Talk:Infantry (video game)

Minor clean-up

I have started a minor clen-up and source verification of the information contained in here. I do know some of this information is still on the SOE news archive. I have also removed some unnecessary statements as they do not serve to establish the neutrality of the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonzano (talk • contribs) 16:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

=Mention that it is very similar to PlanetSide

I think the article should mention that this game hase a lot of similarities to PlanetSide. The biggest difference is Infantry is 2D, but Unit types (mechs, tanks, aircrafts), character development (item/skill based) and most other Features are very similar to PlanetSide. I've played both. Am I the only one seeing this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.104.27 (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Will propose for deletion

None of the sources are third party, reliable sources that is required from Wikipedia:RS, and thus fails Wikipedia:Verifiability and ultimately does not meet Wikipedia:Notability.

All current resources are either from fansites, blogs or self-published pages from the Sony Online Entertainment itself. Except for two, which are third-party but are not reliable sources that also cite the aforementioned publishing firm itself.

I will be proposing this article and Cosmic_Rift for deletion in time, but I hope someone else may be able to improve this article.DDDtriple3 (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly veto this proposal on the fact that all three Station Pass games, thereincluding Infantry (computer game), Cosmic Rift, and Tanarus (video game), without forgetting the milestone SubSpace (video game), are all worthy games of remaining here among thousands of other unsourced articles on Wikipedia. When no third party can be cited, this does not give a green light to automatically propose deletion for articles, the only thing that it's stating is that these ~9-year old games are fading away; rather than being self-promotion for a new game. To add, I should also point out that WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:N are all but mere parallel guidelines, not official Wikipedia policies. I am also willing to bet, that rather than trying to improve the article by looking for sources yourself, you took the lazy man's way out by trying to get rid of information. Cited from WP:N itself:

"If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources."

I should also add that these articles do not meet enough criterias outside the referencing realm to be worthy of such deletion as per Wikipedia:Deletion; and also fails to meet any criterias mentioned per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Thus, as per WP:DP via WP:N, this is not enough reason for removal. - Io Katai (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:N are guidelines, but WP:V is an official policy. Failing all three of them puts these articles at odds with criterion for inclusion.

As it stands, I DID search for third party sources, and in the case of Infantry Online I came up with [1], [2] and [3] at best, not including blogs, youtube, other wikis and Sony Online Entertainment itself. According to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, these sources are not reliable despite fulfilling the third-party condition. The links are merely general summaries that will only support a stub article with a brief paragraph.

Due to the above, I came to the conclusion that I have fulfilled my obligations to satisfy the passage that was cited from WP:N, as I had originally thought that it would be bad manners to spend no effort in finding ways to bring this article up to standard before proposing. With that explained, I would like to bring up three criterion directly from WP:DP:

• Articles which cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms and original theories and conclusions
• Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
• Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)

The article in its current form meets three reasons for deletion, and many articles have been deleted on the basis of meeting one.

However, there is a reason why I have not yet prodded the article for deletion, I seek dialogue here to ensure that articles with potential will not be deleted. I assure you I will not do anything without consent, but I am quite sure such an article would not survive an AfD. Before someone boldly throws it up there, I would prefer that this article (and others) have had a chance to go through a more thorough method that gave it every chance it can get to stay on wikipedia.DDDtriple3 (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should reiterate, these articles don't fail all three VRN, because if you actually read carefully the pages, when it comes to defining sources, WP:V points towards WP:RS, which in turn points to other pages. It's just a redundant loop hole. However, your problem is defining what are "reliable sources".

I should first point out that there are 4 independant sources referenced in this article, wherein one of those happens to be Sony itself. However, I don't think you should disregard Sony or their forums on the basis that it's associated to the publisher itself; rather, verify what the information is defining and see if it really fails on the basis of advertisement or copyvio.

Secondly, if you followed your own loopholes, you should have figured out that primary sources aren't always regarded as unreliable. To quote:

Primary sources — writings on or about a topic by key figures of the topic — may be allowable, but should be restricted to purely descriptive explanations of the subject or its core concepts.

I see nothing in the sources that points outside 'descriptive explanations,' I fail to see any further analyses or interprative explanations concerning the article at hand.

Thirdly, I want to point out how poorly you search the web. Google counts over 2000 webpages linked with the specific keywords "Infantry Online" and Sony, surely you can find better sources out of that mess? [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] I should also point out that there are different search engines you can use, even Web Archivers, and different keywords, each turning up with different results. The mere content of these diversified links could be used to source parts of this article; so I don't consider your three meger links a half-active effort. - Io Katai (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand how you can conclude that there are four independent sources. There is currently freeinfantry.com, mpogd, and various sony online entertainment subsidiaries listed as sources. The only independent, third-party sources are mpogd and freeinfantry. Latter is not reliable while the former is reliable. Sony online entertainment sources do not meet the third party condition due to being self-published by entities that are owned by Sony. What remains is the mpogd.com source that contains a very brief description that supports very little of the article, much in the same vein as the three previous sources ([16], [17] and [18]) that I previously listed.

Primary sources can be used to verify detail, but they cannot be used to establish notability. However, even these current sources on the article are dead links or redirects to Sony's casual product splash page, which do not mention anything about infantry or cosmic rift. With the exception of forum links, which are not proper candidates for primary sources, the current article has no primary sources whatsoever.

And indeed, while there are several hits from various search engines, the are actually hardly any third party, reliable sources to be found. The number of search results is not an indicator of notability. From your list of eleven sources it appears the first three after the result list, while independent, are dubiously reliable sources that basically cover brief descriptions of the game in the same flavour as the previous four I mentioned. The remaining six are either personal websites/blogs/fansites or archived versions thereof that do not meet the reliable condition for sources. Overall, any sources that can be found for infantry are usually poor quality or do not lend anything more than an overview of the game. My exhaustive searches routinely turn up only that can support a stub article. Surely, you're aware of what qualifies for [W:RS], and that is the reason why my searches come up with little.

If I added those four sources, it would only serve to cover "Infantry is a isometric multi-player game with pseudo 3D elements and squad based combat. It is run by Sony and is free to play along with Cosmic Rift and Tanarus" or something else in that manner. It would be a terribly short article, at best.

My conclusion is that almost the entirety of the articles involved fail WP:V due to WP:RS and WP:N, and I am considering merging all the station pass games into one article for the sake of keeping some mention of these games, but the details that are badly sourced must go in the process of merging. DDDtriple3 (talk) 02:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

DDDTriple3 before you take further action I suggest you familiarize yourself better with our content policies and guidelines. For one thing, Sony is not an unreliable source, in fact they can clearly be a reliable source on many things for this article. For another, notability guidelines cannot and should not be used to address sourcing issues. The two issues are two separate things. Fact is, Infantry and Cosmic Rift are (and were) commercial released Sony Online Entertainment games, which means they automatically have a certain level of notability. As noted above there are dozens of sites out there that reference the games, including industry news leaders like Bluesnews, IGN, and Gamevortex. Merging the games together would not benefit the encyclopedia, and only serve to create a cluttered mess of things, and furthermore the action would run against the consensus of editors on this page. I strongly suggest that you do not do so. Thus far, you're the only person who has expressed any interest in doing so against several editors who disagree with you. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for not being clear, I did not mark Sony as an unreliable source. It is a reliable primary source, but notability can only be established by independent reliable sources, which Sony is not. My understanding of the policies and guidelines, and the premises for what my proposals are based on, to be put briefly:

• Primary Reliable Sources can be used to verify detail but cannot be used to establish encyclopedic notability.
• Independent Reliable Sources can be used to verify detail and establish encyclopedic notability.

Additionally, I do not recall where in WP:N that validates that releases from a notable entity atomically bestow notability to their releases. Such an interpretation, if existent, seems to go against the notion that notability cannot be inherited. Since WP:GNG states that all articles must demonstrate their own notability independent of associated articles, with the exception of books and music that allow inherited notability for exceptional circumstances, I am hard pressed to see why every Sony Online Entertainment release is automatically notable.

The article has only one remaining primary source (due to dozens of dead links in the current form), Sony itself, that briefly details what the game is. And while reliable coverage from various reputable gaming sites are present, they too make very short descriptions of the game. As a result, very little of the excessive detail in the article is supported by any sources at all. All three station pass games suffer from this. Wikipedia policies dictate that badly sourced information can be, and should be removed.

Based on this, I think merging three low quality articles into one higher quality, well-sourced article would benefit Wikipedia.

However, I will not do so unless I have direct permission (and agreement) to do so from IoKatai and Swatjester. DDDtriple3 (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The same principle that allows books and music inherited notability follows for games as well. Not to mention, I dispute that there's only one source, a simple google search [19] says otherwise, finding sources from MMOHub, Yougamers,OMGN, Gameinformer magazine,Gamezone.com Business wire via findarticles.com, etc. There's clearly plenty of independent sources for notability there; the fact that the article is in crap condition and doesn't reflect it is notwithstanding. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That's enough to convince me.

I'll cease my proposal now that my concerns have been addressed and I would like to make an attempt to incorporate the sources we discussed, as well as clean up dead ones, with permission. However, I will not touch the actual content itself for two reasons:

• There may yet be sources found to support the details.
• I am not familiar enough with the games to do so.

Any help regarding the matter would be appreciated. DDDtriple3 (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Infantry (video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070508201705/http://www.freeinfantry.com:80/index.php?id=infantry/whatis to http://www.freeinfantry.com/index.php?id=infantry/whatis

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)