Talk:PlaneShift (video game)

Notability of founder

Extended content

Question: Why does Luca Pancallo even need to be mentioned in the first place? Tuxide (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Maybe because he invented and created the game? Or is this just the next piece of information from the article you are targeting to remove? Xyz231 (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Well it's not like Luca Pancallo has done anything else and it's not like there are news articles written about him, so it can probably be removed. Tuxide (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Agreed, I can find nothing notable about the guy. The article is about the game. SpigotMap 14:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC) The author of a game is relevant to the article, like it is Atomic Blue the company supporting it. So next you will want to remove also Atomic Blue? And what about the release dates? Are not very interesting for the game itself, just collateral. And platforms? Those can be read on the web site, so you want to remove them? You can go on like this and remove everything, but that's not the purpose of an encyclopedia. As stated you should stay away from this article. Xyz231 (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC) No. Seeing how "Luca" is part of the development team, Atomic Blue, it is redundant to list his name there as he is not notable and it is just a way to insert his name somewhere it has no place. System requirements are acceptable in video game articles, as are release dates, that's encyclopedic material. Listing un-notable developers, however, is not. SpigotMap 13:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Yeah I think we can definitely remove Luca Pancallo from the article, unless some source like Massively or Kotaku writes an article on him primarily (and not on the game). If such a news article existed, then people can read this article and know exactly who he is. Tuxide (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC) There are plenty of interviews and resources on the interviews on him, examples: http://next.videogame.it/planeshift/3533/ http://news.mmosite.com/data/p/u/2006/03/24/194048044.html http://www.crystalspace3d.org/main/Conference2006 http://www.gamesurge.com/pc/interviews/ld/luca.shtml http://www.onrpg.com/MMO/Planeshift/interview/Planeshift-05-Interview-Grinding-is-Pointless —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyz231 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC) All unreliable sites, I'm afraid. Please take a look at the WikiProject Video games list of sources. Wyatt Riot (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC) They may be unreliable for adding content to the article in terms of features of the game, and this is why those are not sources of the article today. The point here was different though. Those sources are mentioned to validate the importance of the founder, and the fact he was interviewed in multiple sites, which are some of the biggest gaming sites out there, is enough to me. What's the problem in mentioning the founder, or even the full team, if it's a valid and verified information? Xyz231 (talk) 12:21, 15 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) How can you say it's not significant in the context of the article? He is the founder of the game!! If the game is notable, then the founder is as well and worth to be mentioned. It's encyclopedic and historical information. If you remove it, and all other sources are destroyed, none will know who was the founder, so the encyclopedic objective will not be met at all. You are continuing to destroy knowledge through the wrong application of Wikipedia rules. Xyz231 (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC) I understand what you were saying about using those sources as proof on this Talk page, and that's fine. But as far as your most recent comment goes, I think you misunderstand the goals of Wikipedia. Yes, it's a community-driven encyclopedia, but we're not here to document every truthful-but-trivial piece of information out there. Our standards are based on verifiability, not truth (emphasis in original), and the verifiability part refers to basing our articles on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. So we're not destroying knowledge, we're just choosing not to base our articles on, to be quite frank, low-quality and unreliable sources. If anything, I'd say that's helping knowledge by separating the wheat from the chaff. Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC) I went through all of them and I agree with the consensus here: These are not really good sources for establishing the notability of the founder. The issue is that the primary subject of all of these sources is the game and not Luca Pancallo himself. Also, notability is not inherited; just because the game may be notable doesn't mean he is. Tuxide (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC) I've temporarily removed it until we can establish he is in-fact project director and notable enough to warrant inclusion per WP:NPF. SpigotMap 16:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC) "until we can establish he is in-fact project director" That's just ridiculous. You have serious problems man, really really serious problems. So you now questioning he is not the project director? You have a hole in your head instead of a brain. And yes, you read it right, that's what I said. Now go and ask your big daddy admins to ban me, like a small girl crying for being subtracted his toy. There is no way to discuss with someone that questions facts so evident. This is the end of my discussion with you. Shame on you. Liar. Xyz231 (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC) All facts, especially dealing with living persons must be backed with reliable sources. SpigotMap 17:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Go and play with the Pokemons, that's all you can do. Xyz231 (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Are you a lover boy for Luca? Get over yourself. Quoted from your user page: "Contributing to this world is the purpose of life to me, and so the life of a troublemakers values nothing, is void and insignificant.". You are a joke- you have made no contributions outside petty squabbles and editing the Planeshift article. How about doing writing a constructive article instead of arguing over a petty minor point. Who cares if he is notable or not. He might only be notable to you since you're obsessed with Planeshift, but in general not for everyone else. Genjix (talk) 05:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Interesting how you judge me without knowing anything. Very smart. Also I guess you didn't read the full story, because your comment comes out of the blue and shows you don't know the background. Even if you don't deserve an answer, I will give it anyway. The founder was just one of the piece of information which have been removed from the article, which has been bashed for months by the usual suspects (aka banned ex-players who explicitly stated they hate the game). So if there is someone obsessed, it's them, not me. About my contributions, I will never contribute anything else to Wikipedia, as it's a "can of worms" and the truth is defined by the people who have most time to spend in silly edit warring. This article has proven to me that the content of wikipedia is unreliable. Xyz231 (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC) I don't recall anyone on here saying they hated the game, and I certainly don't. I just don't think PlaneShift and Luca Pancallo are the same thing. Notability is certainly not inherited. Tuxide (talk) 05:24, 1 November 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: "The notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article on Wikipedia and do not govern article content. The question of content coverage within a given page is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies. However, notability may be used as an inclusion criterion for lists. This guideline does not override that usage (see Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists)." 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) My understanding is that Luca Pancallo is not "the founder" but is just one of the guys, and I don't know their number. I don't see any reason to list him in such a way that would imply he's extra-special. Also, I don't think primary sources should be used to confirm this because Luca Pancallo himself has exclusive and absolute control over everything on planeshift.it and he can make whatever claim he wants to on it. Furthermore, project director/leader doesn't imply he's the founder by any means. Leadership may change over time and he can be the only person on the team for all I know. Tuxide (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Although this is an open source project, it is apparently run and controlled by a corporation, Atomic Blue, whose own website say that Pancallo and one other person are the entire board. Your premise seems to be that the corporation or other form of organization would not police it's own members. Without contrary data, I don't see why the primary source shouldn't be used here, so long as the fact is neutral to planeshift, as opposed to one member. I'm not pressing that point though. It's bizarre though to argue on the hand that he has exclusive control of the official website and other the other hand he is nothing special. Keep in mind that though the source code is open, the art, etc. is proprietary and is presumably controlled by the corporation. There is an ownership interest in policing claims. Also, it stands to reason that there IS a hierarchy to resolve disputes about what direction the content of the game should take. Is there any reason to not believe the Planeshift or Atomic Blue websites on the point of heirarchy? IMHO (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I have no idea what a lot is you just said, but one conclusion you made stands out as irrelevant. There are many people in this world who run their own websites entirely by themselves that don't need to be mentioned on Wikipedia. Nor do their self-serving websites need to be used as reliable sources, see WP:SPS. Furthermore, if this Atomic Blue thing is real, then there's one surefire way to confirm that and that's to see if they file their taxes. Tuxide (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC) And I'm certainly not saying anyone should be mentioned for running a website. Most of what I wrote discussed reliability, which is a consideration for a source whether it is primary or secondary. I haven't installed planeshift. I am assuming it's real. If it's real, even if it is open source, someone has to be charge, at the very least to decide what to do with proprietary (owned) content. That means, there is some group/person in charge who can come down on some crack who falsely claims to be in charge. Now if the person on the website is in charge, that person's name, whether or not the person him or her self is notable, is appropriate to list. If that is the official planeshift website, then it's equivalent to a paper manual that would come with a physical copy of the game. And that should be sufficient for the head of the development team. As to WP:SPS note the references to expert opinions. It's talking about evaluations, analysis and interpretations. A game company self publishes it's manuals, but the manuals can be relied upon for credits of development, just as a movie credits can be used to determine who acted under what role in a film. I'll note that I have no personal interest, nor even care about Luca Pancallo or anyone else involved in planeshift (as far as I know), either for or against. I also don't see how adding the name could be some sort of coup. I recognize it does happen, but I expect some policing from whoever IS in charge of planeshift. Re-signed IMHO (talk) 05:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I suppose you could ask him yourself what goes on over there on the #planeshift channel on Freenode; Luca Pancallo goes by the name Talad. Also, ask him to prove that Atomic Blue is real: Every time I've tried to verify this I get nothing, so I'm very much convinced it doesn't exist, let alone it is non-functional. But if he is indeed the leader and Atomic Blue is indeed a real company, then he should be able to provide links to tax records to prove this. It's allegedly registered in the United States, but I can't find anything about this Atomic Blue on any government website over here. Tuxide (talk) 07:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC) This has been tried and Salad instantly bans anyone trying to discuss this page. SpigotMap 13:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Verifiabilty of Atomic Blue

Extended 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) I don't agree with your reasoning here because none of those sources are reliable for the purpose of confirming that Atomic Blue is real. I am seeking one that is reliable, and my reasoning is easy enough to understand and is undisputable proof. If Atomic Blue is not listed on some government website such as irs.gov, then Atomic Blue does not exist. In the case of irs.gov, there's no such thing called Atomic Blue listed there. For comparison, here is Free Software Foundation being listed. Go search for Atomic Blue, there isn't anything. Tuxide (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Can be registered in a different country, like in Europe, or just have a different organization type, or they may have just copyrighted the name and not the company itself. The fact is not in that list, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Atomic Blue is the name of the organization, which exact form or where is registered is of little value to me. If a product is not registered it still exists. If someone was called with a nick for years and it's known with that nick, that is still something an encyclopedia should capture. Xyz231 (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Well you can ask Luca Pancallo himself where it was registered. If he's the man you think he is, then he would absolutely know. Last time I looked into it, it was allegedly registered in the United States. Also, if Luca himself can't answer this question, then either Atomic Blue isn't real or Luca is not the man in charge. Tuxide (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC) What is the significance of Atomic Blue? According to the "team" page on the planeshift website, Luca Pancello and the other team leaders work directly for Planeshift, I see no mention of Atomic Blue. What exactly does Atomic Blue do? SpigotMap 22:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC) After looking into it some more, my best educated guess is that Atomic Blue was some Domestic Nonprofit Corporation that was incorporated in Texas and is currently defunct. If that is the case, then that means you have to register on Texas's Secretary of State website and pay in order to confirm any of this. Tuxide (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Do you think someone here in Wikipedia cares about this or even will pay? Seems your suggestion is mis-targeted. You continue to divert the discussion. The relevance of Atomic Blue into this article is evident because it's the corporation that governs the game itself, as it's the relevance of its founder. I cannot understand your reasoning at all. Xyz231 (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Well I think this Luca Pancallo guy would give a damn about his own corporation, and if Atomic Blue is incorporated in Texas then that's what has to be done. Now we know the next step in confirming this, and you are right, it is relevant to the article: If Atomic Blue is defunct, then we need to add that part in as well. Tuxide (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC) So now that you decided all by yourself that the company is defunct, it immediately becomes relevant to the article. Quite interesting process. Wikipedia continues to shine really. I'm waiting you to argue than since the company is defunct, then also the game is, and so not relevant anymore, so the game has be to closed and this page deleted. Great to hear from a banned PS player. Oh yes, I did some research on you, and you are everywhere on the net with bad posts about the game. And no, I'm not going to spend time to post all of it. What a "neutral" editor!! Xyz231 (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC) I don't recall Tuxide making controversial edits to the article, therefor his neutrality is of no concern here. SpigotMap 16:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC) SpigotMap is right, I don't edit the article content and I never had. I don't want people thinking I have COI considering how much I play the game, so I stick to things like the talk page and uncontroversial vandalism reversion. Also, when I say Atomic Blue is apparently defunct, I'm going off of this page I found. I wouldn't say it passes WP:V especially concerning the disclaimer on the bottom, so I'm hoping public records can confirm that Atomic Blue is either real or defunct. I'm badly hoping this Luca Pancallo dude or one of the other guys listed on there can read this discussion and shed some light on this subject. If we were to go into the #planeshift channel on Freenode and link to this talk page, that will probably get their attention. Tuxide (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Just get over it, the game EXISTS, it's there, up and running, and the company is there as well, or anyway it was there, which is enough to mention it in the article. Even if the company would not exist anymore today, the game still has been made by Atomic Blue, so the current text is correct. I know it's a pretty bad hit for you... but try to get over it, there are worst things in the world, like wars and famine. On another thought, I'm not sure what you can do against this, maybe contribute to the Notability of videogames below, i think it's a very important chapter, like the others notability chapters in here. Contributing to that with good insight you can have the world rise against those dirty game makers, mainly the ones providing games for free, those are the worst ones, no? I'm with you bro, let's delete all pages about videogames!! They don't deserve to exist!! Xyz231 (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I realized you are right about one thing, and the confusion may be because I'm not the one who forked this conversation and named it. Considering Atomic Blue, this discussion was never about WP:N in the first place. This is about WP:V, and we need to confirm against public records whether Atomic Blue is defunct, especially considering it doesn't have its own article. For example Dynamix is labeled as defunct. Dude, I'm trying to help out here and suggest ways to expand this article, and I think this is one area that can be worked on. Also, I don't ever recall saying anything bad about the game (actually this is one of the most interesting ones I've ever played) so it's not like I want to see PlaneShift go away. Tuxide (talk) 01:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC) That's quite better. If you want to improve the article, then focus on the gameplay, on the world itself, on the races, and add content to it. The current article has little information, and I think it doesn't give a full picture of what is the game. For Atomic Blue itself I don't think it's relevant in here apart from mentioning the name and the web site. If needed there must be a separate article speaking of Atomic Blue, but considering the type of censorship we have in here, it will be deleted like the next day. So I suggest you to focus on this article and expand it. I'm very eager to discuss how it should be expanded. Xyz231 (talk) 09:49, 18 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) Also, after speaking to "Keith Fulton", Atomic Blue was a made up company, and that's coming from the "Founder" of the company. Did Luca Pancello start another "Atomic Blue"? SpigotMap 13:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Could you clarify what a "made up company" means? All corporations are kind of imaginary if you ask me. Spacexplosion[talk] 16:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Possibly a ruse for funneling charitable money? SpigotMap 18:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC) On a side note, if Atomic Blue was a 501(c)3, then we need to verify that by its tax records. Whether it was or was not would be an interesting thing to add to the article. But now we have reason to believe that it was a legal entity in some form. Tuxide (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I noticed that too. Considering who it lists as the registered agent, it looks like Keith Fulton was the founder, not Luca Pancallo. Tuxide (talk) 20:43, 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) Looks like you guys are suggesting an original research about Atomic Blue's legality. I assume you're going to do the research and publishing outside of Wikipedia, as you seem informed about Wikipedia's guidelines. Research or not, Atomic Blue is currently listed on the article but its status is ambiguous. As per Wikipedia norms, when a defunct developer company is listed in an article its status is noted in parenthesis next to it. It would make sense that since Atomic Blue is listed it will be listed as "Atomic Blue (ambiguous status)". That note would stay on the article as long as Atomic Blue is listed and also its operation status is ambiguous. Why 'ambiguous'? Atomic Blue is supposedly operating, and I'm not going to suggest otherwise. On the other hand it is bureaucratically defunct. As a company Atomic Blue exists on both planes, practice and bureaucracy, and one does not necessarily imply the other. Since Atomic Blue continues to operate practically yet is defunct bureaucratically, its status is ambiguous. May this be edited in? 89.139.194.47 (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Sounds reasonable to me. Spacexplosion[talk] 23:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC) No I am not suggesting original research, public records is about as official as you can get. Just going off of whatever the person in charge of Atomic Blue says would be original research, but if he's able to provide public records to back up his claims then that would not be if we went off of those instead. The reason I suggest asking the person in charge is, despite said records being public, you have to pay to see them and that's something I don't feel like doing and the person in charge would obviously have access to those sort of things. Has anyone had any luck bringing this discussion up in the #planeshift channel on Freenode? Tuxide (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC) Apparently Wikipedia editors are not welcome there. SpigotMap 14:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC) Tuxide, you're missing the point. Lets argue about whether the subject is defunct or not, after we label its status as ambiguous. It definitely is ambiguous, while it is debateably defunct. I don't know how many people we need to support this change before it's ok to apply the change, since there's a dispute here I'll err on the safe side and let someone else figure it out. 89.139.194.47 (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC) No, I didn't want to comment on this directly because I do not care either way. Tuxide (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC) You guys are smoking weeds. The project is fully active, and Atomic Blue is as well, maybe you should at least read their main page! I'm not asking you to actually care of what game it is, or play it, but at least the basics. On the main page they say they added a new director to the board just recently, so the company is definitely active. I suppose they just moved it to another place, probably back in Italy where the headquarter is. Xyz231 (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC) I see the talk page of this article has continued to be a mud-slinging contest congrats! "Incorporated by Andrew Craig, Keith Fulton, Luca Pancallo, Atomic Blue is located at 10318 S Knoxville Ave Tulsa, OK 74137. Atomic Blue was incorporated on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 in the State of TX and is currently not active. Keith Fulton represents Atomic Blue as their registered agent. Source: Public Record data - Department of State - Division of Corporations." http://www.corporationwiki.com/Oklahoma/Tulsa/atomic-blue/36778501.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.32.39.251 (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC) That is the same page that Tuxide linked to previously. The issue, I believe, is that verifying with the source stated on that wiki costs money. So the state of Atomic Blue is ambiguous as there are disagreeing unverified claims. Spacexplosion[talk] 15:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Correct, and I will also say that SpigotMap and Tuxide are interested in demonstrating the project is dead, instead of trying to improve the article. Bad usage of wikipedia resources. Xyz231 (talk) 18:47, 24 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) I'm still waiting to see the screenshot you said you would add to the article. Xyz231 (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC) At the absolute worst Atomic Blue is "DBA" which basically means its a business, any business that's operational isn't ambiguous, its operating so it exists. There is a distinction in the law for just that reason. IF it was possibly non-operational (which no-one here is saying) THEN its status would be ambiguous. Also check out unincorporated associations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.32.39.251 (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure I followed that. As I understand it, the assertion was that Atomic Blue is, in fact, non-operational, not that its real name is something else. Spacexplosion[talk] 21:23, 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) atomicblue.org - the apparently official site of the company and hosted at an Italian IP, so if you want to look for records of its existence, Italy would be a good place to look. Canine virtuoso (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Verifiabilty of Atomic Blue: http://www.wysk.com/index/texas/austin/tdmwn7y/atomic-blue/profile

Notability of Videogames

Extended 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) The "videogame portal" has its own talk page. If you'd like to address concerns with notability of the whole WikiProject then that would be the appropriate place. Spacexplosion[talk] 15:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Screenshot; I'm waiting for it

Weren't you supposed to add a screenshot to the page? I'm still waiting for it. Xyz231 (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Weighing game review content and NPOV

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)

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.

It 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

I 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Looks fine. Fixed refs. SpigotMap 20:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Last edits

The 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)

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)

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.

"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)

Reception Section

As 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)

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

Just 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

On 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

can 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

I'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 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)