Talk:PlaneShift (video game)/Archive 2

Archiving

Again talk page grew to an unseemly length. All issues in old talk page seemed addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.200.238 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 2 April 2010

I've restored some sections, as they are newer and discussion may still occur. I would move them back to the archive when it's been a while and it seems like they have come to an end. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems resonable :) --76.90.200.238 (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I moved all the old discussion from before the AfD to the archive. Even though the same topics have come up, the editors are using new sections. Someone please check to make sure I moved the discussions to the appropriate sections and the like, and does anyone know what happened to the first archive? Spacexplosion (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The first archive got deleted as a result of AFD and it was never restored. I usually archive talk pages when the page exceeds 32k and it seems logical to do so, and sometimes I refactor discussions that are still active. See Talk:Target Corporation#Refactored discussions for an example. First I create a new entry on /archivelist and the I move it over to the new subpage. Tuxide (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Was a good cleanup, thanks. Xyz231 (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Not sure why this article was moved from the Article Incubator as it's still in very bad shape. The vast majority of its sources are from marginally or outright unreliable sources. I'll try to find some time to cull the poorly-referenced material in a few days. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Tagged. SpigotMap 19:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Xyz231, I'm asking you to self-revert and restore the tags on the article. It still needs a lot of work. Much of the content is supported by unreliable sources and shouldn't even be there. Primary sources are being used to support some contentious claims. There's a bit of POV/weaselly language that needs to be cleaned up. While notability probably isn't an issue at this point, we should still address concerns that have appeared on the previous AfD/DR discussions. Remember that being notable doesn't make this article a free-for-all; it still needs to conform to our policies and guidelines. In short, maintenance templates exist not only to warn readers of potential problems but to draw editors to the page. Pretending that the article doesn't need work isn't helping. Wyatt Riot (talk) 11:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem in improving the article, this is what Wikipedia is all about. The tags added were not pertinent. I reviewed this article many times, and many other editors did as well. The article to me is good, but should be expanded, because at the moment it contains very little information about the game mechanics. Please point me to the areas you think are not supported by reliable sources. I want to understand your point of view. Xyz231 (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't have the time right now to point out all of the problem areas, otherwise I would fix them. (I'm not trying to be a dick here, I just started a new job and Wikipedia is low on my list of priorities.) I'll try to find the time to work on the article soon. As far as the template goes, I'll again ask that you self-revert and return it to the page. At least two editors have issues with the article (not including those who argued for its deletion) but you don't and have removed the templates multiple times. Please see WP:OWN. Wyatt Riot (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the tags, added without any explanation or reference, and so I will surely not add them back to the page. If you cannot point to any problem, then means the article is probably good. I'm not in a hurry, take your time and point to the problems, so those can be discussed before butchering again the article. About WP:OWN I can say I'm one of the few in here that actually improve the article and added many sources, as provided by the PS community. I will not call that WP:OWN. Have a good day. Xyz231 (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the presence of the multiple issues, particularly NPOV. I just added back some content under Criticism that was summarily removed, but I don't expect it will stay that way. See below Removing Criticism. Spacexplosion (talk) 02:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that Xyz is not a neutral editor of the article, he is part of the Planeshift community and thus have personal interest in the article. This could explain why he can't see any problem with the article's current state and is interested in expanding it similarly to the current style of writing. It could also explain the insistence on removing tags which aid the Wikipedia community in noticing problematic articles, as the tags' appearance on the article would be bad publicity to the game. The tags might also draw neutral editors to it, neutral editors might try and edit the article in ways that don't suit the Planeshift community's views of how this article should appear. All these personal interests and non-neutral view of how the article should appear, reflect on Xyz's tendency to own the article. I believe the Planeshift community, as seen in Xyz's edits and prior handling of this article, truly fails to see that their views of how the article should appear are far from Wikipedia's guidelines for proper articles. More than once in the article's history it seemed as if the Planeshift community feels threatened by Wikipedia's community, which draws meatpuppets and chaos from both communities.

Note that I'm not neutral to the Planeshift community either, while I doubt it might affect my edits to the article much, I prefer not to touch it. 109.186.10.101 (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

General statements are not a way to move forward. Point me to where the article is not neutral, so that the tag added is justified. If you fail to do so, I will remove the tag. Xyz231 (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The references section is an utter mess. Can we get a list (or maybe a pastebin link) of the 8 sources that Xyz231 mentions in the revision comment for 17:57, 17 June 2010? Spacexplosion (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The notability and secondary sources are totally fine. There are plenty of notable sources including gaming magazines and books, more than any other gaming article on wikipedia, so stop being a pain on this point. The claims of people continuing to add the notability tag are not reasonable. Xyz231 (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

They are fine according to you. They are not fine according to WP:VERIFY or WP:RS. Read through the AfD again, there were plenty of reasons why they are not fine. The tags are here to help people edit the article, adding them is not vandalism and edit warring over them is not smart. You do not own this article. SpigotMap 22:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The AfD was BEFORE the addition of the sources, so now the article has lot more sources. You are wrong on the WP:VERIFY or WP:RS the sources like the following are both WP:VERIFY and WP:RS

http://www.planeshift.it/pix/PSinPCgamer_small.jpg

http://www.jeuxlinux.fr/article-51.html

http://linux.about.com/od/softgame/fr/fr_PlaneShift.htm

http://assets1.csc.com/lef/downloads/1142_1.pdf

http://www.reflex.lth.se/culture/annelov/

Patterns for computer-mediated interaction by Till Schümmer,Stephan Lukosch , Page 84

Dynamische Contentanpassung Bei Massive Multiplayer Online Games By Joachim Fohringer, Dr. Tobias Fritsch Page 57

Collaborative Software Engineering By Ivan Mistra-K, Page 317/318

Linux Format March 2005 Issue 64, Pg 13

TUX December 2006 Issue 20, Pg 60

https://www.linux-magazine.es/issue/18/Planeshift.pdf

http://www.planeshift.it/pix/magazines/pcaction_page1.jpg

http://www.planeshift.it/pix/magazines/GameStar-LinuxExtra_July_2006.jpg

http://www.planeshift.it/pix/magazines/page2_scaled.jpg

I never seen a game article in wikipedia with so many sources really. So stop claiming the impossible. Xyz231 (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between "sources" and "reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as Wikipedia requires. In short, we're looking for quality, not quantity. I'm trying to AGF here but it seems to me like you're being unnecessarily obtuse and combative on this point. Some of these sources are fine, I think we all agree on that, but some of them are outright poor sources and material based on poor sources isn't acceptable. You may want to read the WikiProject Video games guide to sources for a better idea of which sources we as a community value and those which we don't.

I will also again ask that you refrain from removing maintenance tags that multiple editors feel are necessary. We know that you don't agree with them, but quite honestly it's not your article. Removing these tags and characterizing our edits as "vandalism" is damaging to the progress of this article and the project as a whole. I feel like every edit needs to be run by you first, which is the definition of WP:OWN. Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I do my best to improve the article, and seeing people just sticking banners is not encouraging. I remind you that the editor that is adding the tags (SpigotMap) has explicitly said he "hates" PlaneShift http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATuxide&action=historysubmit&diff=161766647&oldid=159712023 and from the information provided by multiple people has been a troll for long time in PlaneShift. I hope you understand why I'm not really trusting him at this point? See the full discussion on him on my talk page: talk. I'm not interested anyway too much in going against him, I just want to be able to improve this article without a constant drumbeat of vandalism on it. Xyz231 (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I just removed a handful of unreliable sources, based on the WikiProject Video games guide to sources. More could be done. The to-do list as I see it:

• Look into some of the non-English articles. Not that foreign article are bad, it's just more difficult to judge how reliable they are. For example, PC Action is used throughout the article, but the author appears to be an amateur journalist.
• Do the same with the book authors. And if we're going to keep them, the citation format should be uniform. See WP:CITE for suggestions on citation formats.
• Remove any trivial citations that simply repeat content from other articles. They're really serving no purpose other than bulking up the "Notes and references" section and making the article appear more referenced than it is.
• Combine cites to the official website. As above, they're just making the references appear impressive.

If I remember correctly, the AfD discussion contained a lot of specific criticism of the references as well. I'll (as usual) try to find some time to go through that as well. Wyatt Riot (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree on two of the sources you removed, because those were just redundant information. The third one to me has valuable content because it's a third party review of the game. The fact the journalist can be an "amateur" journalist is all your point of view, and very subjective. I suggest to avoid removing valuable 3rd party source unless we find others that are better. Xyz231 (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Wyatt Riot did not mean that the writing of the review was "amateur" in the derogatory sense. The author, Andre Haas, does not seem to be a professional, published journalist. Anyone can post game reviews at About.com. That makes this source not WP:Reliable. Spacexplosion (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I actually meant that Fabio Russo, the author of the PC Action piece, appears to be an amateur journalist and so his PC Action article would be an unreliable source. After reading through the WPVG discussions on about.com, the consensus appears to be that it can be reliable on a case-by-case basis, again depending on the individual author. Some about.com authors are quite notable journalists, some are random joes who just happen to work on a particular about.com portal. I have no idea about this Andre Haas fellow, I haven't googled him as I did Fabio Russo. When it comes to questionable sources, I personally would interpret WP:BURDEN ("[t]he burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material") as it being the responsibility of the editor adding the source to verify (and prove, if necessary) its reliability. Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If we start to subjectively discard journalists and sources this way, then will be edit warring for ever. I think the quality of the journalist should be in discussion only if the article he wrote is reporting facts which seems incorrect. The fact a journalist is reliable is proven by the fact he go published on a paper magazine and in this case most of those gaming magazines and reviews are reporting the same elements, so this should be a proof the editors were good ones. I would question it if there are major discrepancies in reported information. Xyz231 (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Or you could promote civil behavior by practicing WP:BRD, that is what talk pages are for. The revert is done, time to discuss it. Tuxide (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

Please justify the neutrality banner you added with examples, and where you think the neutrality is not present. Xyz231 (talk) 09:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you're addressing since the NPOV banner has been added by 3 or 4 editors now, but I'll answer since I think I was the most recent before your comment.

• N419BH described at length an issue with the second sentence of the article in the Maintenance tags talk section. You seemed to understand.
• I'll describe another example from the very next paragraph:

"It is a no-budget project [...] founded by Luca Pancallo, and guided by the Atomic Blue non-profit organization. Bandwith for the servers is completely donated by sponsors. The server [...] is completely written from scratch by the PlaneShift team, while the 3D rendering features [...]"

"No-budget" and "non-profit" are slightly redundant here and provide a strange emphasis on the volunteer aspect. One could just write "The project was founded by Luca Pancallo and is guided by the Atomic Blue non-profit organization." The next two sentences sound like boasting. The unnecessary use of 'completely' borders on the peacock issue that MrStalker raised. These two sentences are mostly useless. I would remove them and simply write, "The 3D rendering features are based on the Crystal Space 3D engine."

Just about every paragraph could benefit from this type of trimming. If it helps, you might want to think of it as rewriting things in a "more boring" way, because an encyclopedia is supposed to state facts simply and concisely. Spacexplosion (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing Criticism

I don't think the content from the Criticism section should just be deleted sourcing the editor's personal assertion. A more proper way to address a criticism that is no longer a valid issue would be to add (not delete) information about the resolution with a citation. Spacexplosion (talk) 02:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The setup of a new server has been advertized by the PlaneShift group on their main site (see news of 2010.04.27). The ping times have been reported all over europe to be 1/4 of what it was before. The information about latency is no more relevant, you can leave that piece if that makes you happy, but it's wrong. Xyz231 (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I was going to add in the new information about the latency, but I can't find anything to reference. Even the primary source news article that you mention does not contain the information. The news entry states that there is a new server in Europe, and that latency will improve. Are there any writings available that provide the data for the 1/4 ping times? A secondary source would be preferred. Spacexplosion (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, to counter the claim, you should provide third party sources stating the latency has been fixed. Not sources that you, the director of the game, have created. SpigotMap 11:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Stay away from this page SpigotMap, as mentioned multiple times. Playing identities trick or associating people to identities is not a good idea. 79.44.220.108 (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "playing identities trick" means. Do you mean sockpuppeting, like logging off your account to make an anonymous comment? Let's keep it civil. No personal attacks, please. I'm going to assume the answer to my prevous question is 'no'. Spacexplosion (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I did some research, but there are no publications yet on the new server. So for now I think that section should stay. I think will be nice to expand the areas I've mentioned below. --Xyz231 (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia do not accept original research. Also, Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. --MrStalker ^(talk) 12:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Incubation / Stub rating

Listed article rating as stub: "The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short, but if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category." WP:Article Incubator/Assessment This article might as well go back to incubation, at best. As stated above in the Sources discussion, I'm not neutral to the Planeshift community. I intend to cease my relation with this article now, though am available for comment if required. 109.186.10.101 (talk) 09:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The article has been expanded several times, but due to the usual suspects, every new section has been deleted for months with the reason: "coming from non notable sources" and so the article is now at minimal state. Instead of continuing to spend time on placing banners, maybe just improve the article by ADDING useful information. Xyz231 (talk) 11:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Point me to where you think the article is presenting "irrelevant or incomprehensible" material. Xyz231 (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The expansion of the article is irrelevant the quality assessment. Please inform yourself about the differences Quality vs. Quantity. As far as I can see there are indeed sections being constantly removed, usually while citing Wikipedia guidelines that suit the situation. I also see sections being added against Wikipedia guidelines.

The suggestion to add useful information is welcome, but since I don't see myself as neutral regarding the subject at hand I'd rather stay away from it.

You have been pointed to problematic material in the article several times. It appears as if every time problematic material is pointed out, it is completely ignored.

Please note that maintenance tags, and this quality assessment, exist in an attempt to draw editors from the Wikipedia community who will help in improving the article. The whole point in these tags is to make the article better by advertising it within Wikipedia, to get experienced editors to take part in the struggle for a better article which conforms to Wikipedia guidelines and standards. I assume that you are in favor of making the article better, as it seems that the article and the subject are very dear to you, which is why I ask you not to remove maintenance and quality tags unless the community decides to remove them.

I believe there is general agreement that the article in its current state is of poor quality, although there are disagreements about how it would look better. Due to that and due to my assumption that you want the article to become better, and fit Wikipedia guidelines which is a necessity for featured articles, I ask you to replace the quality rating and replace whatever maintenance tags you removed against mutual editors' agreement. 109.186.10.101 (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that although I have no idea what are the guidelines for moving an article out of incubation, seeing the tag that states this article went out of incubation gives me doubts about the futility of incubation. The article in its current state is nothing to be proud of, it's a graduate of nothing other than bickering and multiple deletions. The mere fact that editors don't want to go near the article and its talk page should be enough to put it away until things settle down. as said a few times I'm not neutral regarding the subject. 109.186.10.101 (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Improvements needed

I'm listing here the improvements needed to the page:

• Expanded coverage of the races, their main abilities and traits
• Expanded coverage of the magic system, how it works, what are his basic principles
• Expanded coverage of the crafting system, how it works, what are his basic principles
• Addition of Gods and religion, as seen from the game

Let me know which other areas you think are needed. Xyz231 (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we shouldn't include such material. Wikipedia is not a game guide, after all. If you look at high-importance and high-traffic articles within the scope of WikiProject Video games, such as World of Warcraft and its associated gameplay article, you'll find very little material like that.

Just hopping in to comment, by the way. I'm still trying to find the time for a thorough critique of the article as requested. One thing I did notice that I can mention right now is some non-encyclopedic language (especially the use of "you") and NPOV/weaselly statements in the Gameplay and License sections. Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

On "not game guide" I agree, but the article should explain what are the basic principles of the game. The article should be useful to the reader to understand better the game itself, documenting it. Xyz231 (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually Wyatt is right. Please look at What Wikipedia is not. --MrStalker ^(talk) 22:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The articles you pointed contains a lot of the material I'm mentioning, like races, skills, char creation, quests, etc... in particular the "gameplay" article is fully dedicated to how the game works. That is exactly what the PlaneShift Article should contain. Xyz231 (talk) 10:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, but it should be kept at a real-world context. Please review the video game project article guidelines before proceeding, in particular the section about what is not appropriate content. --MrStalker ^(talk) 12:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reviewed in details, and if people stop to delete every single line added claiming it's not sourced, I think will be possible to follow that guideline page, because it's exactly what I tried to add. Xyz231 (talk) 09:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Maintenance tags

Please do not remove maintenance templates without first addressing the problems noted. At no point was it noted on your talk page that the templates should be removed. SpigotMap 13:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The entire article needs work mainly because it does not have reliable, third party sources and it reads like a fansite/advertisement. For example, the second sentence:

"The game is free to play, with no monthly fee,[4] no premium upgrades, no micro-payments, and no advertising on the site or in game.[5][6][7][8]"

This basically advertises the game's free nature. Simply stating "The game is free to play and is supported by donations," with a single source from a third-party publication, is sufficient to convey the point.

There are numerous other examples throughout the article. Feel free to make changes to address the issues. N419BH 17:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what the sources report, and the reality. How can a fact be seen as advertizing? Xyz231 (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The difference between games that are just free to play and PlaneShift is enormous. The majority of the game are flagged as "free" but then ask you to pay in plenty of ways. That's a major different from PlaneShift to other games. Xyz231 (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me try it this way. Think in terms of "What are the most important points about this game?" As someone who's never played it or any other MMO, my personal opinion is I want to know it's free and I want to know it doesn't have advertising. Since it's not both of those I'd like to know exactly how it pays for servers. However, I don't want to know it's free (no monthly fee), free (no premium upgrades), free (no mirco-payments), and free of advertising. Miscellaneous details do not help me understand what the game is about. Main points do. I've personally read the article several times and frankly I have no idea what the game is about. Hence the article requires cleanup because it's heavy on detail and short on main points. We're not saying the article is bad and should be deleted. We're saying these are specific issues that need to be addressed by people who know (that's you) so the article itself is better and easier to read. N419BH 18:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That's very reasonable. I tried to compile a list of elements which were missing in my point of view. What you think are the ones you miss to understand the game? If you point them out, I will add them. Xyz231 (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind as well, this is an encyclopedia. Things that are sensationally important to you might tip the scales of neutrality or verifiability. The article needs serious copy-editing and formatting, which I've been working on. You should focus on writing verifiable claims and finding sources and I can take care of formatting it for you and making sure it's neutral. SpigotMap 18:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

One example is your recent edit to the character creator section. You added a source (good). However, the major issue with that section is a casual reader does not care what the names of the individual races are. There is currently no mention of exactly what is special about character development. The first part says it's good, the second part says all the details. There's no summary. As an additional bit of advice, try reading the article from the perspective of someone "out of universe". You've played the game and know a lot about it, so you're "in universe". It makes sense to you. The majority of the specific details are irrelevant to me because I have no context to base them on. N419BH 18:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think N419BH provided some excellent, constructive criticism here. We should all try to point out some specific areas that can be reworded. I'll come back tomorrow and try to reword some. This is exactly what the NPOV tag is for. So hopefully we can keep it this time, talk this out, and end up with an actual article. Spacexplosion (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Opinions, everyone has his own. I disagree that tag is needed. Xyz231 (talk) 07:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Well of course, but to be honest: Wikipedia is built on consensus, so suck it up. --MrStalker ^(talk) 08:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I've skimmed through the article, and yeah, it's a complete mess. I've added some more maintenance tags in addition to the NPOV and cleanup tags already established. PLEASE NOTE: The tags are intended to help develop the article by alerting other editors of the problems, and to notify potential researchers. They are not there to discredit the subject of the article in any way. Ideally, they should be removed as soon as possible when the issues has been fixed. A complete list of reasons behind each tag is provided below.

• Lead rewrite: To much detail in lead, see WP:LEAD.
• Citation style: Using plain links is not considered good style. There's no guidelines exactly how to format references, but for the sake of consistency I recommend WP:CIT.
• In-universe: E.g. "Players will find themselves into the main city, called Hydlaa, where they will start their journey. Life is possible because a huge crystal, named The Azure Sun, draws light from the surface of the planet."
• Unencyclopedic: Gamecruft such as "The crystal mineral can easily be found in the mines and is transparent or light green in color. Magically forging the crystals produces a perfect triangle with rounded-off edges. There are other units of currency, including Hexas (hexagon shaped coins that have a 10:1 exchange rate with the tria), Octas (octagon shaped; 50:1 exchange rate) and Circles (circular gold coins; 250:1 exchange rate)."
• Peacock: E.g. "PlaneShift character creation has been reported to be the one of the most complete of the genre."
• Conflict of interest: Major contributors has personal stake in the article, one being a hard-core fan of the subject and another one apparently hating it. Either way this should be noted to the community.
• Too few opinions: The article's coverage of criticism and reception of the subject is extremely thin at best.
• Other cleanup: Some information is presented in a list format that is better presented using prose.

Some of the things I've pointed out above I could just as easily have deleted in full accordance with standing policies, but I figured since that isn't very constructive (I'm not looking towards any specific contributor) I'd just let someone with more knowledge of the subject correct them. That's all for now. GLHF. --MrStalker ^(talk) 09:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

To add to this, the entire "Scope of the game" section is unreferenced. This is bad since we're making claims as to the intent of the developers and also the comment about what players like. (Which is a ridiculous claim in and of itself.) This entire section should be removed as WP:OR unless it can be referenced. Wyatt Riot (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You hit exactly the point, which is the fact people here are just bullying around adding banners, saying things are bad or unreferenced, and deleting content, but none makes any effort to improve the article except me and few others, which I see just decided to leave. This is giving me a terrible view of what Wikipedia is. If it was not for me, this article would probably be sectioned, cut and deleted piece by piece, until it contains nothing, and then deleted (which is exactly what someone is willing to do here). The effort needed to add information to this particular article is enormous and unreasonable, not comparable to any other article I've seen. This effort is beareable only due to the fact I decided to do it anyway and see how far people can get into this and because I play the game and I like it. But to tell you the truth I find this whole process very wrong. There should be multiple people editing the article by ADDING and improving it, and even something is not *perfect* it should not be deleted, but left there to see if someone can improve it. All guides of Wikipedia editing are far more indulgent, less time-stressed and less source paranoid than any of the people who decided to bash this page. Xyz231 (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The sections on gameplay are way too short and unsourced, containing only one sentence per section. They should either be expanded or merged and written in an out-of-universe style. In the new "Scope of Game" section, the entire thing seems like original research and is written like a fansite. Regarding removal of content instead of keeping it: Some things just aren't sourcable, hence original research and need to be removed. Other stuff is is biased towards the game and needs to be removed. There's a sentence underneath the "save page" button, if you haven't noticed it it says "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." SpigotMap 12:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing 4 new lines of stuff which has been repeated probably 200 times, which does not add value at all to the discussion, and it's just targeted at saying the article is bad, without doing any improvements on it. On the same line, I was wondering if we are missing any banner? Now we have NINE banners on the page, which is a pretty good number. What are the other missing? Is there a full list of the possible banners? So we add them all , and we are done in improving the article. Xyz231 (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You really need to try to remain civil and assume good faith. This article was AfD'd and then given a second chance. It was deleted for a reason, but obviously PlaneShift is somewhat notable but the article is written very poorly. These editors are here to help, and you're welcome to make improvements to the article, but if incivility isn't tolerated and it's hard to make improvements if you're blocked. SpigotMap 13:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for calling me incivil about 10 times by now. That's very civil indeed. Xyz231 (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

About WP:COI, I don't know who this hardcore fan is you're referring to, but I don't think it's me because I've never contributed to the content of this article. People with COI should stick to talk pages. SpigotMap: Please explain why you hate this game. Tuxide (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I've never even installed this game. I have spoken to the director and the community regarding the game, but I've never played it. How can I hate it without even playing it? SpigotMap 15:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Xyz231, you make some fair points. Wikipedia doesn't require perfection the first time; rather, the goal is for articles to work towards perfection. In many cases, this results in the article growing in length as more content is added. However, there are cases where this isn't always practical. When material is added that violates WP:NOT or WP:COPYVIO, for example, it should be removed immediately because it doesn't belong here in the first place. But when it comes to dealing with original research and unreferenced material, there's no simple answer. Some editors throw on a {{fact}} tag, some find references and cite them, some edit the material to remove any outrageous claims, and some delete the material outright. A lot of it depends on how much time an editor has, so that someone who would usually research and cite material may simply remove it outright if he or she only has 5 free minutes. When I'm pushed for time, I'll admit that I often go this route, especially when the material was just added and I can undo it with a few clicks. It results in a page with less content, true, but it also ensures that the article is closer to meeting our various policies and guidelines. Policies and guidelines that, I should mention, exist at the will and whim of the community as a whole. If an article is truly dreadful (not that I think this article is right now), it's sometimes best to pare it back to stub status so that we can start over. It's unfortunate, but sometimes it has to be done. Wyatt Riot (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Article is Improving

I see many positive steps and the article is improving. Keep up the good work! N419BH 17:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Tagging, fixing, etc

I've had a very quick run through here and copy-edited a few places. I can't find any peacock terminology any more so I've removed the tag. I've removed In-universe tag and the lead rewrite because I can't see any issues visa vie "in-universe" style anymore. Nor can I see a reason to tag for a lede rewrite - I think clean-up covers it.
Finally I've removed the Conflict of Interest tag while this might have been edited by a user with a COI everything is sourced and recorded properly. Much should be better sourced, a lot should be reorganized, parts should be deleted if this can't happen and other sources should be found. However this is not an ad so I think the COI tag is at this point irrelevant.
Moving on from this I must ask why is this tagged with NPOV? Are there negative sources that aren't being used? If so, if there are reliable sources that contradict some of the sources here please discuss them here. If there are no such sources the tag must go--Cailil ^talk 22:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Also, as an addendum, I'd specifically mention the 'gameplay' play section as being in need of a rewrite--Cailil ^talk 23:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead additions

Some recent additions to the lead have been redundant or poorly worded. For instance, the platforms the software is available for is already in the side bar virtually right next to the place it was added. We don't need an edit war about something so silly. Please discuss the important points to summarize the article in the lead here. Spacexplosion^[talk] 20:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel Cailil (talk · contribs), a sysop, did a wonderful job copy editing the article. No need to blatantly revert it to a poorer revision just because it doesn't speak as highly of the game. There's no need to point out unfounded trivia and tidbits about the game that are either unsourced, weaselly or pushing points. SpigotMap 21:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I liked the work of Cailil, and I just added my view on it. On another note, stop editing this page SpigotMap, because as mentioned and proven multiple times you have COI with this game, and you stated you hate the game. Xyz231 (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Xyz231, you have been reminded multiple times in the past that you don't own this article and to refrain from personal attacks. As you too seem to have a COI on this article, it would be best if we only discuss the merit of content in terms of the content itself. Spacexplosion^[talk] 21:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

3 changes needed

The following four changes are very needed in the lead:

• with no hidden costs for the player. The whole purpose and differenciation from PlaneShift to any other "free" game is that it doesn't carry hidden costs, while all other games do. This is a MAJOR difference people should know about just to avoid confusing this project with "just another fake free game".

There is a long series of back and forth discussion under this, but I placed this comment here because it deals only with this issue and not the other two. I agree with SpigotMap and other contributors that the above wording is more advertising language than anything else. Makes me think infomercial. However, I agree with Xyz231 that simply saying free is not enough. It is not as precise as it can be, and I don't to the point of beating a dead horse. By way of example I am familiar with another MMORPG Wizard101 that has some free content and the rest is pay to play. Given that, I've modified the wording to all content is free to play. To make even more natural, I've put this after the discussion of the split licensing. So after the reader is informed that the code is licensed under GNU Project, but that the art (and also text in game- the scripts and text descriptions presumably), it's more natural to clarify that all the content is free to play. IMHO (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• allowing anyone in the open source community to contribute to the expansion of the game. The opensource concept is not clear to everyone, and it's important to hightlight what's the difference between a game which is opensourced and not. This is another major trait of PlaneShift.
• guided by the Atomic Blue non-profit organization, with the objective to create a large community of roleplayers, which give life to a medieval world. . This paragraph really expresses the reasons beyond the project and why it was created, also it gives perspective on the non-profit nature of the project which is another interesting element. Xyz231 (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

All of these don't add anything as far as furthering understanding. They only cause the wording of the lead to be awkward. With regards to the third point: this seems to be a mission statement for Atomic Blue but the citation is just a download page. If Atomic Blue has a mission statement relevant to Planeshift's purpose then it could be sourced and added (in a way that isn't an awkward collection of clauses). Spacexplosion^[talk] 23:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I explained what they add for each phrase, saying they don't add anything to you is not a real explanation for removing the text. The "free" tag is now on basically all internet games, but that doesn't mean those are really free. PlaneShift goes beyond this concept by being really free without any kind of micropayment. To me it's a huge difference. Also the fact it's done by a non profit corporation and it can be expanded by anyone, not just a closed corporate development is much interesting and is one of the major traits of this game. About the Atomic Blue mission statement, it can be read on their web site http://www.atomicblue.org/ which is linked from the main PlaneShift site. Xyz231 (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, the "no hidden costs" phrase is neither encyclopedic nor neutral. The bit about open source can be wikilinked, which is what the links are for, after all; if we do elaborate on the concept, it definitely shouldn't be in the lede. Now for the aims of Atomic Blue, I'm rather indifferent about whether or not we include it, but it probably shouldn't be in the lede and it definitely shouldn't include non-encyclopedic language like "give life to a medieval world". Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then propose how to have "no hidden costs" in an encyclopedic language. About "give life to a medieval world" that's the mission statement quoted, so if you change it, it may not be a proper quote anymore. Xyz231 (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the mission statement for Atomic Blue is something that should be in the lead for the Planeshift article. It would be more appropriate in the lead of an Atomic Blue article. As for "no hidden costs", the defining sentence already says the game is free to play. It doesn't matter if other games say they are "free" and have a slightly different meaning. The lead isn't a persuasive essay comparing this game to other games. Spacexplosion^[talk] 20:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Atomic Blue has only PlaneShift as project, and has been created to support the game, so it doesn't need his own article at all. Seems to me that you are missing the point completely. As mentioned about "free game" that is not a good definition, and putting just "free game" in the lead is misleading and plain wrong. Xyz231 (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't make up consensus yourself. I've reverted the changes you've made until discussion is complete. SpigotMap 12:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There has been no real argument against those additions, so those should stay until someone gives real arguments to remove them. The reasons for having those additions has been explained in details.Xyz231 (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between "no real argument" and "I don't want to hear your arguments". We have policies and guidelines regarding tone and language in articles, reliability of sources, what material appears in the lede, and so on. As the editor who wants to include this material, it's up to you to show that it belongs to the article. Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct, and that's what I did. If you have questions on the items added I can elaborate more. Aren't the reasons above enough? To me they definitely are, and I didn't hear any reasonable counter-argument apart from "I don't like it". Xyz231 (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I find it disrespectful and arrogant to deny the existence of other people's arguments because you don't agree with them. I won't do the same, but I will say that it is one of the fundamental assumptions of Wikipedia that if your argument is superior then you will eventually win consensus. Otherwise such an encyclopedia built on consensus would be filled with drivel. Spacexplosion^[talk] 15:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

2 other good changes

• and is available for Linux, Windows, MacOSX. I think the platforms are needed in the lead because the possibility for a player to access to the game world is based on this. If you really want to remove it, please tell me why.
• description of stances and combat. The stances are a very particular feature of this game, which is not found in other games, and so I think it can be interesting for any reader. The paragraph anyway is short and concise, so I don't see why it should be removed. Xyz231 (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

1. As I stated above, I think the platforms are redundant when they appear right next to the side bar where they already are, and the sentence is poorly worded. The grammar is ambiguous if not incorrect.

2. The stances paragraph is fine. I remember helping refactor it a bit, but I don't know when it got deleted.

Spacexplosion^[talk] 23:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean the phrase "and is available for Linux, Windows, MacOSX" is poorly worded? it's a list of plaftform, no idea how to make it better worded really. Anyway I agree it's redundant with the box panel, I think it can be removed, even if I still think it makes it clearer for the reader. Xyz231 (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I mean that the whole sentence with that addition is "ambiguous if not incorrect"...

The game requires a client software to be installed on the player's computer and is available for Linux, Windows, MacOSX

because the verb "requires" applies to "The game" and then the verb phrase "is available" seems to refer to the previous object "client software". I realize I'm being a grammar nazi, and that's not the most important part. I just don't see a point to adding phrases without adding any new information, especially if it causes it to sound worse . Spacexplosion^[talk] 03:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The supported systems should probably be mentioned somewhere in the article, I'd say around where we discuss the open source nature of the game. It's really not important enough to mention in the lede unless a reliable source says it's important. Likewise with the stances bit. We're not here to write a game manual, after all, only to report what reliable and independent sources tell us is important about the game. Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wyatt Riot (talk). The supported OSs should be included in the body of the artcle, at least at some point. The infobox is essentially an easy to review summary. That being the case, I understand not listing them out in the lead, which is also summary. I understand the aesthetic complaint about listing them out in text next to the box, but I don't think that's controlling. For books, title, author, publisher etc are often included next to the box, generally because that information cannot be shrunk down even in a lead. In looking at higher classed video game articles, I've seen the non-summarized list of platforms/OSs in the development section. If/when anyone adds to that or cleans up, I propose working the list in there. IMHO (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I take it back. Examine featured articles from the WP:Video games and you will see in the lead lists of the platforms/OSs that the game runs on. On my screen, the same information is visible in the infobox without scrolling down. Sere Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver and Myst for examples. If the grammar is problematic, that's another issue, but including the full list in the lead is apparently follows the consensus in the wikiproject. Re-signed IMHO (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I have re-introduced the stances and left over the platforms. Xyz231 (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, a point-by-point list of why these changes are being removed (and why they should keep being removed):

• "no hidden costs": the phrase is unencyclopedic in tone, basically because it sounds like an advertisement. The fact that other games claim to be free (either on or off Wikipedia) doesn't matter. If this game is free, we say so, and that's that. If the definition of "free" is questionable, we can add internal links (such as freeware or free software) to clarify it for readers.
• "allowing anyone in the open source community to contribute to the expansion of the game": that's what an internal link to open-source software (or something similar) is for. As I said previously, we can explain a concept further if necessary but not in the lede. The lede is meant to be a summary of the article itself, not a place to delve into unnecessary details. Beyond that, I don't think an explanation of open-source software is necessary in the body of the article since the wikilink provides an excellent explanation. Now if this game were open-sourced in a way that reliable sources found interesting and went on and on about, then it would be appropriate to write about it, but, again, probably not in the lede.
• The part about Atomic Blue and "give life to a medieval world". First, this isn't an article about Atomic Blue. We can certainly mention the developer, but details like their goals should really be confined to an article about the developer itself. As for the "medieval world" bit, like "no hidden costs", sounds both unencyclopedic and spammy. We're here to write an article on this game, not advertise for its developer, and we certainly won't parrot their advertising language.
• "and is available for Linux, Windows, MacOSX": client support is listed in the infobox on the upper right of the article; it could probably appear in the body of the article itself (I said before that I think it could be incorporated into the "Development" section, and others may agree or disagree with that) but it really isn't necessary in the lede. The simple "cross-platform" as it appears should be fine. I think what you're trying to get at with "client software to be installed on the player's computer" is to differentiate this game from browser games, and that is definitely appropriate for both the lede and the body of the article. I can't think of any better way to say it other than "cross-platform", however. In the body of the article where we mention the supported clients, we could say "runs natively on Linux, Windows, and Mac OS X" or something similar. Would that work?
• I don't feel the stances section is important, but if reliable independent sources say it's important, then we can report what they say. We shouldn't mention it if the only source touting their importance is from Atomic Blue or the PlaneShift guide.

I hope this helps. Feel free to ask for clarification and I'll try to explain as time allows. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Trying to improve this article is a total waste of time. Your explanation is just ridiculous and following those guidelines the articles will become so boring none will read them. The articles should be made interesting to read, and they should explain the differences of one game to the other. By removing those 3 elements you are just making it so plain and equal to all other games that the presented information sounds wrong. I'm off for now, because I'm disgusted by this discussing, and having to fight as usual for adding 10 good words to an article. This doesn't mean that I will not watch for the usual trolls to destroy this page. In addition I totally disagree with your review, and I think those 3 changes should be in. Xyz231 (talk) 10:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the page again. I understand that you want these revisions in the article, but they really do violate our policies and guidelines, and, perhaps most importantly, they're against the consensus of everyone editing this article and communicating on this Talk page. Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the reverts. Xyz231 is clearly trying to sell the game, not describe it from an encyclopedic point of view. One change I would approve, with regards to non-profit: The "no-budget" phrase has the same sales-pitch minutia to it. Instead, I like Spacexplosion's earlier suggestion from 18 June 2010: "The project was founded by Luca Pancallo and is guided by the Atomic Blue non-profit organization." 216.195.28.24 (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

My edits have been tweaked by myself plenty of times upon reasonable feedback. And surely I'm not here to "sell" the game but to present real facts that are making it different from others. If you want a page with "PlaneShift is a mmorpg", well that will not be very informative to the people. Xyz231 (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I want to clarify a possible misconception Xyz231 has above (P.S., I came here after reading the ANI thread). Xyz231 says "The articles should be made interesting to read, and they should explain the differences of one game to the other." This, in fact, is 100% false. That's the sort of thing that a game reviewer should do, or that a video game fan site should do. In my experience, the words "interesting" and "encyclopedia" are not words that necessarily go together. Our job here is not to make this a fun or exciting article to read. Our job is to state, neutrally, with reliable sources, the facts about a variety of topics. Now, if there was a reliable source (say, a video game review in a reliable magazine) that said that a unique aspect of this game is that it doesn't contain what you call "hidden costs," then that information could go in the article (although not necessarily in the lead). Without such a source, it's a type of puffery to add the extra phrase. The phrase "give life to a medieval world" is a slogan, a pitch, an advertisement, and nothing more. Now, again, we can include that information somewhere in the text, but it should explicitly stated that this is an advertising pitch made by the developers (just like the way the McDonald's advertising page lists a variety of present and past slogans used by the company). I don't know if this user has a COI, but it seems like the user is trying to write the article in a way that convinces people "Hey, I think I want to try this no hidden cost cost," when, in fact, the only purpose of the article is to provide factual, encyclopedic information about the topic. 01:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC) (post was by User:Qwyrxian User talk:Qwyrxian (talk)--missed a tilda, sorry)

The edits have been backed up by plenty of sources, the issue is that here none cares about reading the sources, but just likes to use his little voting power to have fun and destroy knowledge. None has proven those edits to be wrong, because they cannot! And I will not explain it again, because I'm fed up by people randomly looking at the page, giving their wrong assessment and leaving without contributing a single word to the article. Xyz231 (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Those edits are at the most backed up by the game's official website, which should not even be considered when writing text that pushes a point of view. Only reliable third party sources are to be used when either praising or criticising the game. SpigotMap 13:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Totally wrong, those are backed up by plenty of web sites, those are the foundation of the game itself and so present in plenty of interviews, reviews and articles. As usual you are taking any possible road to negate any addition to the page, what a news. (Note: Did you find a speed deletion for the internet? They told me there is one!) Xyz231 (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)