Talk:FortressCraft

Is there any chance we can stop this edit war back and forwards? I'm sure Wikipedia has some method of allowing people who are being talked about to officially go 'No, that is wrong'; specifically, I did *not* say what I'm quoted as saying here, in response to Notch's comments. This is what we call 'a fact' and having people randomly should 'This is NPOV!' is not helpful in the slightest. 87.194.139.68 (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, you'd use this Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject), Adam. DarthBotto _talk•cont 22:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

For example ProjectorGames "publicity stunt" of starting a rumour that they were being sued [1] ... Rich Farmbrough, 16:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC).
There was no such publicity stunt by ProjectorGames 87.194.139.68 (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to prove that. 69.115.70.39 (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually burden of proof is the other way around. Also that article does explain it -- a publicity stunt by DJ Keemstar. I wonder if it's notable for inclusion though. We don't usually include PR stunts unless they get really big. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Dj Keemstar is not, and has never been, a member of the ProjectorGames team. 87.194.139.68 (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems that this page has been experiencing a myriad of edits from editors who have had an involvement or personal connection with this game that is impeding with the neutral integrity of this page. This includes edits and reversions from contributors, staff and even the lead designer of FortressCraft, that are intended to remove unflattering but neutral citations by credible news sources and applicable categories. Everyone, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest; as a direct contributor to FortressCraft, you are not placed in an ideal position for editing this page. I won't name names or point out the I.P. addresses that have been doing this, but it should be pretty apparent to whoever is reading this about whether this applies to them or not. DarthBotto _talk•cont 02:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have officially had enough. I've reported this page for conflicts of interest. The administrators can sort this out. DarthBotto _talk•cont 04:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the game being classified as a "clone" by reliable secondary sources: [2][3][4][5]. We can stop edit-warring now. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

As a side note, it does not matter by Wikipedia policies whether calling FortressCraft a "clone" is justified, fair or true. As cynical as that sounds, WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:BURDEN requires that reliable, secondary sources are presented to support each contested fact. This is not anyone's personal opinion or grudge against the game or conflict of interest. This is a long-standing core Wikipedia principle. "If you say it, cite it." And many citations have been presented. It is also irrelevant to this article whether other voxel games or Minecraft itself are "clones" or not. We can hold individual discussions for each if so merited. We are also free to include Sawkins' responses (as TheAndyCopter recently did) and the reader can make their own intelligent conclusions. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

One thing strikes me about this dispute, the reason it has been contested so much is this page and this page alone was tagged, I'm not going to dispute this page, but attempt to show why it has.Just to give an example: Minecraft, Total Miner and CastleMiner (all clones in the same way that Fortresscraft is) have not been tagged. It may be that there are fewer articles about to justify the tag for Castleminer or Total Miner, but Minecraft itself a self-proclaimed Inifiniminer clone (see Video game clone) even freely accepted by Notch here cave test, and yet trying to add the very same tag to the Minecraft page gets it removed within hours.I know I am being incredibly biased, seeing as I do enjoy this game. But it does seem as if there is a double standard surrounding this game, which is touched on in the article I linked. --TheAndyCopter (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)--- TheAndyCopter 12:41, 18th February 2012

The same principle applies to other games as well. If you can show (preferrably multiple) reliable secondary sources (see WP:VG/RS for example) that call those games "clones", then feel free to add that tag to the games and cite the sources. We don't however accept original research and (usually) primary sources. So, for example, in "cave test" by Notch, concluding that because he called it a "clone", then he must have implied that the (yet inexistent) Minecraft is a "clone", is original research. After all, he could have called it a "clone" or "innovation" or an RTS or whatever. And that's why we don't (generally) accept primary sources. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

TheAndyCopter, I do not dispute that Notch admitted Minecraft was a clone when he began it; I understand that and do not object to it being categorized as such. What I do have an issue with is the edit-warring this page has and to add fuel to the fire, it is specifically edited by staff members who worked on this game. I don't care about the video game clone tag, what I do care about is the fact that there is a conflict of interest with who is doing this, as they are the only people who are not encouraged to edit this page. I do not want the message of my conflict of interest report to be mucked up with any other disputes; I am only interested in the conflict of interest and nothing else. DarthBotto _talk•cont 22:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll split the "clone" discussion into its own subsection then. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)