Talk:Rise of Flight: The First Great Air War

Information about the upcoming Iron Cross Edition has also been added. --LukeFF (talk) 23:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Gamecruft
I have been made aware of the edit war here, so I was asked to express my opinion. I notice that nearly all of the material being re-instated is unsourced, and a lot seems subject to original research (OR) issues, which is a big problem. So, I ask you LukeFF, why do you feel this material should stay? You should get to adding sources to it for a start, and address the OR issues if you feel the text has merit. A lot of the text badly needs to be re-worded too. It sounds like it's written to promote the game rather than inform.

Is there possible copyvio issues here? I searched some text but there's no way to be sure if it' circular copying or not.  Я ehevkor ✉  19:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree some of the text needs to be reworded or removed entirely so it doesn't sound like promo material. Other than that, what do you see that looks like OR? All of the info has come at one time or another from the official game website, riseofflight.com. LukeFF (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * And to add to this: a lot of the info already in this article does have outside sources already cited. Much of this info can either be found on the game's official website and in the official user's manual, both of which are linked at the bottom of the page.


 * And, to be fully frank, I think this whole issue shows that Wikipedia has a very serious issue with double standards. There are lists galore all over Wikipedia - lists of countries that operate a certain type of aircraft or weapon, squadrons that operate a certain piece of military equipment, lists of people from a particular nationality, etc. But, somehow showing people what aircraft they can expect to encounter in a flight simulator is verboten? Why? Why is there this agenda about reducing the amount of relevant, verifiable material on a Wikipedia page?


 * This particular page has been an interest for me for over two years now. I've worked hard to keep it updated with relevant information. Hardly anyone other than myself, up until October 2012, has given a damn about contributing to it as well in the past two years. Then along comes this Eik fellow who suddenly feels it's his mission in life to hack up every flight sim webpage he can find here, because hey, we can't be giving Wikipedia users relevant information about a game now, can we?


 * I'm agreeable to making changes to make this article even better, but I'm not agreeable to just seeing large swaths of the text wiped away because some obtuse list of guidelines on Wikipedia says so. LukeFF (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you actually have any argument for including what you want or is it just me being a Nazi or Wikipedia being a conspiracy against flight simulators or whatever? The burden of proof is on you to argue for information's inclusion. Instead of actually producing a coherent argument for keeping it, you just wasted your time with this cute stuff. When I linked you to the relevant part of WP:GAMECRUFT, you ignored the first part and quoted this second part: "Sometimes a concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry.", so I'm holding you to that - Explain how this list of aircraft that makes up half of the article's length is a "concise summary" that helps to understand the game. Put it this way -- How does knowing that the game includes a G8 Steam Locomotive help me understand the game? Eik Corell (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Every article should adhere to Wikipedia's quality rules and guidelines, plenty of articles pass under the radar but that doesn't mean they should. Either way, I've gone through the article and formatted the sources I could find, but whole sections remain unsourced. To name a few, "Physics and aerodynamics", "Artificial intelligence (AI)" and "Mission Editor" lack a single source. What sources there are seem to be primarily primary sources (sources directly related to the subject, manuals, announcements etc), these should not be relied on to build articles. Articles should be based on reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, such as articles on games magazines/news sites etc (not fan sites or forums). In my view "gamecruft" is information that can only be sourced to the source material (the game itself, manuals) and without this independent coverage it simply has no place here - if you can find a viable source for a piece of information, it's probably notable (or relevant) for inclusion. The bottom line is Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a flight-sim fansite, articles here should focus on the historically important information on the subject, not every minor detail (the "Game content" section is a good example of a section that would be cut as articles improve, Halo 3 (a featured article) doesn't have a list of every character and weapon). Either way, no one seems to be trying to delete the article entirely or even suggest the subject isn't notable. What seems to be happening here is a conflict of the two schools of thought, one being badly written/unsourced material should be swept under the rug until it's ready and compliant, the other being that that material should remain on sight of them or other people can work on and improve it, problems be damned.


 * The first step to improving an article is to find reliable sources, so that is my main suggestion to you LukeFF. I've said what I came here to say, I don't have time to do much beyond this right now, so good luck for now.  Я ehevkor ✉  14:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the lists for now, and specified why. If the article is to improve, focus should rest on the categories that are now, and how they can be merged into a "plot", "gameplay", and "reception" section. I'll try to do that. Eik Corell (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I made some improvements to article and reorganized it. I again deleted the offending list. The article is in dire need of reliable sources. Most of the gameplay section is unsourced and even basic facts like who developed the game are left up in the air. Forgive the pun. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed a large, unsourced list of various vehicles and places that was present on the article. Lists such as these should be removed per WP:NOT. Additionally, I don't see any consensus here to keep the list on the article. --Odie5533 (talk) 11:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)