Talk:PlaneShift (video game)

List of Releases

User:SpigotMap sustains the list of releases should be removed, with the explanation: "Wikipedia is not a news service and the list of releases does not help the reader understand the article contents in any way". That should tell you much about him. Watch his edits please. --Planeshift rpg (talk) 13:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

I have archived this page because it was getting huge, and SpigotMap and I decided it was time to do so. Old conversations that need to be brought up again should be refactored here to make them easier for other editors to read. Tuxide 23:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

mmhell.com

There's no way that mmhell.com is a reliable source - I've removed it from the article. Miremare 01:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Stub

This article has been practically reduced to a stub, boiled down to merely a brief synopsis of the game's website. I had to go to the archived talk page to find out half of the information about this game, everything in the article itself is spartan to the point of being almost completely uninformative in the endless and banal pursuit of absolute neutrality in every statement, as opposed to an overall tone of neutrality in the article that could be achieved by providing opposing viewpoints. I found the game's website randomly and came here to learn more about it, it's a pity that the polarized factions in the community have managed to all but destroy the article from the point of view of someone completely uninformed, seeking information about the game in the context of culture. I hope that the community serving this article will at some point unite and make this article actually informative again; in the meantime the article page and even this talk page is a WoT (waste o' time)- only the archived talk page is any good. I hope you guys get this straightened out. Twitch3z (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

suggestions of information that you feel should be added would be welcome.Steuben.viscosa (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind, the reason this article almost mirrors the primary source is because that is virtually all it has to work from. If you have secondary reliable sourced information, feel free to add it in. The POV from a normal player of the game can not be added however, they must be from a reliable source. SpigotMap 23:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I know nothing about this game and came here to learn about it, and found nothing. If I did know anything I'd be scared to add it because it seems like a few deletionists seem to have made this article their own personal whipping boy. It's a shame I can't find anything out about this article here, is all. Twitch3z (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

So find sourced information, go to the games website, or stop complaining. This article was cut down due to lack of sourced information, what do you want us to do about it? SpigotMap 00:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What more, exactly, are you looking for from this article? I just read over it and it gives a pretty decent overview of what the game is. That is the intent of this article, to give a good idea of the game, any more then that is is a guide, which this is not. SpigotMap 00:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PlaneShift screenshot 4.jpg

Image:PlaneShift screenshot 4.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Planeshift development status

The website states it's a tech demo. wikipedia states it's a pre-alpha. Sourceforge states it's an alpha. Various claims by the people who develop it state it's a beta. According to the definition of 'beta' on wikipedia, 'beta' is "A beta version is the first version released outside the organization or community that develops the software, for the purpose of evaluation or real-world black/grey-box testing.". Which seems right for this case. Why isn't it a beta? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixie (talk • contribs) 14:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

the dev team has said that it is pre-alpha/alpha. other then the misstatement at the cs conference where else is beta mentioned? Steuben.viscosa (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Happy new year! Today, in less than a week since release, we reached the number of 10.000 unique accounts in our Open Beta server." Quite a while ago on planeshift's main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixie (talk • contribs) 16:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Being an ALPHA version it does not represent in any way the quality and content of the final product." from the .4.00 windows installer eula, released circa march 1,2008. emphasis theirs.Steuben.viscosa (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of the engine claim, but I find it funny that it fully fits the description of a beta rather than an alpha.Sixie (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

then why the erroneous insistant of beta?Steuben.viscosa (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Because I'm not sure why the engine developers keep it classified as an alpha even though It's open for the general public for testing.Sixie (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a Beta because not all features the project wants are there, and it's at release 0.4 and not 1.0. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.40.203.134 (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Posting links to cheat or other development material

Recently the page has been edited by adding links to a personal developer page where he is tried to create some hacks for PlaneShift. Basically a modified version of the client, which is not official, not tested.

This are the points against posting such info:

• if you post that page, then you should also post all other similar pages, there are a million out there, and this will clutter incredibly the PS wiki page, making it too hard to read
• the link you posted also have an exe in it, which is not verified and can harm the computers of the people who try to download it. We do not know if it contains viruses or spyware or other harmful code.
• the fact this developer says he discovered a breach is just his own idea, it's not supported by other info, and I think it should not be considered true info to be posted on a wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.8.204.208 (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  

Let's follow your points: - As far as I know, The page doesn't belong to a developer. - There is no 'official' version of the client. You can't make 'official' builds of GPL code. The only thing distributed there is covered by GPL, which allows for free modification of existing GPL code as long as the source is released and the license is kept. - I can claim the same for Planeshift. This page links to a downloads of Planeshift - Which is an unverified exe that can harm computers of people who try to use it. - The proof of concept was confirmed by several people. That's why the source code is included in proof of concept - So you can verify it yourself.

security vulnerabilty as laid out in the link can/is/has been used as a cheat. by: "Wikipedia is not a strategy guide or instruction manual. Wikipedia articles should focus on the games themselves, not on how to play them; they should not contain tips, tricks, or cheat codes." it is not to be included. hence it's _repeated_ deletion. and will continue to be deleted until the second can clear that clause. the proper way to report such things is to do it through the related development channels for the project or to submit a patch that will fix the problem. as is the way that open source appears to claim is the process. security vulnerability or not. gpl code or not. official or not. given by <insert deity here> or not. it does not matter. it does not belong. Steuben.viscosa (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

While it may be used for the purpose you described, The main reason I've added it to the article isn't to encourage cheating, but to show the poor level of security feature design on the engine part. For example, You can claim that Punkbuster#Attacks_on_PunkBuster section should be deleted from the article.Sixie (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

null point. that is the effect it will have. it still remains a cheat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steuben.viscosa (talk • contribs) 21:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's one of the effects it will have, but It's not the main purpose of that section. Just like the "Attacks on PunkBuster" isn't there to encourage cheating PunkBuster.Sixie (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

null point. it is an effect and is as sucha cheat.Steuben.viscosa (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC) additional: WP:OTHERSTUFF is an invalid argument.

Again, The purpose isn't to promote cheating. Feel free to clarify that in the article if you find it lacking - But stop repeating yourself.Sixie (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

null point. purpose has no bearing. effect and usage are the point. it still remains as a cheat. you have not removed that problem. it is your information my clarification has been noted. i am repeating myself because the main point has apparently not been grasped. it is a cheat and as such should not be included in the article.Steuben.viscosa (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In that case, Please explain to me why the "Attacks on PunkBuster" is valid in it's context.Sixie (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF is an invalid argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steuben.viscosa (talk • contribs) 22:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I used it to point that showing issues with the engine isn't just to give out cheats - but to give out information about the engine itself. It only effects code which is under GPL, and is in no way specific to any proprietary content. You can't claim that such demonstration for a server code is a 'cheat'. Applying it on specific servers is cheating - which isn't the purpose of my writing. Again, Please feel free to clarify in the article that this is a proof of concept for security faults, rather than cheats.
On a side note, You'd be ok with this 'Kemedes' guy posting proof of concept code for something that crashes the server?Sixie (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

your edit. you clarify. it is still a cheat. you have not successfully argued aginst it. to answer the other question: no. Steuben.viscosa (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll edit it and do my best to clarify that it's not a cheat and should not be used as one. I think that 'Kemedes' already states it quite clearly in his page. About the crashing code, why not? It's not cheating...Sixie (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

it still has the effect as a cheat will still be considered one regardless of purpose or intent. Steuben.viscosa (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well... Not much I can say, I guess we'll agree to disagree on that one. I'll edit the article to point out that it isn't a cheating method, but an example of possible problems with the codebase.Sixie (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

it is still a cheat and will be considered and treated as such.Steuben.viscosa (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but just deleting it isn't 'reaching a compromise'. Feel free to edit it as you see fit, but not deleting it. I can't reach a compromise with people who just hit their heads at a wall and claim "It's a cheat! That's all!". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixie (talk • contribs) 07:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

we have been. editing it as we see fit, is cutting it out. wiki is not about compromise. it is about consensus. there is no points on which to comprimise. intent and purpose have no weight in the matter. it is either a cheat or it is not. you have presented no arguements that it is not a cheat, again regardless of intent or purpose of it.Steuben.viscosa (talk) 08:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Unless we reach a compromise - It'll just keep going back and forth. If we go by your definition of cheating, any proof of concept code against UBUNTU is cheat.Sixie (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

To me it's really cluttering the page, you could post 100 other unverified dev pages with modified code, that's not the purpose of Wikipedia. You are not documenting the game. Also your argument about PlaneShift download page is wrong. PlaneShift exe has been verified by 3rd parties and there is also a certificate for this posted on the web site. Linking unverified exes is dangerous and a very bad practice. You are helping hackers.

I'm not sure why you claim it's unverified. The source code is right there. Verify it yourself... URL removed by Tuxide (talk), see comment below —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.112.42 (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thought I would mention that I don't consider Kemedes a reliable source. It looks like original research to me (original in the sense that it is not a secondary source of information, although he is clearly not the first to do this). Tuxide (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Very naive in my opinion, how you knoe the exe is containing only those source changes? It may have other changes in it, like spyware or malware. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.40.203.134 (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur, a 30KB C++ source file does not generate a 6.4MB binary. I am taking the liberty to remove the URL from this talk page as well since it obviously cannot be trusted, as per #3 on WP:EL#AVOID. Tuxide (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Install malware? Did it infact try installing malware? Since if it didn't - You just broke a bunch of rules editing my posts on the DISCUSSION page. The file itself doesn't generate 6.4mb source - The entire planeshift source does. I've just tried building it and got the same .exe. Anyway - Same can be said for planeshift, who says that the 'official' binary isn't modified in some way? Sorry, But I don't really trust the "Softpedia 100% free" picture you have there. Deleting this link is a valid reason to remove any links to planeshift's main site. Please - Before you talk check it yourself. Don't just delete my links. URL removed by Tuxide (talk), see comment below Sixie (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I am taking the liberty to remove it again. I don't trust any binary that Kemedes generates, especially one that's 6.4MB. Tuxide (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

the planeshift site is not wikipedia. the reasons do not apply. nor is it an arguement in your favour.67.71.83.235 (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The link to planeshift's site contains the 'official' binaries. Those files are not verified and may contain viruses, worms, and hacks.Sixie (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

null point. the binary behind the link is unofficial, regardless of the definition, and as such carries little weight, and is of uncertified providence. besides as of .3.20 the ps binaries are.Steuben.viscosa (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh... And what exactly makes the 'official' planeshift binaries safe? The fact that they're 'official'? Or maybe that funny Softpedia picture you got there? Who exactly builds your binaries? Did anyone check them after the build? Did someone hack that server and uploaded his hacked binaries? My point is, The 'official' planeshift binaries are as safe as the proof of concept.Sixie (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

your unsupported and currently baseless point. supoort what you are saying with proof. research the softpedia mark. and then speak. or attempt a different arguement.67.71.83.235 (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to say it, But that's exactly what you were doing. Claiming that the proof of concept has viruses in it. The softpedia mark on the planeshift website is both outdated (just click on it and see - It's valid for the previous version of planeshift) and doesn't actually help much if it was valid ('who are softpedia anyway?').Sixie (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't add the URL back into the talk page; nobody wants to download it because it's a binary, and we do not need to link to it because of the potential for it to hurt people's systems. It also doesn't belong in the article namespace because it is not notable. This is not the Konami Code; I don't see any news articles written about this, and self-asserting notability is inappropriate on Wikipedia. Removing the entire section from the article needs no compromise because the whole section fails WP:N and various other guidelines here. Tuxide (talk) 09:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Please STOP editing my posts. The source code is included on that site, that's why I post it. Not notable? The problem described in URL redacted due to potential security risk and intellectual property concerns -- you can still find it in the edit history if you really want is known for a while in the community, the code sample included on that site isn't a news report, it's not something new, It's an article about something that's been around there for a while (You're the one who stated that someone else discovered it first.). Here is another examplea of the very same thing: [[1]]. Anyhow, Planeshift itself isn't notable enough to cause much fuss about such 'cheats' for it, if you remember right - It had some difficulty finding source to prove it's notability.Sixie (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

notability of planeshift is irrelevant. notability of the article is irrelevant. it is a cheat.67.71.83.235 (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I had to seek a second opinion from some more established editors before removing the URL from your comments. I know they are not mine, but editing people's comments is appropriate in some rare cases (such as removing personal details) as permitted by WP:TALK, and this is one of them. Otherwise, I am not changing the meaning of what you say. Tuxide (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The link doesn't contain prohibited materials, and does not fit into any other category for removal on WP:TALK. Furthermore, everything you claim here can apply on the links to the planeshift site in the article - which contain binary files.Sixie (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thought I would mention that I've gone to WP:WQA seeking a third opinion whether the URL is appropriate in the talk namespace as per WP:TALK and WP:EL#AVOID. My enemy is incivility, and I don't know what else I can do on this talk page without promoting it. Tuxide (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

first planeshift is not wikipedia. second the website is _not_ affiliated with planeshift in anyway. third it is of unknown/untraceable providence. fourth, and this overules, all it contains software that can/will/is be used as a cheat. and that fourth point is the basic bone of contention. remove that fourth point and things will probably become easier for you.206.126.170.20 (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Citations for security issues

For the one who wanted citations - You want examples of 'exploits' (buffer overflow, stack overflow...) or 'bugs' (dupe bugs, speed hacks)?

WP:CITE Steuben.viscosa (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that and added 2 cites that show other exploits in the code. But looks like you didn't like them. You want to see the actual code lines that caused them?Sixie (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

would it support your supposition that it has no effect as a cheat?Steuben.viscosa (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say there ("and security issues can be found throughout the code") is that you can find many other ways to exploit the server. Looks like you didn't like examples of existing exploits, Why not?Sixie (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

security is not exploit. if you wish to change the content of the section to allow the usage of those references go ahead. but then it will definiately be cheats and dissallowed.Steuben.viscosa (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Death Realm

I did check the FAQ before editing that. The article claimed that the death realm will be expanded in a future version based on a quote from the FAQ ("In Crystal Blue the Death Realm is very small, but it will be expanded later."). Now that we're at the 'next version' (Steel Blue) and the death realm still wasn't expanded - The article was just plain wrong.Sixie (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

no version indication in either the faq or the article was given. hence the later still applies. if the faq or the article had said in <insert version here> the dr would be expanded and we had passed that version. then it would be wrong. later just simpy hasn't arrived yet. btw, that was not was you had said in your edit note.Steuben.viscosa (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Information about Planeshift in article

The information that is provided in the article about settings and most of gameplay falls under Wikipedia:NOTGUIDE#GUIDE. Specifically, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter.". From what I see in the information provided by the article, its almost a copy-paste work from the manuals of the game. Any thoughts?Sixie (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC) I'd also say it definitely falls under 'instruction manual'.Sixie (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

many thoughts. it may be cut from the ps manual but it is not the manual. nor is it a full list of the entire game content. nor is it a full description of settings of the game. nor is it explain game mechanics etc. the critia of Wikipedia:NOTGUIDE#GUIDE have been met.Steuben.viscosa (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

how many?

so how many are needed to _finally_ kill this darned fool notability/sources things that people are complaining about?Steuben.viscosa (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You'll want to take a look at WP:SOURCES and WP:NOTE. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

so... you don't know either.Steuben.viscosa (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting that you read the policies. I don't mean to be a jerk here, but I'm not going to hold your hand on this. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

which oddly i did, and which oddly didn't answer the question. but, since you have filed the complaint of insufficency you must have some idea of what would be sufficent.Steuben.viscosa (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, every statement should be referenced or it is subject to removal. Realistically, a few statements from reliable, third-party published sources indicating notability is enough to justify its presence on Wikipedia. As far as this article goes, it needs statements about awards the game has won, the number of players or market share it has, things like that. One huge problem with the article, and a good argument toward its removal at this time, is that the game has not even been released. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we generally don't collect information about future events unless there are, in this case, multiple independent sources saying that it will be notable. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

there were player stats but were removed during the last round of major edits surrounding notability/sources, on oct 19, 4 am. so are they now acceptable or is it a pov statement on what is sufficent? and as the article states the early versions have been released. the last major one in march, 2008 and a minor one the past few months.Steuben.viscosa (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe it depends on how the number of players is presented. If it's in the order of millions of players, that goes a long way towards proving notability. When it's merely hundreds, that's just a pointless factiod. A claim like "PlaneShift has X players, the highest number of a players in an alpha-release MMO" (along with an appropriate citation) would be an example of using player numbers to prove notability, at least in my mind. Of course, the more proof of notability you cite, the better chance the article would have of surviving an AfD. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not necessarily a matter of how many third-party sources that are used, it's how much of the article is based on primary sources. Primary sources are fine but they shouldn't be used for everything, else it would make one biased article. I would make the edits myself but I'm awfully busy. Tuxide (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's ridiculous to nitpick on notability of this particular game. There are far worse subjects whose notability isn't questioned. Judging by Wyatt's comments seems like he's on some kind of a personal crusade by having an overly enthusiastic focus on this article. I might add that the sole fact that there are very few Open Source MMORPGs and even fewer ones that are so successful is more than an interesting tidbit, it's a good example of a rare kind of FOSS. In addition the project has existed for a long time (is not a month old project that will fade out and die soon), another point for notability. Thirdly, I don't see a lot of other people questioning the notability, so I'm rather interested in why the notability banner is allowed to stay even though the general consensus seems to be in contrary to it? --piksi (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm on a personal crusade to improve a whole lot of articles relating to MMOs in general, not just PlaneShift. Please remember that notability and verifiability are inclusion criterion on Wikipedia. Just because you know that it's notable doesn't mean that everyone else does, or that it's blatantly obvious to everyone who reads this article. We need to prove it. Wyatt Riot (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Wyatt Riot is on a cowboy crusade here. My god people, assume good faith. Tuxide (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

with the two most recent additions, have we reached sufficency? i don't know how he/she found them but find them he/she did. so we have hit four and the primary source. Steuben.viscosa (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

While it's a good start, they're just off-hand mentions covering very basic facts about the game, really nothing that can't be found on the developer's site. WP:NOTE requires "significant coverage", like an article specifically on the game. The article itself doesn't even make any claims that the game is notable. Wyatt Riot (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

for a given value of "significant coverage". and of which we have two articles that do specifically cover the game. so given that, is it sufficent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steuben.viscosa (talk • contribs) 22:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The Linux Magazine article looks like it may fit the bill, but alas, I cannot read Spanish. The first two references are only off-hand mentions. I have no idea what's in the TUX references, but since it's a single page, I'm inclined to believe that it's also an off-hand mention. What we really need are concrete claims that this game is notable and citations from reliable sources to back up those claims. The scant references we have may be enough to survive an AfD, but I wouldn't count on it. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

babelfish the article, before laying judgement on the linux mag article. the number of pages actually refered to in references has little if any weight. the tux magazine article is freely available on line. your lack of famility with the pair of articles is insufficient to remove them from consideration. both articles are multipage and appear to satisfy wp:note, unless there are some sublties that i am missing. so given that we have two magazine articles, of non-trivial length, that are both indpendent of each other and independant of the primary source, do we have sufficency to clear wp:note or am i still missing some subtlty here?Steuben.viscosa (talk) 02:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The sources are an issue, but not the issue. They're supposed to reference every statement made in the article, which clearly isn't done (but which is something that is typically overlooked if there are a lot of high-quality sources). But sources are also supposed to back up any claims of notability, which also isn't done in this article. We can guess that something is notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia if there are multiple independent third-party sources that talk about it, but the article is still supposed to lay that out for the reader. Readers shouldn't have to guess at why something is important. Just as it's the job of an editor who adds material to provide a source, it's the job of an editor who starts an article to include claims of the subject's notability. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

for a given value of important. so, every sentence needs a little footnote for it? or just most? or just some? but, in either case which statements do you think are missing suitable references? what is needed to layout the notablity of the article, aside from the rather ambigous needs more references? it still comes down to the first question, how many is multiple?Steuben.viscosa (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, every claim should be referenced. Unreferenced claims may be removed by any editor at any time for any reason. As far as notability goes, articles need to spell out what makes their subject notable. There are various policies covering different categories (read through WP:MUSIC for music and WP:WEB for web-based content, for instance) but there are no hard-and-fast requirements for games (although there is a proposal that parallels the notability requirements of other categories). Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

silly question time. where does it say that the articles have to spell out notability? and for that matter what is additionally needed? reading through them, and ignoring inapplicable points, notabiliy does appear to have been proven. so what is stil missing?Steuben.viscosa (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In WP:LEAD, for example. Hell, per WP:CSD, some articles can be deleted on sight if they don't indicate why the subject is important. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, after all, not a guidebook (pretty much what this article is) and certainly not an indiscriminate collection of information. If this game is encyclopedic (and I'm not convinced that it is, although I think it may be someday, but it still needs the references to back that up), it needs to come out and say why. Or, barring that, we need a number of citations from high profile or well-known sources that make its notability completely obvious. Sources like Wired or PC Gamer. Most editors would probably be satisfied with many lower profile sources (5-10, probably), but that's always up to the individual editor and it could go either way in a deletion discussion. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

okay now we are finally getting something that we can work with to improve the article. let me get back to you on the improvements. so why did it take a month to get that as an answer?21:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steuben.viscosa (talk • contribs)

Because people have other things to do besides edit Wikipedia? I mean seriously, it took me three weeks to remove a personal attack section from this talk page. Tuxide (talk) 08:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As a note, the "personal attack section" could also be identified as a request for someone to stop harassing another project, and attempting to inform the Wikipedia community that a "neutral" author has been attacking projects he views as "competing" with Wikipedia. [2] I was also unaware that removing other people's comments was a valid alternative to attempt at debate on Wikipedia. Darker Dreams (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You wrote an attack section on this page with my name on it. I removed it because it was promoting incivility (for being here) and it was clearly addressed to me, so I assumed you misplaced it. Tuxide (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

oh and notable != important.70.24.78.93 (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed notable tag. This is one of the larger free open source MMORPGs around. It is listed as one of the best Linux games, and on many gaming guides. Wikipedia has longer articles on silly Japanese cartoons that don't involve tens of thousands of users. Just because somebody is "on a crusade" to limit articles about MMORPGs, that doesn't make them less notable.Perspectoff (talk) 06:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Perspectoff; simply removing the tag without actually adding links to the article that support what you've stated in Talk is likely to lead to someone simply re-adding the tag. Someone has indicated that the links in the article are insufficient, you've stated that these articles exist- there is a clear way to solve the argument; add links to outside sources for the claims you're making. Simply brushing it off as a "crusade" is unlikely to win friends or agreement- especially given the fact that many of those "silly Japanese cartoons" have gotten significantly trimmed, this is particularly outlined in WP:OSE.

Tuxide; someone who's attempted what amounts to (petty, poorly handled) blackmail doesn't get to cry "incivility" when they're called on it. Assume it was placed however you like- the fact is you've been banned elsewhere for acting disruptively in pursuit of "supporting" PS. I could give a damn about whether planeshift is considered notable, non-notable, or otherwise in WP- what does bother me significantly is that you've chosen to be a partisan of PS elsewhere and then claim to be a "neutral" party here. Darker Dreams (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree with Perspectoff . There are people that continue to add disclaimers to PlaneShift specifically just to limit the visibility of this game. They are not fair at all in their review. PlaneShift is one of the largest really free mmorpg (if not the only one) and it's represented on the major review sites and has thousands of players, I see no problem is the current article information, which is absolutely BASIC in content. I don't understand how can someone pretend that information is not validated. --92.103.172.106 (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to read up on WP:VERIFIABILITY to see why we can not take your word on the notability or verifiability of the statements in this article. I, along with 99% of the rest of Wikipedia do not play this game. However, wikipedia has policies and guidelines as outlined in WP:POLICY. If statements made in this article can not be backed up by verifiable sources, then the game fails WP:NOTABILITY. Thanks! SpigotMap 12:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticism?

I think that, if this article is to stay, then like any good encyclopedia article, it should acknowledge criticism. Now, what should be criticism?

I don't think that one can just say things like "this game sucks" here. i can personally verify that I've played the game for about a year, and in that time, I was perfectly content with playing it.

Sure, it's true that many of the features described in the settings aren't implemented in the game yet. But as far as criticism goes, that's trivial. Better to mention that in the description of the game, than as criticism.

In the time that I've played, yes, I've seen things that I'm inclined to call corruption and foul play. But in that time, I've seen very similar corruption from, for instance, the US government. So, I think it's better to conclude that it's a global phenomenon, rather than something inherent to PS.

So what's left to criticize? PS frequently asserts itself as being not like all the other games (look, for example, at the page describing the rationale for the game's licensing). I think that academic criticism against this particular assertion is fair game, and should be represented on the page.

68.100.138.21 (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Following up on my own comment, I'm not sure we can assume that a person is going to have an implicit understanding of what the game is about. What particular notion of roleplay does the game favor? For example, a Game Master isn't always directly involved in the gameplay. If we take roleplay to mean that it's about not PvPing / PvEing / skill leveling, then that gets rid of essentially everyone that plays the game as a game. 68.100.138.21 (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

academic criticism of the license would be?76.66.49.130 (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Although I have seen academic papers written by third parties on the subject, all the ones I've seen in my opinion don't pass WP:RS. For example there's a 2008 conference paper I once saw, and I probably wouldn't use it here because conference papers in general tend not to get peer reviewed a whole lot compared to journal papers. The conference for that paper in particular was more a one-time thing for the university's staff, and not some established conference that had been around for many years. Also all the ones I've seen are about the engine and not the actual game. I'm not saying don't use the one I posted as a source, I'm just saying I don't think sources like the one I posted here would pass WP:RS. Tuxide (talk) 06:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)