Talk:Infantry (video game)

For previous discussions, please see Archive 1

The Free Infantry Debate

This article serves purposes more academic than not; it serves to inform viewers about the history as well as the current status of the game. This is inclusive of the entire Infantry community, underground or otherwise. FreeInfantry is still an Infantry community; it is part of the game's history. Therefore, it is entirely relevant and should be included in the article. I do suggest, however, keeping FreeInfantry out of external links, so that advertising does not become an issue. Mokkan88 10:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I applied the POV for this reason. While the legal status of FreeInfantry is debatable, and Sony's stance towards it may be different; in all, this is just a Wikipedia article, that documents factual information. However, by including information about FreeInfantry, links, direct downloads, and advertisements should be limited. Io Katai 11:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to contest that tag based on what I feel is WP:COI, you have an account which has made nearly all of its edits attributed to articles of or relating to Sony Station games. besides, this issue isn't a matter of POV, its more of a violation of WP:3RR, and I'm contemplating requesting outside commentary on the matter. // 3R1C 16:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No WP:COI between wikipedia and Sony Online Entertainment. The conflict of interest is only between Sony Online Entertainment and freeinfantry.com. Simply maintain the informative style in this article. Tonytypoon 22:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarification I feel that the editor that marked this document as POV is whats conflicting, not Sony and Wikipedia. Edit: I feel that theres a conflict of interest when an obviously single-purpose account comes into a talk page and smacks tags without discussion. Regardless, the issue is still about respecting WP:3RR, not ensuring the articles NPOV. // 3R1C 23:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the POV on the basis that the neutrality of the article has not been compromised. Legality has no bearing on whether or not it can be included in a Wikipedia article (see marijuana, pedophilia). The fact that FreeInfantry exists as an Infantry community and that it plays a significant role in the game's history is grounds for its inclusion. Mokkan88 05:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with what that. // 3R1C

I'm sick of this constant reversion. An RfC needs to be filed, in my opinion, but I have no idea how to do it. Anyone willing to list it? // 3R1C 00:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I owe an apology for the POV; I would've prefered another COI-similar warning, but unlike the French wiki, the English one lacks a more specific template. It was mainly due to the constant reverts, changes, and advertisements associated with FreeInfantry. Just look at the article's history page, and note how many (opiniated) reverts and edits have been made. I'm in no way taking sides, but this is just an informative article, and providing information about FreeInfantry is in no way illegal or against wiki standards. So by using the NPOV, I had mainly just intended to get people to check the discussion page before making reverts or edits. Anyhow, a better solution than just enforcing the WP:3RR is needed. -- Io Katai 13:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion this is getting ridiculous. The server of Freeinfantry as it is now is 100% Legal and there is no reason that it shouldn't be listed here.-I am a shadow 11:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing

The article as it is now is completely unsourced. This, in my opinion (and in the view of policy) is far more important than any debate over whether FreeInfantry should be included. As it is, I don't believe it should, as there are no reliable sources given for it, but I'd like to give time for sources to be provided, since at the current time, removing unsourced material would require that the entire article be blanked. Please see WP:A for more information. --Philosophus ^T 23:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree the article looks much better now, I hated having all that information in the way. Should I get to removing all the unsourced information from religous articles while you nail down the rest of the videogames?-I am a shadow 10:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The information has to be unsourced in order to remove it, which means something quite specific per WP:A. But if you can find that sort of information, then you can remove it, and should at least at fact or verify tags (see Template:verify and Template:fact). In this case I chose to remove the information because I thought it would serve as a method for ending the edit war. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the topic to add sourced material to it - that will be up to you, Thescrin, and others. Just keep everything sourced, and the edit dispute shouldn't arise again. The legality of things in this sort of situation that are mentioned in Wikipedia is not an issue if they are sourced - we're an encyclopedia, and exist to describe things, not censor them as we see fit, or advertise them. --Philosophus ^T 10:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this blowing over too well. When something is unsourced, you just apply the unsourced tags (Wikipedia:Verifiability) and someone fixes it after. Only if it's been there for an extended amount of time should it be considered to be removed. Anyhow, WP:A cites:

The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".

Thus it is not an official rule, but rather a guideline. Io Katai 12:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a guideline that isn't being followed. Regardless if its policy or a guideline, its still not following it either way. Besides, most of the information has been there for some time, unsourced and constantly reverted. The history preserves the information; Go find reliable sources for the topic you want to include, then re-add the information. It's not that hard. // 3R1C 15:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the policy situation there has become a bit of a mess. A few weeks ago, WP:A was official policy. A group of editors deprecated WP:V and WP:NOR, and WP:RS, and made WP:A, which is essentially a merge of the three, into official policy. There was discussion about this for some time, and apparently the outcome was that V, NOR, and RS were restored to their original status, and A was changed to proposed. This doesn't change anything in the slightest for this article, however, since V and NOR are official policy, and say nearly exactly the same things - in fact, not only are they policy, but they are core, non-negotiable policy, whose spirit cannot be changed even by the will of every editor on Wikipedia save for Jimbo. Also, note that A will never be a guideline. When it is accepted, it will be core policy. --Philosophus ^T 20:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Philosophus, I have been playing this game since 2000, and can verify the accuracy of this article. This article was created by Infantry players and is maintained by Infantry players. You claim to have never played the game, and I suspect you have no interest in the game. Thus, your business here as anything less than an irrelevant stickler is beyond me. Leave this to the Infantry players. As I said in the recent edit, any alterations reminiscent of your "cleanup" (read: bastardization) of this article will be reverted. Mokkan88 21:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my position here is as an enforcer of policy. Your verification of the article is irrelevant - did you read the policy I linked to? We need reliable source (an editor cannot be a reliable source) to support every statement in the article. It is the responsibility of editors who want the material to be there to find the sources; I do not need to find counter-sources in order to delete unsourced material. Besides, leaving the article to Infantry players would cause conflict of interest policy problems. Please don't revert my removal of unsourced material without finding sources first. --Philosophus ^T 22:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There you go asshat, I did it just for you. Hope you can sleep better tonight, knowing the balance of the world is back on track. God forbid an article contain unsourced information.Mokkan88 03:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)