Talk:Infantry (computer game)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Low | This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. | |
|
VG To-do:
|
||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of massively multiplayer online games. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the the assessment scale. | ||
 |
|||
| Archives | |||
|
|||
| About archives • Edit this box |
Contents |
[edit] Tandem Solution: Fresh Restart
The entire article is full of abhorrent misinformation/inaccuracies and would do better were suggested to get wiped clean and redone proper from scratch. -- Ori Klein, Subspace vet beta 0.95 '96, Infantry vet alpha 0.4 '98. 88.154.92.100 12:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- The only thing you could possibly be complaining about is the History section, and I can verify first-hand that everything from 2000 on up is true. Anything beforehand is based on information from what remains of NMEBase's archives. Also, the grammar in the article is pretty lazy. I'll probably fix that up whenever I get some time. Mokkan88 14:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I have to agree with what that. // 3R1C
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
[edit] 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 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)
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)
-
- I believe that editors completely unfamiliar with the subject material are best qualified to determine such things, as they must actually be convinced that all facts are verified, rather than just assuming such, or accepting their own knowledge as verification. Someguy1221 18:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- While I agree that those unfamiliar with the subject are the most likely to notice such things, that is not the point. The point is, Philosophus has no interest in Infantry; He came by with the sole intention of being a stickler. This is not an article on one of Einstein's theories - it's a videogame. Nobody is going to come to this article on a homework assignment - they're going to come to this page to inquire about the history and content of the game. Anybody who honestly thinks that there is anyone more qualified than members of the community in question to comment on the history of that community needs to pull the WikiPolicy stick out of their arse and start using the logic that transcends it. Mokkan88 17:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I came here because someone on the Wikipedia IRC channel asked for someone to help stop the fighting, and I gave him my word that I would try to do so. The sourcing argument was a tactic I used to that end, and I don't understand why some FreeInfantry forumgoers are unable to comprehend that, and seem to think that in response to my furthering of their cause, they should start petty, immature, and pointless vandalism of somewhat random pages in retaliation. I'm not sure what sort of "life" allows one to spend time continually adding "penis" to articles, but I expect it isn't the sort of life you think I need. But of course, you're different from those editors. You're the only forumgoer who has tried to disguise yourself as a legitimate editor while trying to incite a mass vandal attack. There are plenty of rouge admins who would be quite willing to ban you on the available evidence, though I expect you wouldn't care. Everyone has a life, but some people need to grow up. --Philosophus T 00:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- If by "legitimate", you mean "wastes six or seven hours a day arguing about citations on a website that no one with any serious credibility finds reliable", then fine, you're right, I'm not legitimate. As for the attacks: yes, I condoned them, and still do. I think they're hilarious. Anyone who takes treats their userpage like its their identity needs a reality check. Anyone who is so insecure that they need to use multiple accounts to hide their identity, and then create an alter-ego to further hide that identity also needs a reality check (and a psychiatrist). If you want to report me to the WikiPolice, then go for it. Again, you are right: I don't take Wikipedia seriously enough to give a rat's arse if it's deleted. You don't seem to understand that the rules on which I act are those of logical principal, not the pathetic, unorganized mess of "policies" that Wikipedia tries to employ, those that "legitimate" Wikipedians take to heart religiously as though failing to adhere to one is going to destroy the balance of the world. Mokkan88 07:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- I came here because someone on the Wikipedia IRC channel asked for someone to help stop the fighting, and I gave him my word that I would try to do so. The sourcing argument was a tactic I used to that end, and I don't understand why some FreeInfantry forumgoers are unable to comprehend that, and seem to think that in response to my furthering of their cause, they should start petty, immature, and pointless vandalism of somewhat random pages in retaliation. I'm not sure what sort of "life" allows one to spend time continually adding "penis" to articles, but I expect it isn't the sort of life you think I need. But of course, you're different from those editors. You're the only forumgoer who has tried to disguise yourself as a legitimate editor while trying to incite a mass vandal attack. There are plenty of rouge admins who would be quite willing to ban you on the available evidence, though I expect you wouldn't care. Everyone has a life, but some people need to grow up. --Philosophus T 00:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- While I agree that those unfamiliar with the subject are the most likely to notice such things, that is not the point. The point is, Philosophus has no interest in Infantry; He came by with the sole intention of being a stickler. This is not an article on one of Einstein's theories - it's a videogame. Nobody is going to come to this article on a homework assignment - they're going to come to this page to inquire about the history and content of the game. Anybody who honestly thinks that there is anyone more qualified than members of the community in question to comment on the history of that community needs to pull the WikiPolicy stick out of their arse and start using the logic that transcends it. Mokkan88 17:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I believe that editors completely unfamiliar with the subject material are best qualified to determine such things, as they must actually be convinced that all facts are verified, rather than just assuming such, or accepting their own knowledge as verification. Someguy1221 18:44, 29 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)
- Hah, it's a bit hard for Philosophus to get out at all, considering that he and his attitude are artificial, and meant to hide his identity. But if being an asshat is what it takes to get articles properly sourced, then Philosophus is quite happy to be one. Now we just need a reliable independent source for FreeInfantry, and the edit war will be over. --Philosophus T 03:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think that a reliable independent source is required since I doubt any reliable published information on Infantry exists (hence wikipedia? A collection of info to find the mean?). Since guidelines are meant to be followed as a guide, you enact an acceptable alternative when what the guideline specifially calls for is not available, which I think this article seems to do. MarauderIIC 03:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure what you need is a psychiatrist. Mokkan88 04:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Philosophus: Why don't you bring this conversation onto our irc: ircd.suroot.com #infantry 209.81.115.237 (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
- Mokkan88: the policy (not guideline), Wikipedia:Verifiability does not say go for the next best source even if that source is unreliable, it says don't let the information in at all. Guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Reliable Sources explain that questionable claims require strong sources. However, most of it seems to be fine with self-published sources. The exception is the history section, which uses a questionable source. It is completely unacceptable by that guideline. Frankly, the entire history of infantry shouldn't be here, only the most notable events, along with a link to the detailed history. I'm removing the history section. You're welcome to rebuild the critical parts of it with a reliable source. Ichibani 03:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hah, it's a bit hard for Philosophus to get out at all, considering that he and his attitude are artificial, and meant to hide his identity. But if being an asshat is what it takes to get articles properly sourced, then Philosophus is quite happy to be one. Now we just need a reliable independent source for FreeInfantry, and the edit war will be over. --Philosophus T 03:55, 29 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)
-
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Thus it is not an official rule, but rather a guideline. Io Katai 12:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I think it's fair to say that people who found out what infantry is by reading this article are being complete expletive removed.-I am a shadow 03:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Why is this page still marked as needing sources? Please tell me what needs sourcing and I will do my best to fix it.Mmoor 00:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's not lacking sources, it just lacks notability; which basically means that it needs alternative sources and/or references which are not taken directly from the official website, or from forums. Books, reviews, fansites, editorials, etc. are acceptable as alternative sources/references. - Io Katai 01:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- What's wrong with official sources?Mmoor 00:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- It says it right at the top of the page: "Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article are not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article". - I don't decide what's what, it's just the way it is. - Io Katai 01:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The fact is, inf (in particular, free inf) is too small a game to generate notable sources. This might mean we can't put up any unjustifiable details about it, but it doesn't mean all information on free inf should be wiped out. Keep the self-evident statements. "Free infantry exists at www.freeinfantry.com as a possible alternative to SOE Inf." - that is sort of undeniable by any standard. Verifiable? Go check freeinfantry.com, verifying it takes 2 seconds. Wiki should not need to source 1+1=2, or "there is a webpage at www.freeinfantry.com where a game can be downloaded".
To this extent, I also cite wiki's verifiability policy on self-published sources. I contend that "Free Infantry is an alternative Infantry community" and "Free Infantry was founded in July 2006" (quotes from the www.freeinfantry.com website) are sufficiently factual and reasonable that they satisfy WP:SELFPUB and are valid as self-published information. It is true that caution should be exercised when using such sources, but this information is so fundamental that there is no real reason to dispute it. -Mastar
P.S. a few more days and i will add that elementary information into the article -Mastar, Sep 13 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.233.203.63 (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
P.P.S. added - Mastar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.233.136.223 (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
P.P.P.S. Freeinf website changed, readded as appropriate. -Mastar
The source for the Combined Arms zone is no longer available. I was unable to find that source using either archive.org or Google cache. I removed The Arena from the zone listing as it is merely reiterating what was already said about EOL. If TA can be cited than so should USL, SL, Mechanized Skirmish, NML etc. I think the zone listing should stay down to defining what the main zone play styles are. --rob3r —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob3r (talk • contribs) 21:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Semi-protection
I seriously think this article should be considered for semi-protected, due to the rising ammount of edits and vandalism associated with it lately. It's no longer become an edit war of Infantry vs free Infantry (which shows that the sourcing idea above was a good move), but now it's several users posting nonsense (about notable players) and vandalism. Io Katai 15:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Move to video game.
As per my move reason I have created this new talk page section.
I believe that the article should stay as it is currently, as 'video game' is a generic term for any game played on any platform. 'computer game' would refer to a game played on a personal computer, which this clearly is. Xeolyte (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This is actually supported by the computer_game article linked in the very first paragraph. 'For information on interactive gaming in general, see video_game.' 'A personal computer game (also known as a computer game or simply PC game) is a video game played on a personal computer, rather than on a video game console or arcade machine. ' Xeolyte (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
