Talk:Variations of Settlers of Catan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Deletion?
This article was proposed to be deleted by Snoodle, who on talk page for Settlers of Catan referred to this page as a "Ghetto Article" and is clearly biased against this information existing on Wikipedia at all in any way shape or form. However, the purpose of wikipedia is to present facts, not opinions. Mayfair Games, on their own website, presents variations of this game that they do not support but clearly do not have a problem with. The purpose of writing this article is not to be a "link farm" as Snoodle puts it, but to present information for all kinds of variations physical and digital. To deny information from existing on wikipedia therefore is an act of cencorship. Articles exist for many games on wikipedia, and many variations of many games. If you consider unofficial variations of a game, physical or digital, to be of the same game, then I feel this information should be merged into Settlers of Catan. If you consider this to be not of the same game, then they should be allowed to be talked about as it's own article. However, no matter what you consider it, this article complies with the rules. I looked at the conditions under which an article can be deleted, and none of them apply here. The information complies with a neutral point of view (displaying information from all sources without bias) no original research done, all information is true and not under copyright. References are listed and verifiable. No advertisements are being made. External links are not excessive nor do they dwarf information. Content listed is not copyright information. --Elliandr 20:07, March 26th 2008 (CST)
[edit] Restrictions on linking does not apply here
Snoodle has cited Wikipedia:EL#Restrictions_on_linking as a reason to remove links from the information. However, I checked them and it does not apply to this situation: "Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." This does not apply to games based on Settlers of Catan, which are not supported by Mayfair games, because of the way copyright law is written in the United States. Basically, the name and artwork is copyrighted. Not the concept. Under current laws, the concept can legally be adapted and changed and worked with by anyone, and independently copyright their own game's name and artwork, as a different game, even if everything else is the same. In fact, in the case of S3D Connector, they have legally released it under the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE meaning that yes, they have licensed the work, so yes, it is legally recognized, and so yet, it belongs on wikipedia. I can, and will, restore the page as many times as I have to until either the laws change, or the rules of wikipedia change, but I won't put up with censorship..... To help make this point clear I want to cite two real world examples. Monopoly is a good example. Monopoly was not an original game, instead it was a modification of a game presented to parker brothers. They decided to change the name, and the artwork, so that they would not have to pay for it. When this issue was challenged in court by the original creator, the copright claim was rejected because his copyright only applied to the name and artwork, not the concepts. [1]In america, you can not copyright a game concept. In computer games, USA Games Interactive released a game called "Montezuma's Return" and when it came to their attention that another company had a copyright claim on that name, they changed the game name to "Mysteries Of the Aztecs" [2] --Elliandr 01:39, April 1st 2008 (CST)
 |
A user has requested comment on this page, but there is an error in the RFC template. Please review the RFC template syntax and try again
To add a discussion to RFC:
|
| section= Does WP:RFC apply here? !! reason= There is a dispute over the interpretation of the rules. Elliandr believes that content based on a copyrighted work and is itself copyrighted as a spin-off product released under the GNU Public License does not violate any Wikipedia rules to mention. Snoodle Has on several occasions deleted content, stating on the history page comments that they violate the rules. Elliandr would like to avoid a war over content and so requests a third opinion on this matter. !! time= 03:21, April 1st 2008 CST }}
