Talk:PlaneShift (video game)

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)

Notability of founder

Question: Why does Luca Pancallo even need to be mentioned in the first place? Tuxide (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe because he invented and created the game? Or is this just the next piece of information from the article you are targeting to remove? Xyz231 (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it's not like Luca Pancallo has done anything else and it's not like there are news articles written about him, so it can probably be removed. Tuxide (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I can find nothing notable about the guy. The article is about the game. SpigotMap 14:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The author of a game is relevant to the article, like it is Atomic Blue the company supporting it. So next you will want to remove also Atomic Blue? And what about the release dates? Are not very interesting for the game itself, just collateral. And platforms? Those can be read on the web site, so you want to remove them? You can go on like this and remove everything, but that's not the purpose of an encyclopedia. As stated you should stay away from this article. Xyz231 (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No. Seeing how "Luca" is part of the development team, Atomic Blue, it is redundant to list his name there as he is not notable and it is just a way to insert his name somewhere it has no place. System requirements are acceptable in video game articles, as are release dates, that's encyclopedic material. Listing un-notable developers, however, is not. SpigotMap 13:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I think we can definitely remove Luca Pancallo from the article, unless some source like Massively or Kotaku writes an article on him primarily (and not on the game). If such a news article existed, then people can read this article and know exactly who he is. Tuxide (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of interviews and resources on the interviews on him, examples:

• http://next.videogame.it/planeshift/3533/
• http://news.mmosite.com/data/p/u/2006/03/24/194048044.html
• http://www.crystalspace3d.org/main/Conference2006
• http://www.gamesurge.com/pc/interviews/ld/luca.shtml
• http://www.onrpg.com/MMO/Planeshift/interview/Planeshift-05-Interview-Grinding-is-Pointless —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyz231 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

All unreliable sites, I'm afraid. Please take a look at the WikiProject Video games list of sources. Wyatt Riot (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

They may be unreliable for adding content to the article in terms of features of the game, and this is why those are not sources of the article today. The point here was different though. Those sources are mentioned to validate the importance of the founder, and the fact he was interviewed in multiple sites, which are some of the biggest gaming sites out there, is enough to me. What's the problem in mentioning the founder, or even the full team, if it's a valid and verified information? Xyz231 (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The founder of the game, being unnotable, is of no real significance to the article. The point is not to verify that he exists, but that he is significant enough to warrant addition. SpigotMap 12:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

How can you say it's not significant in the context of the article? He is the founder of the game!! If the game is notable, then the founder is as well and worth to be mentioned. It's encyclopedic and historical information. If you remove it, and all other sources are destroyed, none will know who was the founder, so the encyclopedic objective will not be met at all. You are continuing to destroy knowledge through the wrong application of Wikipedia rules. Xyz231 (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you were saying about using those sources as proof on this Talk page, and that's fine. But as far as your most recent comment goes, I think you misunderstand the goals of Wikipedia. Yes, it's a community-driven encyclopedia, but we're not here to document every truthful-but-trivial piece of information out there. Our standards are based on verifiability, not truth (emphasis in original), and the verifiability part refers to basing our articles on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. So we're not destroying knowledge, we're just choosing not to base our articles on, to be quite frank, low-quality and unreliable sources. If anything, I'd say that's helping knowledge by separating the wheat from the chaff. Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I went through all of them and I agree with the consensus here: These are not really good sources for establishing the notability of the founder. The issue is that the primary subject of all of these sources is the game and not Luca Pancallo himself. Also, notability is not inherited; just because the game may be notable doesn't mean he is. Tuxide (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I've temporarily removed it until we can establish he is in-fact project director and notable enough to warrant inclusion per WP:NPF. SpigotMap 16:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"until we can establish he is in-fact project director" That's just ridiculous. You have serious problems man, really really serious problems. So you now questioning he is not the project director? You have a hole in your head instead of a brain. And yes, you read it right, that's what I said. Now go and ask your big daddy admins to ban me, like a small girl crying for being subtracted his toy. There is no way to discuss with someone that questions facts so evident. This is the end of my discussion with you. Shame on you. Liar. Xyz231 (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

All facts, especially dealing with living persons must be backed with reliable sources. SpigotMap 17:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Go and play with the Pokemons, that's all you can do. Xyz231 (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you a lover boy for Luca? Get over yourself. Quoted from your user page: "Contributing to this world is the purpose of life to me, and so the life of a troublemakers values nothing, is void and insignificant.". You are a joke- you have made no contributions outside petty squabbles and editing the Planeshift article. How about doing writing a constructive article instead of arguing over a petty minor point. Who cares if he is notable or not. He might only be notable to you since you're obsessed with Planeshift, but in general not for everyone else. Genjix (talk) 05:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting how you judge me without knowing anything. Very smart. Also I guess you didn't read the full story, because your comment comes out of the blue and shows you don't know the background. Even if you don't deserve an answer, I will give it anyway. The founder was just one of the piece of information which have been removed from the article, which has been bashed for months by the usual suspects (aka banned ex-players who explicitly stated they hate the game). So if there is someone obsessed, it's them, not me. About my contributions, I will never contribute anything else to Wikipedia, as it's a "can of worms" and the truth is defined by the people who have most time to spend in silly edit warring. This article has proven to me that the content of wikipedia is unreliable. Xyz231 (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall anyone on here saying they hated the game, and I certainly don't. I just don't think PlaneShift and Luca Pancallo are the same thing. Notability is certainly not inherited. Tuxide (talk) 05:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how this has generated so much discussion. Questioning the notability of a person can't possibly be construed as a personal attack or any insult unless that same person is the one perceiving the question. Either this guy is written about or he isn't. Spacexplosion^[talk] 07:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Notability is not used to judge article content Given the length and digression of the discussion, I've bolded the beginning to denote a shift in discussion. Having had a look at the threads here and some in the archive I see much of the discussion here has been contentious, and strangely so to me. And while I can understand the desire to curtail pure enthusiasm for the sake of the article, the application of notability on this issue is patently misapplied. Quoting from [WP:NNC], the directly pertinent portion of the notability policy:

"The notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article on Wikipedia and do not govern article content. The question of content coverage within a given page is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.

However, notability may be used as an inclusion criterion for lists. This guideline does not override that usage (see Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists)."

All the notability policies, including those regarding biographies of people who are not well known do not apply. With regard to content, see [WP:VG/GL]. Content on development and history is deemed essential. If there is a creator or founder or whatever, I for one consider that relevant. Though we don't want trivia or just random facts, that doesn't mean every fact has to be of particular interest to any potential reader. If I look up Toledo Mudhens to see if they had any other popular culture references outside of M*A*S*H, I don't care who founded this minor league team, but I'd expect it to be in a serious encyclopedic article. Same for video games. With regard to due weight, simply naming the creator, or even current project lead on an alpha/beta level project does not overly focus on that person.

As to the call for reliable sources, I'm wondering if there is any doubt out all, let alone significant regarding this fact. This is a start class article, and I'm not even asking if there is a basis for the doubt, but if there is no real doubt about it, this seems a minor aspect of the article. That said, I'll note that, in this case, even a primary source should be acceptable. Though secondary sources are the preferred sources, where there is no issue of interpretation and no question of reliability of the information inherent in a primary source, it will be enough, and even more appropriate. For example, a book itself should be citable for the author, we don't need a review to confirm that. At this point, I've only seen Pancallo listed on the site documentation as project director/leader. For now, is there any challenge to that fact? IMHO (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that Luca Pancallo is not "the founder" but is just one of the guys, and I don't know their number. I don't see any reason to list him in such a way that would imply he's extra-special. Also, I don't think primary sources should be used to confirm this because Luca Pancallo himself has exclusive and absolute control over everything on planeshift.it and he can make whatever claim he wants to on it. Furthermore, project director/leader doesn't imply he's the founder by any means. Leadership may change over time and he can be the only person on the team for all I know. Tuxide (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Although this is an open source project, it is apparently run and controlled by a corporation, Atomic Blue, whose own website say that Pancallo and one other person are the entire board. Your premise seems to be that the corporation or other form of organization would not police it's own members. Without contrary data, I don't see why the primary source shouldn't be used here, so long as the fact is neutral to planeshift, as opposed to one member. I'm not pressing that point though. It's bizarre though to argue on the hand that he has exclusive control of the official website and other the other hand he is nothing special. Keep in mind that though the source code is open, the art, etc. is proprietary and is presumably controlled by the corporation. There is an ownership interest in policing claims. Also, it stands to reason that there IS a hierarchy to resolve disputes about what direction the content of the game should take. Is there any reason to not believe the Planeshift or Atomic Blue websites on the point of heirarchy? IMHO (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what a lot is you just said, but one conclusion you made stands out as irrelevant. There are many people in this world who run their own websites entirely by themselves that don't need to be mentioned on Wikipedia. Nor do their self-serving websites need to be used as reliable sources, see WP:SPS. Furthermore, if this Atomic Blue thing is real, then there's one surefire way to confirm that and that's to see if they file their taxes. Tuxide (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

And I'm certainly not saying anyone should be mentioned for running a website. Most of what I wrote discussed reliability, which is a consideration for a source whether it is primary or secondary. I haven't installed planeshift. I am assuming it's real. If it's real, even if it is open source, someone has to be charge, at the very least to decide what to do with proprietary (owned) content. That means, there is some group/person in charge who can come down on some crack who falsely claims to be in charge. Now if the person on the website is in charge, that person's name, whether or not the person him or her self is notable, is appropriate to list. If that is the official planeshift website, then it's equivalent to a paper manual that would come with a physical copy of the game. And that should be sufficient for the head of the development team. As to WP:SPS note the references to expert opinions. It's talking about evaluations, analysis and interpretations. A game company self publishes it's manuals, but the manuals can be relied upon for credits of development, just as a movie credits can be used to determine who acted under what role in a film.

I'll note that I have no personal interest, nor even care about Luca Pancallo or anyone else involved in planeshift (as far as I know), either for or against. I also don't see how adding the name could be some sort of coup. I recognize it does happen, but I expect some policing from whoever IS in charge of planeshift. Re-signed IMHO (talk) 05:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you could ask him yourself what goes on over there on the #planeshift channel on Freenode; Luca Pancallo goes by the name Talad. Also, ask him to prove that Atomic Blue is real: Every time I've tried to verify this I get nothing, so I'm very much convinced it doesn't exist, let alone it is non-functional. But if he is indeed the leader and Atomic Blue is indeed a real company, then he should be able to provide links to tax records to prove this. It's allegedly registered in the United States, but I can't find anything about this Atomic Blue on any government website over here. Tuxide (talk) 07:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Just amazing. Trying to rewrite history, eh? Now you are questioning that Atomic Blue exists, and even that Luca founded the project... Pretty hilarious. There have been few notable people in the past who tried to rewrite history, hiding the truth, not people I like really. I suggest you to inform yourself better and read all the sources provided, and maybe you will understand who runs the project and what is the team. Or is that the next bit of information you are planning to remove from the page? Maybe having a "developer: Unknown" will suit your needs. Xyz231 (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with your reasoning here because none of those sources are reliable for the purpose of confirming that Atomic Blue is real. I am seeking one that is reliable, and my reasoning is easy enough to understand and is undisputable proof. If Atomic Blue is not listed on some government website such as irs.gov, then Atomic Blue does not exist. In the case of irs.gov, there's no such thing called Atomic Blue listed there. For comparison, here is Free Software Foundation being listed. Go search for Atomic Blue, there isn't anything. Tuxide (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Can be registered in a different country, like in Europe, or just have a different organization type, or they may have just copyrighted the name and not the company itself. The fact is not in that list, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Atomic Blue is the name of the organization, which exact form or where is registered is of little value to me. If a product is not registered it still exists. If someone was called with a nick for years and it's known with that nick, that is still something an encyclopedia should capture. Xyz231 (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Well you can ask Luca Pancallo himself where it was registered. If he's the man you think he is, then he would absolutely know. Last time I looked into it, it was allegedly registered in the United States. Also, if Luca himself can't answer this question, then either Atomic Blue isn't real or Luca is not the man in charge. Tuxide (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

What is the significance of Atomic Blue? According to the "team" page on the planeshift website, Luca Pancello and the other team leaders work directly for Planeshift, I see no mention of Atomic Blue. What exactly does Atomic Blue do? SpigotMap 22:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

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