Talk:Assetto Corsa

Section 'Reception' - sources
This article is referencing questionable, potentially self-published sources like blogs (referencing the blog pretendracecars.net seven times about the same subject) and forum posts to subjectively highlight a negative view of the matter. It's in dire need of actual reliable, verifyable sources. Epistolarius (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * pretendacecars is run by 3 people with professional race car licenses. Other sources including SimHQ, one of the most reputable hardcore simulation sites backed the claims made by pretendacecars. Mannyqee (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

This is what the author of pretendracecars.net said himself: "I'm flattered that somebody's tried to make me a legitimate source on Wikipedia, but there's no need for a flurry of PRC links (six by my count) and a total omission of quotes from mainstream gaming sites. That's not how the Reception section is intended to be used at all. It's supposed to be A, B, and C said positive things such as _____, whereas X, Y, and Z said negative things such as _______." Hermannos1997 (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

someone called james dover
he is linking his own site's links where he writes his own opinions and he's using them as "references" not to get his invalid points/opinions deleted. this person is mentally sick and whole "reception" part of assetto corsa's wikipedia page consist of this person's bashing of assetto corsa. please fix this problem. thanks.


 * James Dover is a simulator engineer and not affiliated with those references. Mannyqee (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

"Inappropriate" content lists
"14:03, 2 July 2016‎ The1337gamer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,398 bytes) (-5,793)‎ . . (car and track lists are inappropriate (WP:VGSCOPE, WP:GAMEGUIDE)) (undo)"

User:The1337gamer - I would ask you to kindly explain why articles of related simulations like iRacing are exempt from these guidelines while this article just gets large sections deleted, that'd be really helpful in understanding this issue. While I'd like to apologise for not being aware of the linked guideline when expanding on the existing content lists, instead of complete deletion without warning one could have requested a long time ago for the information to be condensed to conform with said guideline. But apparently there's no interest in that. Also, "Wikipedia is not a directory" doesn't seem to apply since the listed items in question certainly were not loosely related. If these edit-wars and constant deleting continue I'm going to give up on trying to participate in the Wikipedia project entirely, quite honestly. It's ending up being a massive waste of time for everyone involved and in articles that contain less and less factual information. - Epistolarius (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * iRacing isn't exempt. I have removed track lists off that article in the past . And the car list currently on that article should also be removed. It has been discussed numerous times and the consensus is to not include such information. Hence why #7 at WP:VGSCOPE clearly says not include lists of vehicles and levels (that includes racing tracks). --The1337gamer (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll try to keep these guidelines in mind in the future. Thanks for the reminder. -- Epistolarius (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Excessive detail
A user keeps trying too add in a full and very lengthy list of downloadable content. This is not allowed, for several reasons, and will always be reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.25.172 (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * There's a clear reason for these edits. And I've already explained it. If you want to improve the DLC and Free updates sections, you have to do it in a clever way. For example, you can write a short text instead of a detailed list. But you can't remove only the DLC/updates you want. --62.173.162.187 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.173.162.187 (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)