Talk:Rust (video game)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Twitter source

I doubt a random link from someones Twitter account could accurately represent this game has already made $7.5 million dollars. 108.168.108.221 (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)a

Twitter might be a dubious medium, but it is still the company's owner who has published the information. He is one of the few people that has access to this information. If not to get it from him, from who? --Lonaowna (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

So if I make a Twitter post that my company has made $1 billion US without any other shred of evidence then I can put it up on Wikipedia, nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.168.108.221 (talk) 08:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Alpha Reboot Section

EDIT: I am going to attempt to remove the erroneous text myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.4.205.239 (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

This section is clearly personally biased. Or at the very least, strongly misinformed.

"Two versions of Rust alpha exist,[7] Garry Newman soon discontinued the original one because of internal issues with former programmers who quickly left the team. The reasons of their exit weren't fully explained but Garry Newman blamed it on difficult personal relationship issues[8] and distaste for the untidy code conceived.[9] This dislike made Garry Newman create an alternative version and enticed him to stop updating the original version. Despite all the improvements shown on his weekly devblog on the new Rust Alpha Reboot version, users have expressed their preference for the original version[10] and strong dislike of the one currently in development.[11] As of June 17, 2014, a menu that gives access to both branches was released[12] but some users noted system crashing issues and other serious technical problems as reported in the steam discussions."

Citation [8] does not mention in any way anything to do with personal relationship issues as it regards to why Rust is being re-coded. Only The distaste for the untidy code. In fact, there is no mention of programmers leaving period. At all.

Citation [10] Doesn't even have anything to do with the general user base, and no comments about user 'preference' are present. While some negative sentiment is found among a significant amount of the player base, it is not found under this citation.

Citation [11] is also just plain wrong.

I am not up to speed about the very last sentence, but it is NOT CITED so I presume it being a serious mark against the developers, should be removed anyway. Also, this is an ALPHA game, and every single problem imaginable in an online game is, by definition, to be expected. Mentioning game issues as a result of development is misleading.

If someone wants to mention that maybe I am reading the citations wrong(?) At least in this article, the citations appear AFTER the information. So, just saying.

I don't have time to find citations for what I am ABOUT to say, but this is a pretty cut-and-dry situation: The developers of the game made it in a program that was full of awful code, and coding potential, and remaking the game entirely was the only option. Their current code was extremely slow and prohibitive, and the in-game lag was extreme. Yes, they abandoned the older version of the game, but that was because they could not continue to develop a broken game. The above quoted paragraph implies that the older version was abandoned because of personal relationship issues. Which is never mentioned anywhere, ever.

I hope some Wikipedianeer out there somewhere will go and find citations for me(it wouldn't be hard), and remove this awful posting. It is so obviously an attempt to undermine the game. This attempt, however childish, could have an economic effect on the market for this game, and stifle development. None of that is illegal, but it in turn undermines the mission of Wikipedia. At least I'm pretty sure Wikipedia's mission is something opposite to damaging reputations and limiting the success of a business.

And just to clarify, my failure to provide citations for my penultimate paragraph is not admissible in an argument over everything preceding it. I have citations for everything before that, because my arguments are over the citations already posted, and I do not need outside evidence. No, I did not cite what a game in ALPHA is, because that is information readily available at the top-right corner of your Wikipedia page... I think, for some reason, I should mention all of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.4.205.239 (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Caveman nudity

Currently, the infobox lists "Adult video game" as genre and the intro says "The game features male caveman nudity as a gameplay element.", both citing http://playrust.com/censorship-update as source.

While it is true that this is a "feature", it is not a genre. I also think it shouldn't be in the intro, but somewhere else in the article, maybe in Development. What are your thoughts? Lonaowna (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I tried to add the male caveman nudity to the gameplay section first but it didn't fit well so I initially added it as a very specific genre to avoid creating a new section or writing it anywhere else. Although I didn't want to write it in the intro at first, I don't see any problems with it being in the intro since it is not only one of the main features of the game but it also shows why it's an adult genre after the previous sentence shows where the action adventure and survival genres were inspired from.

I'm not sure it fits well in the development section either. RustyKnowledge (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Rust is not an "adult" video game. And "male caveman nudity" shouldn't even be considered as a genre. Just because it happens to have nudity in it, that doesn't affect the genre. I Am A Sandwich (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

In fact, if it truly is a "gameplay element" then it would go in the gameplay section. If it doesn't fit there, then it doesn't really fit in the article. I Am A Sandwich (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

"I Am A Sandwich", if you visit the Rust page on steam you'll find that there is an adult warning. Are you saying that steam put a warning there even though there isn't adult content in the game? Do you really think male caveman nudity is not adult content?

The reason why I said that it doesn't fit well is not because there isn't any male caveman nudity but because I would have to heavily modify the text of the gameplay section particularly and most of it is not referenced so I would probably have to delete a lot of it.

And the male caveman nudity feature does fit in the article because it is one of the main features of the game. RustyKnowledge (talk) 5:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Everyone agrees that there is nudity in the game, but it is not an "adult video game", as it isn't one of the main features of the game. From the page you linked: "In general, the purpose of adult games is to provide erotic entertainment, rather than just gameplay." I hope you agree that this isn't the case for Rust. The nudity is just a small, funny feature, as is explained in the blog post. Therefore it should get a small mention in the article. Lonaowna (talk) 08:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You're confusing the adult video game genre with the pornographic video game genre. The mention to the male caveman nudity is already as small as it can be. 08:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RustyKnowledge (talk • contribs)

The intro and the infobox are the two most prominent places of the article... As I said before, I think it should be mentioned further down the article. But the intro and the infobox should only contain very important features. I don't see how "it is one of the main features of the game" or "a gameplay element". Lonaowna (talk) 08:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The feature is significant enough to change the genre of the game and enough to make steam put warnings in the game site. 08:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RustyKnowledge (talk • contribs)

Okay, if you want to cite the Steam page[1]:

• Genre: Adventure, Indie, RPG, Early Access (note: no "nudity" whatsoever)
• Warning: Contains violence and caveman themed nudity. (does this make "violence" a genre? no)

Lonaowna (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The genre is "Adult video game genre" not male caveman nudity anymore as I already explained it in the second post. 08:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RustyKnowledge (talk • contribs)

Okay, we clearly disagree. I think there is one way to solve it: if you find a reference that says nudity/adult is a genre, we leave it in, otherwise we remove it and add a reference like [2], which does name all the other genres. Note that the current reference [3] does not name nudity as a genre. Lonaowna (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I think there has been a misunderstanding, I thought you still wanted to remove the "Adult video game" genre but you were talking about the outdated playrust reference. It makes sense so I've removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RustyKnowledge (talk • contribs) 07:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, what I mean is: we should have a reference for all of the genres that we list. So we should also have a reference that says that Adult Video Game is a genre of Rust (and the playrust reference did not say that it was a genre). I have made a small edit to show what I mean.Lonaowna (talk) 08:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

An external reference to the "Adult video game" genre is redundant because the introduction already shows why it is classified that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RustyKnowledge (talk • contribs) 10:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

But to list is as a genre we need someone to name it as genre of this game. If there is no-one saying that it is a genre of Rust, it shouldn't go into genres. And about the ref in the intro, it doesn't say that the presence of nudity is a gameplay element, or influences gameplay in any way. Lonaowna (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Steam has put a warning that warns the users that the genre of the game is for adults and haven't put it in the genre section because it is evident. "gameplay element" is a reference from the genre page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RustyKnowledge (talk • contribs) 15:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

'Caveman Nudity' is not a GAMEPLAY element at ALL. GAMEPLAY elements are ELEMENTS that define how a game PLAYS. Having to shift gears manually in a racing game is an example of a 'gameplay element'. The fact that your car is shiny, is not.

The nudity in Rust is purely aesthetic. Although it is a prominent feature, it DOES NOT affect how the game PLAYS. I am changing it to read "atmospheric element". When you google the word 'atmospheric', the SECOND defenition reads:

"creating a distinctive mood, typically of romance, mystery, or nostalgia." (no, I'm not going to cite that)

The game is about a bunch of naked cavemen running around killing eachother and building houses, therefore 'caveman nudity' is an element that is supposed to CREATE the MOOD (atypically to the definition) that you live in a world full of naked cavemen. If anyone can come up with a better word than 'atmospheric' be my guest. 'Gameplay' is NOT acceptable. If being naked somehow changed any aspect of the game, other than visual, in a unique and unequitable way, it would be an element of 'gameplay'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.191.253 (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit: Fixed.

Reading this thread, I agree that a) "adult video game" it is not a genre of Rust ("adult video game" is either a rating or an alternative name for pornographic video game, neither applies for the infobox or the lead), b) caveman nudity is not a gameplay element, rather a minor feature build into the game to add to the realism of having no colthes in the stone ages, as commented on by G. Newman. However, it was stated that the length of the cavemen's genitalia proportions (length, thickness, etc.) is automaticly generated through the input string of the user's Steam ID, which secures the game from breaking the Steamworks DRM and also serves as a part of controvercy on the game. Maybe a minor part or section should discuss that controversy? Ref: [4] Lordtobi (✉) 14:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Reassessment

Came here via the reassessment request in the video games talk page tag; leaving this as C-class. Some ideas for improvement follow:

• The lead does not fully summarize the article
• Gameplay does not fully cover all of gameplay (how do players "become stronger"? How does combat work?
• Development does not talk about who made it- it mentions FacePunch Studios and its CEO in passing, but not who the dev leads/producers are
• Reception is light and uses a lot of youtube sources instead of standard RSs (perhaps that's all there is), and fluctuates in tense talking about the alpha as if it's both over and ongoing. --PresN 14:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response PresN, I'll try to expand the lead and the gameplay section. From what I can find, there's no info on the actual developers and as for the reception, there's only 1 YouTube link? Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe there's some non-user generated info on the Steam site about the developers. I can't check because I'm at work, but it's a secondary source with no COI so it should pass muster. I'll take a look at the lead myself. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@PresN and MjolnirPants: I've looked around and I can't seem to find any info on the developers. Even the official website doesn't say. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Unfortunately, I won't be able to help more until later tonight. I'm at work now and the network here blocks all video-game focused sites. However, I might suggest checking out the references from the developer's page. (I'm assuming you meant you couldn't find info on the development of the game, but either way, that link could help.) :) To be fair, I bet the existing references in this article might have a little bit more info we could squeeze out of them. When I get home tonight, I'll go through them thoroughly and see what more I can add. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I picked out two references (not attached to the text) and some text from the Facepunch Studios page here that could be useful. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Further bad news: A suprise dinner party means I won't be editing this evening, either. Maybe tonight after I put my kids to bed, but that's cutting into my Fallout 4 time (and I just started my "sarcastic responses only playthrough"), so don't expect much. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Note, I would love to help with the gameplay section, but I don't own the game. I've seen a number of "Let's Play" videos, which is why I'm aware of the game, but I don't currently play. If anyone else does, please help with this section. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I own the game, I just don't know what else to write about in there. Anarchyte (work | talk) 21:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, some specific questions that could be answered would be:

• How is player progression/growth handled? Do players get stronger (more health, do more damage, etc) as they survive, or do they just get access to better equipment?
  • If the latter, is it through a specific mechanic, or just the natural result of playing over time?
  • Is there any aspect of the game which is unavailable to new players, or players with new characters?
• Is combat functionally different than in other games?
  • Is there a hit-location-based damage system, like in Arma, or is there a health-based damage system, like in Borderlands?
  • Do the weapons all use instantaneous, line-of-sight hit detection, or is there a random element, or perhaps the introduction of concepts like ballistic drop and windage?
• Are there scheduled events held by developers?
• How do the airdrops work? (I don't think the gameplay section even mentions the airdrops.)

And for some overall questions:

• How is the gameplay different than DayZ?
• How is the gameplay different than other survival games?

If you could answer some of those questions here, I could probably find a way to phrase it and add it in. I hope this helps! MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Wouldn't that count as original research? Anyway, here are the answers (from what I've experienced).

1. Progression: Equipment is found it lots of ways, such as airdrops, supply signals, etc. Raiding is also a vital part of the game when it comes to getting resources, but there's a change you'll waste more collecting the C4 ingredients than what you'll get out of it. As already mentioned in the article, the player starts with a default set of craftable items ("blueprints") and as the player progresses they can find more in autogenerated towns (forgot what these were called, either Dungeons or Radtowns). A blueprint teaches the player how to craft an item; i.e., a Bolt Action Rifle blueprint will teach the player how to build the Bolt Action Rifle, nothing more, nothing less. It's basically like Minecraft or Terraria in the sense that, if you get lucky with your surroundings, you'll have an easier time surviving.
2. Combat: I'm unsure what you mean by this. Do you mean, like, headshots do more damage than "footshots"? If so, yes. Getting legged or getting hit in the foot will do less damage than a headshot or a body/chestshot. There is a bullet drop mechanic that works with every single weapon (including arrows, crossbows, rocket launchers, etc). There are different types of bullets called "HV (High Velocity)" bullets/arrows/rockets/etc that have less drop off.
3. Unsure.
4. Airdrops: Airdrops can be called in by players by getting a supply signal. They place it where they want it to drop (normally inside the base so it can't get stolen, but I'll touch on this later). Airdrops are also randomly dropped from time to time, scattered throughout the map. They are normally highly sought after and if called in by a player, can alert others of where their base is, thus there's more risk of being raided or attacked.
5. DayZ: I've never played DayZ (yeah, I know, sad ;P).
6. Compared to other survival games: Well, games like Ark: Survival Evolved have the same premise as Rust only it has dinosaurs and other stuff that Rust doesn't have. The Forest is more set on survival (from what I've seen) than gathering. Minecraft has dangerous mobs (Creepers, Skeletons, etc) that Rust doesn't have (Rust has bears and wolves, those are the only hostile mobs, except helicopters). Rust also doesn't have caves, although (and I could be wrong) I think they're thinking of adding them.
7. Other: There are attachable items for guns; holosights, scopes and suppressors.

I hope this helps. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Anarchyte:I haven't seen where many wikipedians have seen this as OR. It's more a matter of it being from a primary source, which is usually frowned upon, but is acceptable under certain circumstances. For instance, plot information from films and books is presumed to be sourced to the film or book itself, because anyone who watches or reads it will see that it is so. I'm pretty sure the gameplay information can be sourced the same way, because it will be apparent to anyone who plays the game. I'll take some time later today to take the information currently in the section and the excellent answers you provided above and try to make a comprehensive write up about the gameplay. I also want to say that editing this article has been a lot of fun, and you're a great editor to work with! MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Okay. I did a write up of a new gameplay section at one of my sandbox pages, take a look and tell me what you think (feel free to edit it, of course). The only thing I would like to add are screen shots of an airdrop (as it's an important element of the game, from what I know) and maybe a screenshot of a player aiming down a gun, to illustrate the air drop and combat sections, respectively. I don't think it would be kosher to go grabbing such images off a google image search (as there would be copyright claims by both the player who took the image and facepunch studios), however, if a wikipedian were to take some screenshots, I'm pretty sure we could use them under fair use. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to take a screenshot of them both tonight. Anarchyte (work | talk) 21:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Alright, here we are. Note: All of these were taken on a modded server with HUD plugins, so I disabled the HUD entirely. So there's going to be no health, food and water bar and no inventory bar in these screenshots. I got no screenshots of what's inside an airdrop because I gave them away to random players as I had to go soon after. I hope that's fine.
  Here are the pictures of an airdrop when placed (the purple-pink smoke), here are the pictures of the plane and here are the pictures of the actual drop and whilst they're dropping.
• As for the sandbox, I think it's kinda ugly with all the headers. It's too separated, there's a header for 2 sentences. I think it should be cut up into Early-game and Late-game. Or have Gameplay mechanics or something as a section header. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Those will (I'm sure) be a great help. Feel free to fix the sandbox proposal in any way you see fit; collaboration is our mandate, after all. I'll get on tonight after work (I can't access imgur.com from work, either) and get the images properly uploaded to WP with licensing information. If you haven't had a chance to fix the sandbox, I'll take your suggestion and remove the subsections when I do that, and add the pictures in when I transfer it to the article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Should I resubmit this for reassessment, @PresN and MjolnirPants:. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I say yes. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Refideas

I've listed a reasonable amount of refideas. Hopefully they're useful and can help the article's progression towards GA (if it ever gets out of alpha). I've expanded the reception section and I might work on adding more to the development section later, if I find stuff to add. . Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Airdrop image

As I said in my edit summary, the airdrops are a very important part of this game, but are not commonly found in other games. This presents a situation in which an image of an airdrop helps illustrate the concept. In this particular game, the airdrop is a crate full of 'loot' that any player nearby could grab, if they get there. This differentiates it from those rare other cases of airdrops being used in games, in which their contents are reserved for the player. The image of a big crate sitting out in a field helps to convey that description visually. In addition, many readers may be unfamiliar with airdrops in general, in which case the image provides a reference, illustrating the concept of a big crate full of supplies and equipment. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Not important to me which images need to go, but we typically only include a single screenshot to illustrate the basics of the game (per the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria) and this article has four. The rest have got to go.  czar 03:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

"Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information."

@Czar: 1 image cannot convey enough information, unless we were to merge all of the 3 images into one mashup. One of the images shows the development, one talks about the crafting and one talks about airdrops. How does this fail the criteria? If anything, it's exactly what this guideline means. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It's mainly #8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Each image needs to have a fair use rationale that specifically justifies its inclusion if you need more than one image to understand the topic. Note that we don't use fair use screenshots for each major concept even in the most prominent of games—fair use is really a last resort when there is simply no other non-visual way of understanding the concept at hand. I don't see how this is the case for the airdrop, and the generic gameplay image would not be needed if you're doing a comparison below. The comparison isn't necessary either—the update is not made to be so important in the prose and all the comparison indicates is that the graphics became more detailed. I don't need the image to understand that. czar 13:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It's mainly #8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." That is what is addressed in my first post. In the case of articles about video games, it's perfectly reasonable to interpret NFCC more liberally, because it would not be in the interest of copyright owners to demand the take down of images used in articles about their games. To give a non-video game example, it would be technically possible for the writer of a novel to demand we take down a 5 paragraph plot summary, because he owns the copyright to the story told in it. However, this has never happened (and is never likely to happen) because having a WP article about a book is good for the author, and because the author would not likely win the case, as WP is -by it's very nature- an educational tool.

Note that we don't use fair use screenshots for each major concept even in the most prominent of games There are no screenshots of combat, basebuilding, crafting, etc... This is not the case here. Two important elements of gameplay, both of which have a great potential for being misunderstood due to their uniqueness in video games and their relative obscurity outside of video games were chosen for visual representation. There are a number of other major concepts which aren't illustrated by screen shots.

Finally, I might point out that it is an extremely common practice, commonly defended of using numerous screen shots when a single one doesn't convey a great deal of information about the game. Compare Battlefield 4, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Rage, Fallout 3 and specifically see Talk:Fallout_3/GA1, where the reviewer stated that more images would improve the article.

As a final note, I'm a bit on the fence about the before/after engine image, as well. It does serve to illustrate the differences in graphics, but that doesn't necessarily convey anything about the engine. The graphical changes could have been the result of them tweaking the rendering settings, and changing textures. So if you still want to reduce the number of non-free images, I'm willing to lose that one to bring it down. But the two gameplay images illustrate important information about the game that's difficult to convey using text. Those should stay. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

One final note: Remember that consensus is not a vote. I may be willing to lose the engine change image, but our two voices do not override Anarchyte's voice. I have no real concerns either way, so you'll need to be the one to get him on board before you go ahead and (rm NFCC image per talk page consensus). Apologies if this seems a little preachy, it's just that I've seen horrible arguments begin because one person on one side agreed to a compromise that his or her fellows did not. I don't want to start that, here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The reason I originally wanted the update image included is for a comparison throughout the development period, similar to File:Ellie (The Last of Us) design changes.jpg. There are also images like File:MW2texturestreaming.jpg that show texture differences. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

You know, looking at that image something occurs to me. There are no policy reasons why one of us couldn't reach out to the developers, explain we're trying to improve the Wikipedia article and ask for any artwork or images they're willing to release into the public domain for this purpose, or for permission to use artwork from their website. Indeed, there's even a page in wikispace full of example emails of such requests, at WP:ERP. I think I'll look them up and send out an email tomorrow, and we'll see how they respond. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• I sent the email out on Saturday, and got a response from Garry Newman about an hour ago. He asked for some bullet points of what we're looking for. I've asked for concept art (specifically, showing the revolution of major concepts in the game), representative images of some aspects of the game (such as crafting or airdrops), images of the development team or the development process (pointing out that we probably can't use screenshots of third-party proprietary software, but we could use screenshots of open source or Facepunch proprietary software) and graphs or charts pertaining to public play or sales of the game. I also asked if there was any information we could reference to support the portion about the airdrops, since it's currently unsourced. Also, I may have gushed a bit, having recently picked up the game and thoroughly enjoyed it. But just a bit. One or two sentences. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• Just an update: They said they'd get me some images of major game concepts and/or concept art on Wednesday. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I got the images.

• File:The Dome (Rust).png
• File:Airdrop 1 (Rust).jpg
• File:Airdrop 2 (Rust).jpg
• File:Airdrop 3 (Rust).jpg
• File:Crafting 1 (Rust).jpg
• File:Crafting 2 (Rust).jpg

(Don't worry about the license tags, I've already forwarded the emails on to be verified.) I'm going to wait to ensure there are no problems with verifying the license before I add them to the article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Does this mean we're allowed to reupload the current airdrop pic and the crafting pic in a better quality version? I don't know if I've still got the crafting one but I'll try to find it if that's the case. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: No, those images are still copyrighted and haven't been released under any free license. It would be best to replace the current images with these. In fact, WP policy says we have to replace them, because our fair use justification includes the clause that it can't be replaced with a free image. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: The dome picture was deleted and the other 5 still don't have their OTRS responces. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I got the notification, but it's all good. Once the OTRS responses come, the dome can be undeleted. I still have the version they sent me. I'll also look into seeing if there's anything I can do to expedite the process. I know WMF is busy, but it's been several weeks now. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Any update? Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Yeah, actually. Bad news. OTRS responded that I needed a formal statement of intent from the owners. I forwarded the request to them weeks ago, but have not received a response. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: It looks like the remaining images are going to be deleted due to inactivity. Looks like the article is going to continue to rely on non-free images. I might take a shot at emailing them, but I'd rather not annoy them (having two people ask them for the same thing might seem annoying). Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Yeah, that's what it looks like. I still haven't heard back from them, which leads me to believe I've already edged into being an annoyance. It's a shame, because those were good images. Honestly, the correspondence between us would have held up in any court of law as us being given permission (An exchange of "Hey, can we use some of your copyrighted images?" "Sure! Here's some images!" is about as direct as it gets), but as with any other large organization, with the WMF rules sometimes trump practicality. It's okay, though. The images would have improved the article, but it still looks pretty good to me, considering its sources. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Logo not copyrighted

Currently, the logo of the subject is uploaded exclusively on Wikipedia as copyrighted; however, it should be unambiguous that the logo is too simple to be copyrighted under the US law. Then again, the logo was developed by a British company, so it may never be uploaded on Wikimedia Commons without permission, but I am certain that it is safe to upload this logo on Wikipedia as in the public domain.

Incidentally, the logo should use vector graphics, not raster graphics. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It might be trademarked. We should look into that before deciding whether it's too simple for copyright. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

If it is too simple, we could combine {{PD-logo}} and {{Trademark}} as the licensing. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Gamingforfun365 and MjolnirPants: I've uploaded a new version of the logo, in case that changes anything. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long to get back to you. I actually did some research, and I can't find any evidence that they've done anything to enforce a trademark. So while they may have registered a trademark for the logo, we should be fine with using it on commons. I'll get to work right now on a vector logo for upload. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

"pits" vs. "puts"

I saw the recent exchange, and while both wordings work, the verb usage of "pits" works better if it pits the player against the environment, rather than pitting the player in the environment. I don't want to start another patented WP edit war over a single word, so I'm posting this here to see if there's any backlash instead of either changing it back to "puts" or changing "in" to "against". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I would think it should be phrased "pits players against each other in the environment," if that makes sense. I'll have to bring Anarchyte, who reverted the initial change, for an explanation. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: I'm simply acting along WP:BRD, but yeah, I'm completely find with changing it to "pits players against each other[...]". Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Jd02022092. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Happy to see this work out so congenially. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Apologies to anyone who felt I may have been casting aspersions by suggesting this was likely to turn into an edit war: that was not my intent. I simply felt that there was room for discussion and disagreement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)