Talk:Infinite Flight/Archive 1

Archive 1

Vandalism?

I'm not an experienced Wikipedian so forgive me if I'm wrong. I noticed that the Featured section in the article was the exact same copy from the source you cited it from, the Infinite Flight website. Typing exactly what the source said is vandalism? FiendYT (talk) 05:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Writing style

While reading throught the article I noticed it was written in a very basic type of english. While this is not a big issue it does make it very clear the editor isn't really familiar with the style of writting used on wikipedia articles. (Repetitions of words and sentence structures, very short sentences, etc.) It also reads like an advertisment text that lacks neutrality, making me think it has been written by a (young?) fan of said Program. Rephrasing and reworling would be necessary in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolas Triebold (talk • contribs) 21:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

A group of people will be getting together to maintain and update the thread, so your said issue should be resolved then. LazyLlamaAviation (talk) 07:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Removal of PROD

I have removed the PROD because the page is actively being re-written as a result of the PROD being active on the page, therefore we object to the PROD. If at a future date this page is still deemed worthy of a PROD then please enact a CSD or XFD. Please give the editing some time, however a larger team is working to improve it.

Zweeb101 (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything happening on this front, so perhaps re-instating the PROD is in order. Eik Corell (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Multiple references missing

Missing references quite a bit. For example, here it says that the game received a review. No link given, no proof.

This occurs multiple times throughout the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiacomoLaw (talk • contribs) 17:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The Infinite Flight Community

There is a community which is https://community.infinite-flight.com and whenever it is added it is removed why is that so? Yardan Sheikh (talk) 08:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Most video games have communities. Unless covered for some reason by reliable third-party sources, this by itself is not worthy of mention. Eik Corell (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Erik Corell this is not a Video Game and it is a Flight Simulator and which is soon gonna get Global Flight in which you can fly anywhere and this will be the only Flight Simulator in the world to have it and also we all the community members are adding content and you are removing it why is that so? And it is not a make and throw or an easy to develop flight Simulator first download it ,use it and then say Yardan Sheikh (talk) 11:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

And please see this link. https://community.infinite-flight.com/t/the-new-if-wikipedia-page-photos-coming-soon/106376/ Yardan Sheikh (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Working from this edit, starting from the top: The lead paragraph runs afoul of the guideline WP:GAMECRUFT by going into pricing into. This is a subsection of WP:VG/GL; the guidelines that deal with content in video game articles. Specifically, this one runs afoul of #8; listing costs of products/items. This is also covered by WP:NOTCATALOG.

The next problematic section is the "Development History" section, which also contains info usually to be avoided per #7 and #10 of WP:GAMECRUFT again; Lists of gameplay items, weapons or concepts, and exhaustive version histories.

The info added to the "Infinite Flight Live" section is overly detailed again per WP:GAMECRUFT, for example the part on grading goes into detail listing everything in exact detail that affects the grading. This is not needed. Only a few examples are needed, and not written in this excessively detailed way. The way this needs to be rewritten would be along the lines "Violations include things such as flying too fast, or in prohibited airspace.". The part on subscriptions is the pricing stuff mentioned above again -- #8 of WP:GAMECRUFT.

The "Future Development" section is largely speculation, which is covered by WP:CRYSTALBALL.

What the article needs is coverage by independent sources and simplification. The edits contributed thus far haven't helped much with that.Ideally, such articles/coverage would be the source of the info in the article, but as it stands now, the article is mostly primary sources; website(s) affiliated in one way or another with the game. Eik Corell (talk) 12:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay DISCUSSION CLOSED Yardan Sheikh (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The future development is not speculation it is confirmed by the Devloper LAURA LABAN herself Yardan Sheikh (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL still deals with this. Mention of these kinds of minor technological future updates, whether they materialize or not, do not belong in the article if not covered by reliable third-party sources. Eik Corell (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I have changed the article to fit your description before you edit anything let me know

Wren Jago (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not seeing any significant difference short of the formatting. The material still has the same problems I listed in my reply further up. Eik Corell (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I removed all pricing information which seemed like the biggest issue. I also changed he violations section to be more concise but development history will stay as is because other games do the same thing Wren Jago (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Many articles don't get held to high standards and thus are not well-written or conforming to Wikipedia guidelines, but that's not an argument for adding similar stuff to this article. The pricing info is only one of many issues as explained above. Eik Corell (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Please check my recent edit with the justification Wren Jago (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Also you only mentioned three issues hardly loads and your too in depth issue comes from your lack of knowledge about the game. A new plane or region is an extremely large update - almost like a DLC for video games. Wren Jago (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

You're ignoring or refusing to acknowledge most of the guidelines to which I've linked and seem to be focusing on minor examples I gave. My point is that all of this info is bad in light of what I've wrote originally and shouldn't be in the article. I would give examples, but I feel I did a perfect job in my message further up. Eik Corell (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Gonna try to explain it again in a different way:

The Development History has no third-party sources to show how any of it is notable and it's in violation of #7 and #10 of WP:GAMECRUFT.

The "Future Development" also is in violation of WP:GAMECRUFT #10 to a lesser extent than the above, but likewise has no sources to show why these future changes are relevant. In light of that, mentioning these future patch notes is also putting undue weight on small details. It's also in the ballpark of #3 of WP:CRYSTAL as I mentioned.

The "Reception" section was using peacock-wording to describe user ratings given to the game. User ratings on on an app store are not a substitute for reviews by recognized sources.

Basically, all of this added info is fluff to prop up an article that really doesn't have much to establish the notability of its subject in the first place. Piling on more info about future updates or previous updates does not improve the article when there are no third-party sources covering how or why any of these changes or additions are notable. Eik Corell (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Eik Corell is spot on here. Claims should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. We allow primary/self-published sources from developers/publishers as long as they are limited in scope, simple facts, and not unduly self-serving. Lengthy lists of features are none of these, and should not be included unless they're discussed in reliable sources. We also don't link to forums per our guidelines on external links, especially when they're easily found on the official link. I encourage everyone from the Infinite Flight forums to read the WikiProject Video Games article guidelines, which cover flight simulators. Woodroar (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the main site for the game is infinite-flight.com, and that this community link is the same one available from the main site. WP:ELMINOFFICIAL says to include only the one official link to the main site when the other sites are linked from it. Ravensfire (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok - so say I remove the long list of features and the reviews which you find unrepeatable even though they were in the old version which is now the current one will the article be accepted? Wren Jago (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Unlikely, because we're still lacking reliable, third-party sources. Looking at your most recent edit, for example, you added:

• 3 sentences of UNDUE content in the LEAD. We don't need to know that the simulator is continually being developed, who the boss is, or where the developers work, unless those are details which reliable sources discuss at length. (And possibly not even then.)
• Unsourced or primary-sourced sections on solo and multiplayer modes, servers, grading, subscriptions, and future development. These each might warrant a sentence or two, or (at most) a subsection, if they were covered by reliable sources.

Keep in mind that Wikipedia is a summary of what quality sources say–in this case, games journalism–and we're not an indiscriminate collection of information. Details on game modes, servers, and release notes generally belong on the developer/producer website(s) or a dedicated wiki about this game, not here. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines, especially the section on article section orders. This is how an ideal article is layed out, given sufficient sources. I hope this helps! Woodroar (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

On Citations

It is difficult to get citations for this topic as the game is very small - there is also little information on this topic elsewhere. GiacomoLaw (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I reverted most of your changes. This article has a history of unsourced and poorly-sourced additions of trivial information. What we need is reliably-sourced information about the game. If the sources don't exist, then we shouldn't be reporting on it. Woodroar (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think those were my changes. To be honest, this article isn't going to grow as there are no sources apart from ones too close to the subject. As it is now, it's pretty bare bones, and not helpful at all - I don't really see the need of it to be honest. However, once the game grows, there may be more outside sources reporting on it. It's a pretty small and niche game, and doesn't really need a Wikipedia page at the stage it is in. GiacomoLaw (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I assumed the anonymous/IP editor was you editing while logged out, which I should not have! I agree that there's not much here, and won't be unless the game gets bigger. I'm not sure the two existing sources are even reliable enough to meet WP:GNG. Woodroar (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Global Section

I was not creating a news section, I was making a section about an upcoming feature of the game. Mrpidge (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Whatever you want to call the section, it was not supported by a reliable, third-party published source. You might find our video game article guidelines helpful. Woodroar (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Update tag (and recent updates)

I've removed the {{Update}} tag from the article because I'm unable to find current sources covering this game. Both the reliable and situational custom Google searches at WP:VG/RS have turned up nothing significant after 2014. In my opinion, the tag will only encourage the type of unsourced gamecruft-y updates that we've been reverting for the past few months. Woodroar (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Time for longer term semi-protection

With the recent history of IP or new users adding in unsourced, gamecruft or flat-out copying, is it time for longer-term semi-protection of the article to stop the disruption? Ravensfire (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm thinking we should. I don't see it stopping anytime soon. Woodroar (talk) 02:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2017

Add that the release of global flying in 2017. Digargoz (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2018

Add Release Date For Iphone JBear-GT (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2018

116.90.236.186 (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 11:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Offsite Coordination/Meatpuppetry

It appears that there's offsite coordination to add content to the article, including a threat to edit war. Unfortunately, it has all been unsourced and trivial details. I welcomed the editors, hopefully that will help. Woodroar (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Yup, not the first time that happened. Sadly, that community refuses to take the advice and guidance given and still try to treat this like their personal webpage. Having pending changes really helps, but if enough keep making unsourced, fan-based or trivial changes, semi-protection for a couple of days would probably stop most of the drek. Ravensfire (talk) 03:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Something to note - we should review the changes being made by the community to see if there is useful material. While a lot of it has been trivia, I think a bit of it could be helpful. In particular, the most recent batch mentioned that it used the acceleration and gyroscope of the device (probably for control) and while this is a common feature in many mobile device games, if we've got a source for it, it's probably a good thing to include. The plane list, pricing details, etc, though, that's just trivia. Ravensfire (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I try to check the sources when they get added, but the problem is that most editors don't include sources. When they do, it's nearly always forum posts. I also periodically check the custom Google searches at WP:VG/LRS but no reliable sources have covered the game since 2014 or so. It's just (pardon the pun) off their radar. Woodroar (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The community kind of looks like a big circle jerk for the game, and it looks like the majority is made up my children and you get people. Certainly not unbiased. I’m not sure if there really is any information to be added to the article. The developers of the game opened a blog but other than that there are not really any news outlets reporting on it and obviously the blog is too closely related to be referenced. Dipperdolphin (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I am the main coordinator/creator of that Infinite Flight Community post, "racerclc". If I have been violating Wikipedia policies, I am extremely sorry. I was unaware of the fact that I was violating key policies, but this is no excuse for my actions since they are clearly stated in a section of the Wikipedia website. I would like to note that I'm attempting to ensure that everyone reviews the rules of post editing and to make them follow the advice we have been receiving from Wikipedia moderators. I will continue to remind them to find valid, credible sources for the information that they add, and I have reminded them to avoid self-promotion of Infinite Flight. If you'd like the Community to stop making edits to this Wikipedia page, I can tell them to do so, and we can simply turn the Infinite Flight Community post into a request for Infinite Flight LLC to edit the Infinite Flight Wikipedia page themselves. I sincerely hope that this Infinite Flight Wiki post is not causing any disruption in the Wikipedia community; please note that none of our members were purposely attempting to do any harm to Wikipedia or to violate any of its policies. Thank you for your understanding. :) racerclc (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Racerclc, thank you for joining the discussion! I wouldn't say that IFC members need to stop editing the article, because you're all knowledgeable and passionate about Infinite Flight. Caring about the subject is, in most cases, a good thing. I'd just say that you should step back for a bit to understand what Wikipedia is and how it works.

The important thing to know about Wikipedia is that we're an encyclopedia and that all of our content should be based on "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". As an encyclopedia, we write general summaries and that means avoiding trivial details—like pricing, lists of gameplay items/vehicles/places, descriptions of play modes, version histories, etc.—unless those details are something that reliable sources talk a lot about. For example, if Infinite Flight cost $500 per month, I'm sure that would get tons of (negative) coverage. But $9.99 per month? It's mundane enough that nobody cares. And because we summarize what reliable sources say, then we shouldn't care, either. Now when I say "reliable sources", for a game or simulator like Infinite Flight that usually means reputable video games and technology sites/magazines like GameSpot, IGN, PC Magazine, Kotaku, Polygon, etc. (And then there are unreliable sources, like forum posts, press releases, advertisements, purchase/download sites, etc. We rarely ever use them as sources.) At WP:MOSVG you can read about the kinds of content we do (and do not) write about in our articles. And at WP:VG/S you can read about the sources that cover video games and simulators. (There are also plenty of things to read in the welcome message I left on your own talk page.)

The content that's been added to this article is far too detailed for Wikipedia, especially because no reliable sources are covering Infinite Flight at this time. (As I mentioned above, the most recent reliable source I could find was from 2014.) What you really need is a dedicated wiki like Wikia where you can be as detailed as you want.

As for Infinite Flight LLC, our conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage them from editing the article directly. Of course, anyone at their company is more than welcome to create individual accounts (i.e., not a company/group account), disclose their conflict of interest, and suggest edits backed by sources.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask! And I hope this helps! Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Notice for editors

Please note that we do not list all the aircraft and scenery on the game on this article, any edits violating this policy will be removed. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 16:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Why is this? LazyLlamaAviation (talk) 07:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

As Woodroar said further down the page, general summaries are written as Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Trivial details such as items available in the game are not usually included, for example you don’t see a list of items in PUBG, unless these items are referenced to a lot by external sources that are reliable. Dipperdolphin (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Developer Name

The developer name keeps getting changed from "Flying Development Studio LLC" to "Infinite Flight LLC" but it appears that both names are currently in use. All of the sources in the article say "Flying Development Studio LLC", as do their official Facebook page, their LinkedIn profile, their CrunchBase account, and so on. Yet their legal terms say "Infinite Flight LLC". Was there a name change? Does anyone have some insight on this? Woodroar (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe the legal terms are more up to date however I’m not 100% sure. Game seems like a bit of a mess when it comes to this. I’d go with Infinite Flight LLC as that is on their legal terms. Maybe someone with more knowledge of the game could update us? Dipperdolphin (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

A while ago, I was in contact with some of the staff at Infinite Flight. Long story short, the confirmed that their name is now Infinite Flight LLC. I don't know why those other websites have not been updated, but the name change is official. Before now, I asked this question on the Infinite Flight forum, and if you scroll towards the bottom of the page, you'll see that some moderators/staff have verified the name change. You can find that brief conversation by visiting this website: https://community.infiniteflight.com/t/which-is-it-flying-development-studio-llc-or-infinite-flight-llc/264534 racerclc (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Odd that they haven't updated it on their other sites but thanks for the info!   DipperDolphin |talk  17:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

New Third Party Sources

Hello, I’m new to editing on Wikipedia but trying my best through third party sources (Plane & Pilot Magazine, FSElite, Helisimmer, ect.) to add more detail to the first main description and gameplay section, as there is more/some third party coverage in the past year or more to reference. Do you have any tips on how to best accomplish this without all of the revisions getting reverted for trivial or unknown reasons? Hellotrio (talk) 02:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I'd suggest reading our general guide to source reliability and then our specific guide for video game sources, maybe even a few discussions about video game source reliability. You can also start discussions there about any sources you find, or bring them to the Talk page here. When evaluating sources, we ask these kinds of questions:

1. What kind of article is it? A review? Technical breakdown? Feature or update announcement? Opinion/editorial? Interview? Press release? Forum post? Was it paid or sponsored? How long is it? Does it mention the subject in passing or is it about the subject?
2. Who wrote the article? What is their background? Have they written for other publications? For example, are they a professional video game journalist with articles published at numerous magazines/sites, or an anonymous gamer?
3. Who published the article? Is there a clear editorial structure or masthead? Do they have editorial guidelines? Do they fact check? Do they issue retractions? Is there a physical address?
4. Does the source have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? Do other reliable sources quote or repost them uncritically? Has the author or publisher won any major journalism awards? Has the author or publisher been criticized for errors?

I hope this helps! Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I’ll take a look at all of that that you linked and take all of that into consideration before attempting to edit again. Cheers! Hellotrio (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Infinite Flight logo.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Infinite flight.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Project Wikipedia

Hi Everyone,

I have officially started a group of editors who will help re-vamp the IF Wikipedia page. We have contacted a moderator for approval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IDubbz4LivesWasTaken (talk • contribs) 05:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

IDubbz4LivesWasTaken, Welcome to Wikipedia. A couple of things you need to be aware of before going too crazy. First, Wikipedia doesn't have moderators they way forums do - we have administrators who are there to make sure Wikipedia policies are followed (especially around reliable sources, verifiability and others. They don't make content decisions, those are made by consensus among editors. There have been multiple effort before from the IF community to push this more towards a fan page, that's not what Wikipedia is for. You can see some of the discussions that happened here in previous discussions and there are also some good threads on the IF community boards, especially here that may be helpful and informative. Ravensfire (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Note that the "group of editors" mentioned above is yet more offsite coordination. Woodroar (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Unclear rules

Hi guys, I was just questioning why many of the features that I added to this article were removed as opposed to when they were added to FSX and X-Plane 11's articles, they stayed there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IDubbz4LivesWasTaken (talk • contribs) 01:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Not sure. Maybe not many people are watching those articles, or they don't care enough to remove that content, or they're simply not familiar with our policies and guidelines. There could be millions of reasons, really. We're all volunteers here and we edit whatever interests us. It would be nice if everyone followed our own rules but that doesn't always happen.

That being said, I just checked our articles on Microsoft Flight Simulator X and X-Plane (simulator) and they appear to be reasonably sourced. It could be that reliable sources happen to discuss them in detail while generally ignoring Infinite Flight. One of them is developed by Microsoft and the other seems to have a partnership with the FAA, so I can only guess that sources consider them more worthy of coverage. But that's really just a guess.

Please remember to sign your messages on Talk pages with 4 tildes. I'd strongly suggest reading through all of the links in the Welcome message on your own Talk page, too. Woodroar (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll second what Woodroar said, and also point IF related contributors to the advice and suggestions given to them in their recruiting thread about how Wikipedia works and why most of the current edits were reverted. Ravensfire (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Blogger Question

Hello,

I had a question about the use of https://flyingdevstudio.blogspot.com/ as a source. Blogger obviously gets caught by the filter when editing and I know it’s not a third-party source, but can it be used as one of the sources for Infinite Flight’s early history, specifically the date at which Infinite Flight was first released to Windows Phone?

Specifically referring to this “press release”: https://flyingdevstudio.blogspot.com/2011/04/update-on-phone-lockup.html?m=1

Thanks Hellotrio (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Not really. I can think of several issues to exclude it: (1) that source doesn't actually give a release date, only saying that the app was updated, which suggests that it was available prior to then; (2) as a Blogger blog that's not linked from the official site, we can't be sure if it's legitimate; and (3) even if it did give a release date and the blog is legit, we should base our articles on reliable, third-party published sources. We can sometimes use primary sources to fill in very basic details, but a release date for a specific platform is trivial enough that we should let third-party sources decide if it's important. Woodroar (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

New third-party sources

Hellotrio, I'm starting a new section about these sources because it's (mostly) unrelated to the Blogger question above. I've reverted the addition of these two sources to the article:

1. Plane & Pilot Magazine
2. The Flying Maverick

Neither appears to be a reliable source for use on Wikipedia. Plane & Pilot has an author byline but we know basically nothing else: no details about the journalistic credentials or background of the author, no details about the editorial staff, and their request for submissions makes it clear that they'll accept articles from basically anyone. I don't see reliable sources quoting, referencing, or sharing Plane & Pilot articles, which suggests they lack a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as WP:RS requires. The Flying Maverick is a self-published source and, while we know a bit more about the author here, he also lacks journalistic credentials and background. And like Plane & Pilot, reliable sources don't pay attention to The Flying Maverick at all, so it wouldn't meet RS. Woodroar (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

That is unfortunate, thank you for this detailed write-up. I will try to continue to search for more reputable third-party sources. I’m aware that there is very little “video game” publications to use as source material but there are some “aviation“ publications that have covered Infinite Flight more in-depth information. I now believe I understand more what is needed in order for it to be accepted. Thanks Hellotrio (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Plane and Pilot Magazine source

Hi Woodroar, the article in Plane and Pilot magazine was written by the editor in chief under an alias she briefly used as she was going through a life transition. Her name is Isabel Goyer and she has been working as a journalist and editor in chief for 25 years. She previously worked for Flying Magazine. You can look her up online (linkedin and ainonline link below). This Plane and Pilot Magazine source should be allowed as Isabel and the magazine do seem to meet the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" criteria.

The article in question:

1. Plane & Pilot Magazine

Other sources where her name appears:

1. Plane & Pilot Magazine Opinion
2. Isabel Goyer Lands at NBAA-BACE

Thanks! Mlaban (talk) 12:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Also wanted to add something. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, I fail to understand how including the former name of the company for the game to provide some history of the game is a “trivial detail”?

Are all further edits regarding past history from this point forward considered “trivial” or is there any kind of information that will be let through the revision process? What is Wikipedia’s definition of a trivial detail?

My interpretation, from the source material on Wikipedia’s help pages, is that the provided source material was not a [trivial mention](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Trivial_mentions), source is reliable, and the information it provided was in no way trivial as it’s the former name of the game publisher’s name?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Infinite_Flight&oldid=994475676 Hellotrio (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mlaban and Hellotrio: That's good information about the author, but I disagree that it makes her a reliable source. When authors or publications only get mentioned within other niche industry sources, that's a sure sign that they don't represent a mainstream view. I can find only one instance of this author being cited by a reliable source—a few paragraphs from the end of this New York Times article—which unfortunately means that most news organizations don't consider this type of content worthy of coverage. And since we're here to summarize what reliable sources say, that means that we don't cover it, either.

As for trivia, on Wikipedia that would mean any details that readers don't need to know in order to understand the subject, or details that are only tangentially related to the subject. Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia it's not an indiscriminate collection of information. Trivia ceases to be trivia when reliable sources consider it worthy of mention, which means that we can summarize it. WP:TRIVIALMENTION isn't relevant here. That's an essay explaining part of our our notability policy—i.e., whether or not a subject qualifies for an article—and how much of reliable source must cover the subject for it to meet that policy. Woodroar (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we need another outside opinion to look at this because that doesn’t make a ton of sense, logically.

The previous name of the publisher’s company that created the game is not “trivial” information in the slightest. Where you’d get that information to source is a different story. The use of “trivial detail” in the majority of your revisions is still unclear.

This seems solely based on your own personal opinion instead of any kind of fact based analysis about how much “significant coverage” the game has received.

The page is incredibly bare of information currently and I look forward to helping the rest of the editors in adding more pertinent substantive information to the page that is considered worthy of mention. Hellotrio (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome to explore dispute resolution options. But Verifiability and What Wikipedia is not (including WP:INDISCRIMINATE) are policies on Wikipedia, and the need for Reliable sources is a content guideline. We have a Manual of Style for video game content with broad support from the community and it discourages trivia. Many other editors have explained this on the Talk page, too, though you may have to look into the archives. Past disruption of this article has led to pending changes protection, editors being blocked from editing, and edits being removed from public view due to copyright infringement, actions that require admins to perform. This is not simply my opinion.

Knowing the publisher's history may be relevant on an article about the publisher, but you don't need to know that in order to understand what Infinite Flight is. Sure, I could be wrong. Maybe it's important to understand how the game developed. But that kind of detail absolutely needs to start from reliable, third-party published sources. Not niche industry sources that never get attention outside their walled garden, not interviews, not press releases. We're here to summarize reputable news sources, that's all. If they're found, as Allflightsimsaregreatflightsims just did with the Windows Central review, I'd be more than happy to help integrate them into the article. But it has to start with the sources, they tell us what's worth mentioning. Woodroar (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Objectively, and yes I’m aware that you are not part of the editing process elsewhere, but if you compare what you’re saying to what it approved on for example the X-Plane page (which includes it’s X-Plane Mobile app), the two standards of editing don’t jive.

The majority of the information provided is sourced by company press releases, interviews, reviews, and material directly from their website and sometimes even a Tweet from Laminar Research. What has been provided by Allflightsimsaregreatflightsims significantly trumps that of what is in the example I mention, yet is is revised as trivial. Hellotrio (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that. It's frustrating to see different standards applied to different articles, or at least one standard enforced at one article but not at another. And I don't know if there's an answer. Virtually all of us are volunteers and can't be everywhere, and with 6.2 million articles we're kind of a victim of our own success. I read somewhere that most content added to Wikipedia is from anonymous IP editors, but also that it's many times more likely to be reverted for violating one policy or another—if it's discovered, that is. I've seen game articles that developed for years without any regard to our policies or guidelines, like walls of patch notes, intricate gameplay details, the type of stuff you find on a Fandom article. But then someone decides to spam about that game into other articles and it gets discovered. Looking at X-Plane (simulator) more in depth this time, it probably needs needs a massive overhaul. It's been tagged as needing independent sources for more than five years now, yikes.

I'm sorry if this wasn't the answer that you're looking for. I agree that the two sources have drastically different enforcement, but the answer here is to cut from X-Plane, not add to it here—unless reliable sources can be found. Woodroar (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

“I can find only one instance of this author being cited by a reliable source—a few paragraphs from the end of this New York Times article—which unfortunately means that most news organizations don't consider this type of content worthy of coverage. And since we're here to summarize what reliable sources say, that means that we don't cover it, either.”

From your earlier comment, it seems that you are trying to say that Isabel is a “Self-published expert” which I disagree with. As User:Mlaban said, who I agree with, Isabel is clearly a credible source in the field of aviation writing for a Magazine.

From Verifiability: “Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.”

It seems no matter how credible the source, the edit will be reverted. For that reason I’ve put in a third-opinion (3O) request for both the revisions for trivial information and the source referenced. Hellotrio (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm saying that I can't find proof of her "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"—as evidenced by a lack of citations in other reliable sources—which means she doesn't meet WP:REPUTABLE. Anyone can publish a magazine with enough money or backing, but that doesn't mean it automatically becomes a reliable source and everyone else cites it. (For example, there are plenty of discouraged or deprecated sources at WP:RSP and WP:DEPRECATED.) It's entirely possible that she or her publication are widely cited in places that I missed, although I did check about a dozen pages of Google News results. If you know of such citations, please bring them up here. From WP:ONUS to WP:BURDEN to WP:BLPUNDEL, our process for challenged content is that editors who want to add or restore it need to do the work and prove that it meets our policies and guidelines. I've been doing source analysis here and at my day job for years and I suspect that such citations don't exist, but I can't prove a negative based on sources that I don't know about. Woodroar (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Woodroar, About Isabel's credentials, I was trying not to out her as trans as it's inappropriate and I hope she'll forgive me. She transitioned and her previous first name was the same as famous actor De Niro.

Publications under her previous name:

1. Flying Magazine

Hopefully, this will help clear that Plane and Pilot magazine source link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlaban (talk • contribs) 22:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, that gave me just enough to go on! It does look like she's been cited directly by CNN, Time, CBC, and Telegraph at least, so I agree that the Plane & Pilot source is reliable. It's too bad that they didn't change her byline at P&P, though. I'm unsure about crediting her, so I'm going to bring that up at our LGBT project. Thanks again! Woodroar (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Mlaban and Woodroar, this discussion is listed at requests for a third opinion but it appears that you have already reached agreement among yourselves as to the initial question. The only thing I'm seeing here that is currently outstanding is the question of how to properly credit the writer of certain articles. This issue is the subject of a large current RfC so it may be advisable to wait until that closes before making any decisions here. Is there still a need to list this at WP:3O? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I also started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Author name in source citations because I wasn't sure how applicable the RfC would be. My preference would be to wait for either to be closed to add the source but Hellotrio has already done that, I'm afraid. Woodroar (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Hellotrio, what is the specific question that you want a third opinion on? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Eggishorn, I had thought I updated the third opinion request, sorry about that. I thought it was safe to add in the source since we finally came to the conclusion that it was a credible source. Not sure what the proper procedure is going forward in regards to the third opinion request or the edit I made adding in the source. Thanks Hellotrio (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hellotrio:, it looks like a random IP user replaced your third opinion request with one of their own. Normally I'd revert that but since it sounds like there is no active disagreement, I'll leave that alone and this won't be listed. Congrats on reaching a consensus without outside help. I wish more talk pages had threads like this. Season's Greetings. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Three specific questions for the third opinion were:

1) Was the Plane & Pilot article a credible source to cite. 2) Is anything anything listed in this edit considered trivial. 3) For the use of providing some history in regards to the prior development of the game; would the Co-Founder’s names (Laura Laban and Philippe Rollin) and the previous name for the company that developed and published the game (Flying Development Studio) be considered trivial details?

Thanks Hellotrio (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Eggishorn okay great, I was typing when you sent that last message. Thanks for the help! Hellotrio (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Hanselminutes Podcast Source

Hi all. I want to add the Hanselminutes Podcast as a source for citing the CEO name and programming language for Infinite Flight. The source is here:

https://hanselminutes.com/593/laura-laban-explores-infinite-flight-simulation-on-mobile-devices

The podcast is by Scott Hanselman. He is a Partner Product Manager at Microsoft and a Chief Architect at Corillian Corporation, alongside running this well known independent website and podcast, alongside his social media. All in all, he is well known and his website and podcasts are independent and well-known fact-checking third party sources.

He has been cited in many places including on Microsoft's website and the NY Times. Examples below!

https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/20/21264755/microsoft-build-2020-keynote-easter-eggs-secret-messages-scott-hanselman

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/business/businessspecial/07DAY.html

https://news.microsoft.com/build2020/

This source follows all the rules, but I just wanted to check first as I can see this page seems to have a large number of revisions compared to others I have edited now.

Thanks! Allflightsimsaregreatflightsims (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allflightsimsaregreatflightsims (talk • contribs) 17:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I wouldn't consider the podcast reliable or very useful. The Verge piece was about easter eggs in a Microsoft presentation, and only mentions Hanselman in the context of his presentation for Microsoft. It didn't discuss his podcast or give any indication that Hanselman himself was anything more than a Microsoft employee. Likewise, the New York Times piece is about day trips and includes anecdotes from Hanselman, again referencing his role at Microsoft. The Microsoft Build page and everyone on it would be primary sources. I did search (briefly) for coverage of the podcast and Hanselman himself but there wasn't much, a handful of other small and unreliable sites, plus a few fansites citing the interviews directly. And here's the thing: even if this were a respected and reputable podcast, it's still an interview and those are regarded as primary sources. See WP:INTERVIEW for an essay about that. Now sometimes we might cite reliable-source-level interviewers or hosts for their own commentary/criticism, like what they say when introducing the guest or if they include background information when asking a question. Some exceptional interviewers—or exception interviews—might be worth covering, but they're certainly not the norm. In most cases, what turns an interview into a useful source is when reliable, third-party sources cover it. I hope that helps! Woodroar (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Unnecessarily subtracting substantive information

@Woodroar:, the fact that pilots can fly in the airspace the air traffic controller is controlling seems like an important piece of information. I wanted to add a tad more by stating that “users can fly in a simulated ATC environment with other Infinite Flight users acting as air traffic controllers”. The current description you edited in the first part of the gameplay section, “including an option to play as an air traffic controller”, doesn’t really describe what the gameplay is like according to the sources it’s referencing. I’m not understanding the reasoning why you’d want to subtract descriptive words, that are not subjective, that add pertinent information so one can more accurately convey what the gameplay is like. It’s kind of the theme of the entire page overall. It lacks substantive information unnecessarily. Hellotrio (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I reverted that description because it was too promotional and written like a game guide, highlighting a list of features and telling a player what they can do: where you users can fly. We need to write dispassionately for a general readership, not directed to players. I'm just now seeing that the copy was a close paraphrase of the source as well—which is a copyright violation—so it should have been reverted no matter what. I suppose I'm open to including something about flying in an ATC environment, but at the same time I feel like that's already implied. We say that players can fly, and also that they can play as ATC, so do we need to spell out that players can fly along with ATC elements. Like if we were describing a WWII game, would we need to explicitly say "players can fight on the ground, and in tanks, and on the ground with tanks around them"? In any case, I'm open to something if there's a simple and neutral way of explaining it. We also have to be careful not to give this source (or any others) too much weight in the article, either by relying on this source more than others, or by writing an extensive article when there are so few sources. I mean, we have six sources total, five of which are reviews, for a game that's been out for nine years. When there are so few sources, the article absolutely should be concise. Woodroar (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I think there can be a compromise in there somewhere with certain things to be a tad more accurate, yes. It’s lack of useful coverage from third-party sources from 2011-2017 makes sense based off their past development timeline (global scenery, satellite imagery, added in 2017) when they gained their larger audience. Hellotrio (talk) 14:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll give some thought to phrasing. If you have any ideas, I'd be happy to help hammer something out. Woodroar (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

FSElite

Would FSElite be considered reputable enough to be used as a source? They cover Infinite Flight extensively following every update since update 18.6, shortly after their audience grew. Hellotrio (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so. The site looks slick and they have (or had) a large audience, at least according to their (outdated) about page. But I checked a handful of articles and their author bios don't include any journalistic credentials or experience, and some are clearly pseudonyms. Which makes sense, since their open positions don't require any journalistic background. They also don't have a masthead with publisher and editor information, so we know nothing about them, either. FSElite isn't cited by any reliable sources that I could find—either WP:GAMESOURCES or more generalist sources—only lower-tier tech sites, which means they lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as required by WP:SOURCE. Woodroar (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)