. SpigotMap 16:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- It's not OR to say that it has been released before it is finished. It is not disputed that it is released, and "unfinished" is part of the definition of the alpha development stage. The only part that needs sourced is the "differing opinions" which would be satisfied by a "good" and "bad" review, which I just said one can argue we don't have sources for. Spacexplosion[talk] 17:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Let's take a look.
- It's not OR to say that it has been released before it is finished. It is not disputed that it is released, and "unfinished" is part of the definition of the alpha development stage. The only part that needs sourced is the "differing opinions" which would be satisfied by a "good" and "bad" review, which I just said one can argue we don't have sources for. Spacexplosion[talk] 17:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- What's the source for the "unfinished status"? Looks like original research to me. SpigotMap 16:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- I really liked the "unfinished status" sentence. I agree that it gave the reception context. If we have a reception section I'd like to see it back. In this case the Reception section is difficult to write because of the unusual fact that the game has no v1.0 release and most reviews are questionably reliable. Frankly the game might not be notable enough yet to have reliable source reviews. So it really doesn't matter to me if this section exists as long as it's not an advertisement. Spacexplosion[talk] 16:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
"Since PlaneShift has been open to the public since its first alpha stage release, as an unfinished product,
it has produced widely differing opinions on its quality by the community of players and reviewers"
Who says it's been open to the public? Unfinished Product is someone's opinion, and where are these widely different opinions? Players are not notable for inclusion and reviews? Where are these notable reviews? SpigotMap 17:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- See Alpha phase of software release. If the software is not yet feature complete, then it is unfinished. Consult a thesaurus if you need more proof. Also see above, the two times I say that I agree there aren't notable reviews. Spacexplosion[talk] 19:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- See WP:VERIFY, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR. Saying pretty much "There aren't many reviews because the game is unfinished" falls under all four categories, unless someone notable has said it. SpigotMap 20:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm trying to explain that I agree with you. If there were sources for a Reception section then I would prefer to have the "unfinished status" sentence at the beginning again. I don't know how to explain it more clearly than that. The whole thing is moot because I'm not proposing a change at this time. Spacexplosion[talk] 20:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- See WP:VERIFY, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR. Saying pretty much "There aren't many reviews because the game is unfinished" falls under all four categories, unless someone notable has said it. SpigotMap 20:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Reception Section
editAs there is only one sentence in the reception section, perhaps we could incorporate it in to another section? There is not much except criticism of the game, but not enough to warrant a section. SpigotMap 13:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, finally getting your results, eh? So you butchered that section up to the point it was just one line, and now you want to remove it. This has been your plan and way of acting since years. And I guess you will do that again with all other sections, and then nominate the article for deletion. I've seen this pattern already dozens of times from you, and this just proves all my points. Xyz231 (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Xyz231 could you please cease with the attacks and assume good faith? Instead of criticizing other editors perhaps you could look for more sources for this article that are reputable, there by improving the article and granting us all more sources to work from so that we can collaborate further RadStyles (talk) 13:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- due to a lack of reputable sources i'm afraid i have to agree. If we can find some more later (sources) on we should reintroduce the section as it stands I would suggest integrating it with the development section, as the game is currently in an alpha state it makes little sense that what little praise or criticism for the game would be placed outside of that section RadStyles (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Lack of reliable sources? Haven't you seen how those were deleted just by "mistake" plenty of times? Those were deleted one by one in the edits, there were plenty of articles written by notable magazines, including onrpg, warcry, mmohub and others, plus studies made by companies like CSC. The problem is not that the sources are not there, is that you don't want to see those. This game article was probably the one with the most number of "sources per word" but still isn't not enough. This behaviour is really hiding and destroying information, it should be punishable by law and it's a real attack to the knowledge base of humanity. Luckily you cannot delete the external sites, and I'm going to recreate what you have destroyed in another place. And yes, it's a matter of principle at this point, not even related to the game itself. Xyz231 (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Why do you refuse to comment on article content and instead attack other editors? SpigotMap 13:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- I commented for dozens of edits on the article and added plenty of good sources and information. All of that is in the history of the page. What you did instead was just to try to remove information, add banners and delete sources, like proven in my talk page. Xyz231 (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- In addition do you find normal that the notability of the game itself, of its founder, and even the existence of Atomic Blue are discussed for days in here? I find this the most silly thing ever. There is a clear intent here, and it shows well. I you don't see it, well, I can't help you more than I did by pointing out all the bad edits. Xyz231 (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is, yes, you did in fact comment on the article, while at the same time attack other editors and refusing to cooperate. Most of your edits were against consensus, policy, and guidelines, so they were not accepted. You should have, at that point, taken our constructive criticism and looked for ways to either improve what you wanted to add, or moved on to something else in the article or another article. This isn't YOUR article, and it isn't YOUR game, this isn't YOUR internet, and no law will cover you here (besides policy). SpigotMap 13:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Didn't you say that you dislike personal attacks? I consider this a very strong personal attack against my edits. Xyz231 (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Criticism of edits isn't an attack on the editor them selves. Where as you attack the person behind the edits the distinction is important and to conflate the two would be to kill discussion of how to improve articles such as this one. RadStyles (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- I consider you accusing me of accusing you of accusing me an even bigger personal attack. Please desist. SpigotMap 14:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- As I said, I'm gone, I will not edit this page at least for some time, so now that the "evil" Xyz231 is gone, let's see to which heights you manage to bring this article to. If all I said is wrong, I'm sure you will make this article great. Let's see what you can do on it. Xyz231 (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Didn't you say that you dislike personal attacks? I consider this a very strong personal attack against my edits. Xyz231 (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is, yes, you did in fact comment on the article, while at the same time attack other editors and refusing to cooperate. Most of your edits were against consensus, policy, and guidelines, so they were not accepted. You should have, at that point, taken our constructive criticism and looked for ways to either improve what you wanted to add, or moved on to something else in the article or another article. This isn't YOUR article, and it isn't YOUR game, this isn't YOUR internet, and no law will cover you here (besides policy). SpigotMap 13:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
That's probably for the better, but we do welcome your contributions and suggestions. Feel free to contribute. SpigotMap 14:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism on pswiki
editJust after I decided to create another page to host the information on PlaneShift, some of the people editing this page got upset and started to post disgusting images on the pswiki and insulting myself in there. This event proves my points even more than before. Whoever did that, read my user page, it's really for you. Xyz231 (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Is this relevant to the article? See WP:FORUM if not. Thanks. SpigotMap 00:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- i think thats the answer to all the discussion on here. while xyz231 makes a superb user driven gamers-for wiki, this article on wikipedia is more or less an encyclopedia entry. this difference is quite important and more or less well done/realized in both projects.
vandalism here or there isnt ok, just to state it. while im not the rules troll, most points being made above are true. sometimes someones need the rules arguments, to produce an more or less good neutral article. it even shows the whole open source open gaming procedures with explaining the organizing trials. if its not quotable, or research, two programmers who make a project one leaving who is the ruler founder etc arent suitable on a wikisite, eg. the article itself seems quite ok now, its rather short but serious. advertising trivia and self research or gameplay tricks and cheats arent there anymore. i would consider removing the cleanup-entry once in a while, though. thanks for the good work to all here, i read it for the first time and know more about it, including differences to other more standard mmorpgs ;-) 194.48.133.8 (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
System requirements
editOn the original page is listed: For best results you need a PIII 1ghz with 512 RAM and a GeForce3 or equivilant card. More ram is recommended, [...] Also in the german wiki are complete other data listet - please correct! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.245.75.74 (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
distributors
editcan someone check on Desura for the distribor for planeshift. on the ps website they have no mention of it that i can see. and the download section is still torrents and direct downloads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.184.76 (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Primary sources and scope of article
editI'm interested in input from uninvolved editors in regards to this edit and version of the article. My opinion is this:
- The designer field should remain blank until we find reliable sources (which was already discussed above)
- The Setting and Magic sections should not be included until reliably sourced. Ultimately, we're not looking for what the developers say is important—whether on their page, on a download page such as at Sourceforge, or in an interview or press release—but what reliable, independent sources say is important. And even then, if we look at similar articles in the genre (World of Warcraft, for example), you won't find that type of content.
- The Google Summer of Code mention is irrelevant. It's not an award. It's an event where open-source developers find people to write code and then Google pays the coders for it. It's essentially an internship, which many companies do, but it's ultimately not important until reliable, independent sources say that it's important.
Ideas? Opinions? Wyatt Riot (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've skimmed the largest part of the discussion held at User talk:79.40.35.75. Concerning the edit linked to above:
- Magic's WP:GAMEGUIDEish. An shorter overview of the existence of Magic as a gameplay mechanic is sufficient and needed.
- The "(Year) video games" categories aren't well-suited with such games with a large number of releases spread over years, especially in alpha or beta.
- GSOC doesn't need to be mentioned as it'd be notable for an article about the company, but not the game.
- I've no issue with the Setting section (except obvious WP:INUNIVERSE issues); primary sources for plot/setting are very common in video game articles and are often superior to independant ones (due to the latter ones using analysis of the primary material, thus it is best suited for critical commentary than fact-reporting).
- Platform should read "computer", as it is available on computers and is not restricted to Windows/Mac; though admittedly this is still undergoing some heavy discussion at WT:VG, so it's not clear-cut.
- The Designer of the game is Luca Pancallo [1]; game credits are also often sourced from primary sources. In fact, primary sources are not bad for fact-reporting; they simply do nothing to establish any notability whatsoever and must be carefully used to maintain WP:NPOV and avoid biased/promotional information. Salvidrim! 06:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- You're free to remove anything that isn't reliably sourced. As for the summer of code, I definitely think it deserves a mention in the development section if it's reliably sourced. Notability is a requirement for subjects (e.g. PlaneShift), but for things relating to a subject (e.g. PlaneShift participated in GSC) the important things are verifiability and WP:DUE weight. Weight usually only comes up when you're talking about POV, but it applies to everything. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with everything Wyatt Riot said. With regards to Salvidrim!'s claim about the designer, does designer mean the same thing as project director? I was under the impression that Planeshift was an open source collaboration. Does Luca Pancallo make all the design decisions or is does he just coordinate all the other authors? Spacexplosion[talk] 23:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- According to the game credits themselves, he wears many hats; for the purpose of the Infobox, he is (at least) the Designer. Salvidrim! 23:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with everything Wyatt Riot said. With regards to Salvidrim!'s claim about the designer, does designer mean the same thing as project director? I was under the impression that Planeshift was an open source collaboration. Does Luca Pancallo make all the design decisions or is does he just coordinate all the other authors? Spacexplosion[talk] 23:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I made some changes based on the comments above.
- The second paragraph of the lede started going into Setting details, so I moved it to the section below and incorporated some of User:79.40.35.75's material.
- I trimmed the WP:GAMEGUIDEish paragraphs in the Magic section.
- I tagged the "written from scratch by the PlaneShift team" sentence in the Development section for a third-party source—both Sourceforge and Ohloh, while hosted on third-party servers, include descriptions written by the publisher—as it goes beyond what's allowed by WP:SELFPUB.
- I removed the mention of GSOC. Like I said, it's basically an internship, not an award, and I don't see mentions of internship in other articles. I'm not opposed to it being included if an independent source decides that it's notable somehow.
- I removed the year categories. We should add a year when the game is released.
Ideas? Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)