Talk:Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020 video game)/Archive 1

not a video game
it is not a game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:3918:2C00:299:99FF:FE99:9999 (talk) 23:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Anything is a game if you're having fun with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.20.71.135 (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What evidence do you have of that? Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This software certainly sits between 'simulator' and video game. For reference, the application X-plane is labeled as a simulator. While X-Plane is certainly more advanced that Flight Sim, it is still the same type of software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:D4A3:9900:74A3:C0E5:679A:71E0 (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There are many interactive video applications sold as simulations. Some are also described as games, and there is nothing to say that they cannot be both. If sources describe something as a game (as some sources cited in the article do), so can Wikipedia. 86.143.229.179 (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think this debate will ever be settled.Mozzie (talk) 03:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Encyclopedically, it is a vidgame. According to Wiktionary, a game is "A playful activity that may be unstructured; an amusement or pastime," and "An activity described by a set of rules, especially for the purpose of entertainment, often competitive or having an explicit goal." Since MFS2020 fits the definition and is built, marketed, and distributed as a video game, then it is a video game. If the person who created the X-Plane title defines it as a simulator, it is okay, and so does the creator of this page. So there is no need to debate about changing the title.  Gerald WL  12:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Xbox states it is a game (the link says game and it has a game features, along with gameplay). I do agree with you, it is a simulator, but the terms game and simulator are not mutually exclusive, as a comment above said. 73.206.37.58 (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

there is no debate. if you market a truck as a motorcycle, it is still a truck. yes, a software product could be a simulator and a game. this one is a simulator. this product is not like Surgeon Simulator and Goat Simulator, which are games. the article must be renamed from 'Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020 video game)' to 'Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020)'. 2A02:587:3903:D000:299:99FF:FE99:9999 (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2020‎ (UTC)

Release date
Why is the release date mentioned 5 times in this short article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:4100:EC:1875:852E:47F4:E82B (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's reasonable. One in the lead, one in the infobox, one in the body.  Gerald WL  09:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Review bombed on Steam
This game was review bombed on Steam; not necessarily because of the game itself, but because of Steam's 2 hour refund policy and long download times. May be worth mentioning. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Kinda noteworthy, as everyone expects everyone to enjoy it.  Gerald WL ✉  04:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Breaking news on history log
An IP editor under the address 2601:243:80:35D0:1996:3B14:7D2F:FB00 from Woodridge, Illinois has been doing vandalism by changing the name in the infobox to "Microsoft Crash Simulator." They have, so far, only done three edits, and I reverted it just seconds after it was published. While I understand that it might not be eligible for protection right now, I'm adding this section here just in case I think it needs protection. I will soon be asleep, so I rely on those in the West to watch the article and revert the IP's deconstructing edits as soon as they saw it.  Gerald WL ✉  17:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Xbox Series X rumors (rumours)
Are there rumors that this game will be available for the Series X when the Series X releases later this year Jared L 9999 (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , are you asking in general? If so, WP:NOTFORUM. Also we don't use rumors, we use reliable sources like Variety USA Todsay (you name it).  Gerald WL  16:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Accuracy of marketing claims
[Sorry if this is not appropriate, consider me a Wikipedia noob.]

Are claims made by the publisher and development studio (mostly pre-release), and articles repeating these claims, considered reliable sources?

A few examples:

· The weather / wind simulation appears to be much less advanced in the finished product than what was advertized.

· When using Live Weather (the weather preset that is supposed to be based on real-world weather), rain effects hardly ever trigger (ie. you cannot "fly into rain"), so the claim "that if it was raining somewhere in real life, it would be raining in-game" has to be disputed.

· The simulation of aircraft aerodynamics might be based on many points or surfaces, but it ignores, for example, the aerodynamic properties of propellers (ie. no simulation of prop wash, drag, feathered props), leading to highly inaccurate behaviour. Ground handling is not realistic, either (compared to both real-world aircraft and more advanced sims).

· "Flight Simulator populates the world with animals" – as far as I am aware, there are a couple of fixed spots on the globe where the artists put groups of certain animals (about half a dozen species placed at two dozen fixed locations), not sure if that counts as "populated".

· It also seems doubtful that all the 37,000 airports have been "manually edited", because there are airports that have no resemblance to their real-world counterparts and that lack, for example, usable runways because the AI misinterpreted the terrain. The same source claims that MFS "features every airport in the world", which is definitely not true. At launch, even some major international airports were simply missing, apparently because they were blurred in the Bing image data.

· "In July at a developer livestream on Twitch, a virtual reality (VR) version of Flight Simulator will be released on December 23 as part of the game's second update." – I cannot parse this statement, but I wonder whether the included prediction regarding the VR release can be considered a Wikipedia-worthy fact at this point.

Finally, I feel that the "audience response" section should point out that users, especially long-time flight simmers, are disappointed or even upset by the plethora of bugs that riddle the title, made worse by a series of updates that seemed to introduce two new bugs for every fixed issue and often included highly visible regressions.

I cannot provide printed sources for my examples, they are based on first-hand experience and discussions on the official MFS forum and other flight sim forums. 2003:DD:871C:F100:222:4DFF:FE84:A1DA (talk) 08:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * By order: Wikipedia use what reliable sources say, and apparently the weather is just spot-on; the fact is that it rains in-game and usually live; needs source; animals are auto-populated and not modeling IRL animals; sources say 37,000; developer plans are cited with RS so that's WP-worthy; if you or anyone have a reliable source for that it can be put.  Gerald WL  09:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please forgive me, but I am just wondering how games journalists repeating pre-release marketing claims (often from 2019) are considered reliable sources, when they contradict what users of the title can actually verify to be the state of the title.


 * I understand that first-hand experience (OR) does not count as reliable source. But some of the issues are even documented by Microsoft (publisher) and Asobo (development studio): on the official "Top Bugs" list, #2 and #3 refer to Live Weather issues and their "ongoing improvements".


 * Maybe I misunderstand the term "to populate", but when I read "Flight Simulator populates the world with animals and roads with vehicles" I expect more than 26 fixed points in the game world where an artist manually put a single group of one of the seven species available. In contrast, vehicles can indeed spawn on all roads in the game world, so that's where the term "Flight Simulator populates..." appears to make sense.


 * I do not dispute that there are 37,000+ aerodromes represented in the title, but only a select few of them were "hand-crafted". If all the other airfields were not "hand-crafted", what does it mean that they were "manually edited"? This stinks of marketing bs.


 * "In July at a developer livestream on Twitch, a virtual reality (VR) version of Flight Simulator will be released on December 23 as part of the game's second update." - Again, I cannot parse this. It seems like a copy-and-paste created Frankenstein of a sentence. If it's meant to say that the release date was announced in a "Dev Q&A Stream" on Twitch in July, it's simply wrong. The VR release for all OpenXR headsets (vs just the HP Reverb) was first announced for the so-called "Sim Update 2" (which is not the game's second update, because they changed the naming convention after "Update 6", and which is planned for December 23rd), in this stream: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/815451663 from Nov, 26th. 2003:DD:871C:F100:222:4DFF:FE84:A1DA (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The cited source for the 37,000 airports thing is a Rock Paper Shotgun article, which is a reliable source. Other RSes mentioning this include Windows Central (published July) and MSPowerUser. It appears that the 37,000 claim is just right, at least until if you can provide a source saying otherwise, maybe it can be revised.
 * The Top Bugs list does not automatically debunks the fact that the game does use real-time weather data to generate its world. Sure there are bugs, it's a new game after all. But the mechanism is still same.
 * The Polygon source mentioned the VR plans like that. If you feel like there's a misinterpretation of the source, you're encouraged to be bold and edit it, or request a changing of terms here. If you think there are some useful infos stated in the Twitch stream unstated in the article right now, feel free to include them.  Gerald WL  17:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Popular destinations
Is this section really needed? People like to fly to certain places? Is it notable or important enough to be placed above most of the other game details? --Vossanova o&lt; 15:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think it is noteworthy to point out these destinations, as they have links to the game's technology. For example, people are scouting ahead of Epstein's island to test the game's data accuracy, much to their chagrin of low quality textures. People-- and even writers of reliable sources-- are chasing Hurricane Laura and etc to see weather accuracy in Flight Sim, and the developer also responded to this activity. Due to its initial hype, people are going to their own houses and see whether FS2020 rendered it accurately. If you're a flightsim enthusiast and have been following this whole thing, you'll understand the broad relevance of these destinations. I could remove vague details in the section, like how the island is raided by FBI, but overall I don't find the existence of the subsection as vague.  Gerald WL  16:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Flowery language and silly claims
Hi

I am going to edit the article over the next few days.

There are some very strange claims and flowery language, examples include:


 * 1 "using its cloud to render and enchance visuals"


 * 2 "To exalt realism, the Azure AI incorporates earthly elements like nature and traffic."


 * 3 "expecting an austere grandeur of scenery."


 * 4 "the latter of which critics tried utilizing in an effort to boost gameplay fun."

... and that's just the lead!


 * 1. "cloud" is generally used to refer to storage


 * 2. what? Exalt realism? So, 'to praise realism, the Azure AI' ... not sure AI can exalt anything, they aren't sentient (yet)!


 * 3. really? 'austere grandeur'? That is a great example of an oxymoron. A hurricane or ones own home are not "rudiment"


 * 4. what? I suspect simmers/players boosted their fun - not critics - using the weird glitches and strange objects; for example I found a monolith sticking out of a lake that was an infinity pool instead of a lake in a valley ... I then made a video of it and posted it online for a laugh.

The main body had "Aircraft starting from the Deluxe version" so yeah ... this article needs a little fixin' Chaosdruid (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , cloud has been clearly linked prior to be that of cloud computing. Second, you clearly misdefined a lot of the words: exalt is to boost, austere grandeur literally means amazing, and critics did try boosting the gameplay and not simmers; if you dive into the community you'll know simmers are not so happy of this game.  Gerald WL  00:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Nope. I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. I do not define words, dictionaries do.


 * Exalt is NOT to boost, as the bible would mean "oh boosted lord"? Plus, boost can also mean to steal. Exalt means to raise someone with worship, or to speak highly of.
 * Exalt is just not used correctly there.
 * Austere grandeur does NOT literally mean amazing, as those two words are diametrically opposed. Austere means humble, or plain, and grandeur is splendour, or impressive. "humble impressiveness".


 * More importantly, "boosting the gameplay" by using "broken scenery for fun" is just nonsense.


 * It is irrelevant whether it is linked or not, it needs clarifying that the word is NOT being used in it's most generally used form, cloud storage. It is cloud computing. Linking does not clarify when the link has two or more definitions and the linked wording does not show which one was meant.
 * Lastly, I am in the community. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , I'm not sure which dictionary you're using. Personally I use Oxford Languages. Austere means "severe or strict in manner, attitude, or appearance." An example is: the austere grandeur of mountain scenery. Feel free to change the exalt. "Boosting the gameplay by using broken scenery for fun" can make sense, if you treat the game as a sandbox, where you can experiment with the Earth. You should try once in a while exploiting the game's error, I guarantee it changes the entire gameplay.  Gerald  WL  01:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Not quite. From your dictionary choice:
 * "severe or strict in manner or attitude." (referring to a person), it gives the example as: "he was an austere man, with a rigidly puritanical outlook"


 * "having a plain and unadorned appearance." (referring to a thing), it gives the example as: "the cathedral is impressive in its austere simplicity"


 * I am not sure why you though it would be OK to add "or appearance", when appearance is defined in the next two examples (prison, mountains).


 * I am assuming good faith, so "the austere grandeur of mountain scenery" would mean "Mountain scenery is still impressive though it is simple/plain". Chaosdruid (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I assume that "austere grandeur" means a splendid grandeur; when I translated it to Indonesian, my native language, it becomes "mengagungkan", which means "glorious". Feel free to change it to perhaps more understandable, but I am just trying to make the article engaging and not plain. That's why you see some of these words.  Gerald WL  04:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I realised that there might be something like that occuring. It is quite difficult to explain, but translations often are without context needed, especially when there might be four or five words given as the answer.

The word google translate is suggesting for austere is "sederhana". Grandeur does not seem to have a direct translation, "keagungan berskala besar" (large-scale grandeur) Hopefully this explains it more ? I also made a video for you, using google translate  --- I always click to reverse the translation to see how accurate it is.

Here you can see that it is not accurate at all, but we end up with something that might be close? "kebesaran sederhana" Chaosdruid (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've put this article on GOCE, and it is still under copyedit.  Gerald WL  01:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Why would you do that not tell me that? I am a member of GOCE, and have been for many many years. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I submitted it well over a month ago, unaware of this discussion.  Gerald WL  03:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I set aside some time to edit it, and now I can't because a GOCE member has started it


 * Is there anything else I should know that you haven't told me?


 * For example, I now see that you are trying to get it to GA?


 * I used to copyedit the articles going for FA and GA regularly. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't think "GOCE" means "officially-its-just-me-copyediting-this"; I don't think there are any restrictions on whether one could copyedit an article or no. Informal copyediting is allowed, I assume. And yes, I'm heading for GA.  Gerald WL  03:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there are restrictions, because of edit conflicts - which we try to avoid. No, you are not, the article is :¬) You are going to have to collaborate on this one. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , the GOCE is done. If you wanna do the ce-s again, the stage is all yours.  Gerald WL  15:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * It was a copyedit, the GOCE is a group of copyeditors.


 * I know it has been done, because the editor told me when they had finished.


 * The comment "the stage is all yours" I will, this time, take in good faith.


 * Suggesting that I am somehow aggrandising myself is not really the best way to play this Gerald.


 * We still have to collaborate on the GA.


 * I will get on to it after I get up tomorrow. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Edits 30-03-2021
I have just edited the first third of the article. I have added/edited quite a bit of material, but came short on two details. 1. The rudder - is it really just for taxiing, or does it also apply it in flight while banking? 2. "The screen" is misleading, as there is one screen, the one you are viewing on (TV/monitor/laptop screen) and three in-game screens: cockpit, external view (with the ASI/compass/VSI/ALT/etc. and ATC/VFR map/assistance/etc. windows), camera view (no ASI/compass/VSI/ALT/etc. but can see ATC/VFR map/assistance/etc. windows) I'll take another look later tonight, as well as expanding those first sections, I will take a quick run over the other sections. Chaosdruid (talk) 05:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ,I have some concerns on your edits: in this edit you made an unsourced claim. Here... I'm not sure we need to say "cloud computing" in full. Another unsourced content, and another. We don't need specific wordings in the lead. Other than that, no problem.
 * 1. You mean the helper tools? As far as I'm concerned the helper only pops in the taxiways.
 * 2. Mind specifying which sentence?
 *  Gerald WL  07:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. I mention rudder, as in previous versions of the sim, FSX and FS2004 for example, if you tick "rudder assist" it applies rudder when you bank to turn.
 * 2. Gameplay>Para 3> "The screen[clarify] also has the VHF omnidirectional range (VOR)"
 * 3. Cloud storage: Normal practice is to use the full term first, and put any abbreviation in brackets, especially where clarity is required MOS:MISCSHORT. "Uncommon, non-obvious shortenings should be explained or linked on first use on a page." I am saying that clarity is required to differentiate between cloud computing, and cloud storage - because the most common usage of the term "in the cloud" refers to storage. The average reader will NOT first think that Azure is cloud computing. Once it has been defined, the term cloud will be taken to mean computing at every use. If you look at Cloud computing you will see there are many many "unclear" tags. Similarly, the Cloud Storage article has less.
 * Similarly, a google search quickly shows that "cloud storage"=1,420,000,000 and "cloud computing"=411,000,000 --- why is this relevant? Because the average user has heard of "cloud storage", and most of them refer to it as "the cloud". Instead of them thinking 'oh, they mean "in the cloud"' when they read "cloud", now they know it means cloud computing. Rather than ignore it, thinking they KNOW what that means, they might well go and find out what that means now.
 * "specific wordings": You are going to have to say which words you are referring to, as the diffs have changed a few words. But, we have to be as specific as we can to aid clarification. If I feel it needs clarifying, I will clarify it.
 * That edit was because they needed clarifying. I have, as I already told you, edited many articles, and quite a few that made it to GA and FA. I would not do anything that would jeopardise either GOCEs or my own reputations - obviously we all can make mistakes though. Take a look at this article, it is the only one I have mostly created, edited, collaborated on, and took to GA status & a DYK Belitung shipwreck This page is the level of detail I was expected to take my edits to to get the article through to GA I mention that article to show you that I do know what I am talking about when it comes to specifics and GA :¬)
 * Citations and refs are not normally placed in the lead, as the lead summarises the body of text. The refs/cites should be in the body of text, not in the lead WP:LEADCITE. I do not think this article's lead is complex enough to need them there, as it would just be repeats of ones in the body of text. Nevertheless, we only NEED to put in citations/references for material that is contentious WP:WHYCITE. In other words, if someone says "no, that's wrong", or "that looks like WP:OR" it NEEDS a ref, but if it is something we can all agree is real, then it does not. "The sky is usually blue", "zebras have stripes" etc. If this was NOT the case, we would have to ref every single sentence part and word combination.
 * You would need to tell me exactly what statements you disagree on. Are you saying that the caches can NOT be turned off? or that VATSIM and IVAO don't allow pilots to talk to live ATC? or that marketplace does not have A32NX in it's listing? These things are there for all to see: rollingcache.ccc can be turned off, and manual cache is off by default; VATSIM and IVAO are clearly for pilots to talk to live ATC; and the market place listing is in plain sight within the sim.
 * Lastly, there will be many things I am sure we need and don't need, and we need to get consensus if this is ever going to get anywhere. I mention this because the ref for "cache can be turned off" that I put in the article CLEARLY has a picture of the cache and it says "ON" with an arrow either way, to turn it off -- and says in the article, "To do this, enable the Rolling Cache option", which means it is not enabled before you enable it. Did you read the ref I put in?? :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 08:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , regarding the sources, I was saying that some of your additions are unsourced, aka WP:OR. It doesn't seem to come from any of the references currently cited. So let's say there's a sentence: "The apple falls from the tree." Then you change it: "The apple and banana falls from the tree." But banana isn't in the source (or at least assumingly), so that counts as unsourced. That's why edit summaries are encouraged; to clarify what can be misconceptions. I'm also not saying that VATSIM don't allow pilots, I'm just saying they're unsourced.  Gerald WL  09:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you really think I do not know what OR is or what edit summaries are for? Of course I do. I also am assuming good faith. It took me nearly two hours to write the last post, being specific about everything. Edit summaries are to summarise edits, and I clearly did that.
 * All those diffs you posted previously have edit summaries, they are all very clear. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd are extremely specific. The 4th is also specific; prose and accuracy are the first edits, and add details is for the bit where I added details. The 5th diff is your "specific wordings" comment. In that one, there were issues with prose in the lead, I add detail, and separated the explanation of Azure AI from the one about in-game physics.
 * When doing a copyedit on an article, we do not save every time we do one change. We are assumed to be competent editors, and we usually save by section, or paragraph.
 * When doing normal editing, we are only usually adding something small, then saving. Copyediting is different.
 * Once again, not everything needs a ref. Only things that are not obvious, or could be challenged NEED a ref. While it is better to have them, once again not in the lead, there can be too many.
 * "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed"
 * That last sentence part is the key. We don't need to add them, they just need to exist.
 * You'll find plenty of refs in the Virtual Air Traffic Simulation Network article - where it clearly states exactly what VATSIM is.
 * If we add material to a sentence, that does not mean it HAS to be supported by the ref already present, or that a new one needs adding.
 * Instead of using vague examples like banana and apple, please use the words and phrases I have actually added and you think are OR in a format such as:
 * "this and that was then and there" Here this and that are OR because ... [or]
 * "A is better than B except when C" Here C was added and is not relevant.
 * It will help us get things on track rather than "there is something wrong" and not actually saying what it is that is wrong :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't think we should direct readers to references in the VATSIM article. That's not what a link's for. We should always cite such challengeable statements. For example, I could just assume people know what a Common Sense selection is by exploring the CSM article or the CSM website (referring to reception section here), but it's not part of the reference and not what a link is for, at least in my knowledge. So, I have to cite the Commons Sense selection about page too. It takes some space, but always worth it.  Gerald WL  06:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, looks like I forgot to ping you on that last comment :¬)
 * Yes, do you really think I don't know what a link is for?
 * No, I was directing you to that article so you could use a ref from there in this one if you wanted to. The VATSIM article has refs which support it being a network for pilots and ATC to talk to each other, I am sure. Nonetheless, do not forget that at this stage I am mostly copyediting it, not just editing. Some edits will be both, others one or the other.
 * I am not sure what you are saying with "the csm article or the csm website" or the "cite the common sense selection":
 * "CSM's Chad Sapieha chose it as a Common Sense selection for families for being an "outstanding" game with "quality and impact"." yes, it is ref'd? I would expect any quoted material to have a ref?
 * It's almost like you are trying to explain to me why we put in refs? You mean like I do on edits I make? Like I did in this very article? Where I add the ref, where I expanded the section, checking first that the info was in the ref I had added, or here, where I first checked to make sure the ref included the things I wanted to say? ""skipping from Takeoff or Cruise to Approach or Final" ... Not sure what you are so worried about.
 * Being uncited does NOT make something challengeable, someone thinking something is not right is what makes something challengeable. They then ask for proof, by placing a CN tag, and a cite/ref is provided. Do you think VATSIM is NOT for talking between ATC and pilots? Because if you DO think that IS what it is for, you are not challenging my edit. You can only challenge my VATSIM edit if you think I made it up, WP:OR, or that it is factually innacurate (or that it is copyvio, plagiarism etc.). Being cited does not PREVENT something from being challenged. The cite might be wrong, for example unsupported by the ref, or there might be a COPYVIO! Please remember that "attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed"
 * At this point, I am going to suggest you go and look at all my edits since 26th February (one calendar month before I started on this article) --- that will give you a feel of who I am. Roughly 20% of my edits are to do with refs; removing material not supported, adding refs, adding cn tags, correcting refs, etc. Chaosdruid (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think this big thread is based off of misconception. You cleared it all by stating "I was directing you to that article so you could use a ref from there in this one if you wanted to." However I still expect a ref from the VATSIM article to be placed first hand. Nobody denies VATSIM being what it is, it's simply a matter of encyclopedic verifiability. I will place a ref there when I have the time.  Gerald WL  06:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's almost like you are trying to explain to me why we put in refs? You mean like I do on edits I make? Like I did in this very article? Where I add the ref, where I expanded the section, checking first that the info was in the ref I had added, or here, where I first checked to make sure the ref included the things I wanted to say? ""skipping from Takeoff or Cruise to Approach or Final" ... Not sure what you are so worried about.
 * Being uncited does NOT make something challengeable, someone thinking something is not right is what makes something challengeable. They then ask for proof, by placing a CN tag, and a cite/ref is provided. Do you think VATSIM is NOT for talking between ATC and pilots? Because if you DO think that IS what it is for, you are not challenging my edit. You can only challenge my VATSIM edit if you think I made it up, WP:OR, or that it is factually innacurate (or that it is copyvio, plagiarism etc.). Being cited does not PREVENT something from being challenged. The cite might be wrong, for example unsupported by the ref, or there might be a COPYVIO! Please remember that "attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed"
 * At this point, I am going to suggest you go and look at all my edits since 26th February (one calendar month before I started on this article) --- that will give you a feel of who I am. Roughly 20% of my edits are to do with refs; removing material not supported, adding refs, adding cn tags, correcting refs, etc. Chaosdruid (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think this big thread is based off of misconception. You cleared it all by stating "I was directing you to that article so you could use a ref from there in this one if you wanted to." However I still expect a ref from the VATSIM article to be placed first hand. Nobody denies VATSIM being what it is, it's simply a matter of encyclopedic verifiability. I will place a ref there when I have the time.  Gerald WL  06:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's possibly one issue. If nobody denies it, then it is not challenged and does not need a ref. We know refs for that exist, and we agreed they could be produced if challenged. It is difficult if one tries to force everyone into one's own perceptions of what is and is not needed. It is important not to overstep from caretaker to owner. Chaosdruid (talk) 07:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * , another example where a ref is needed is in the updates subsection. You mention updates in Belg, Neth, and Lux, but the Rock. Paper. Shotgun ref doesn't support it. Mind adding a cite to that?  Gerald WL  03:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Feel free to collaborate and add one ... maybe this one? Chaosdruid (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)