Talk:Virtual Air Traffic Simulation Network/Archive 1

Edit of May 14
The change in staff policies was not caused by the IVAO management change, it was already introduced in May 2005, i.e. long before the management change at IVAO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenny Moens (talk • contribs) 16:15, 14 May 2006‎ (UTC)

Other remark: Why are things like "IVAO consists of about [61,000 members] (as of May 2006)." and "(includes information about recent ownership dispute)" that are purely related to IVAO, and not related to VATSIM whatshowerer, mentioned on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.11.205.35 (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2006‎ (UTC)

-

I thought it would relevant to give an idea of the size of Vatsim in respect to its largest competitors. The other stuff is perhaps superflous somewhat.

82.195... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.195.105.244 (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)‎

Pilot Usage Overview
I think that the Pilot Usage Overview section should be removed. These instructions are available on a variety of VATSIM-related websites (we can provide a link) and are more of a how-to as opposed to encyclopedic content. I don't see them adding any value to the article. Canwolf 21:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Since there were no objections for over a week, I have removed the section - Canwolf 08:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am going to add this section back. The reason is anyone researching this topic for a paper or article would be able to understand how Vatsim works, and what is expected of those connecting. Bschott 13:21, 12 July 2006 (CST)

Division links
I'm removing links to individual divisions, per External links (Links that should be avoided - 1. In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.). All individual division/region sites can be accessed from the main VATSIM page, and regional sites don't provide any useful reference information relating to the topic. - Canwolf 17:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion
You gotta be kidding me. This network has over 120,000 members and averages upwards of 800 people connected at a time. It is the largest multiplayer organization for simulated flight in the world. I'm not sure why you've decided to take offense at the notion of virtual aviation, but this is the wrong article to be calling "Nonsense gamer spam".

Specifically, to address the notability requirements - VATSIM is international. VATSIM has been written about in the Wall Street Journal, in a Sydney newspaper, in the AOPA newsletter (link not available), in Wired, in Computer World, and is mentioned regularly in smaller publications such as Computer Pilot and so on.

This article is absolutely appropriate for Wikipedia. Tim 20:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

To add to your references, VATSIM was also talked about in a virtual piloting article in the Smithsonian Air & Space Magazine January 1, 2009. Leovenous (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Merging in VATUSA
The main VATSIM article barely has enough content to be usable, so there's no point in having a two sentence paragraph for VATUSA. -- Phoenix  (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Merging
VATUSA, VATCAN ETC are all sub-divisions of VATSIM -- may be usefull to merge them -Enti342 02:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks much, I wasn't even aware there was a VATCAN article, then realized you created one. Both VATCAN and VATUSA redirect here now because there simply isn't enough information for separate articles. -- Phoenix  (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV
I just removed a lot of information that is useless to any reader who is not a VATSIM member, and redundant information. Example: "the network does not do this-and-that" - the network also does not provide a solution for global warming, but there is no use pointing that out. Authors should try to stick to basic facts, and should try to read their article through the eyes of a complete stranger who has no idea about aviation. Write all you want on your website, don't turn wikipedia into an advertising brochure. --airborne 01:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

New sources
There are a few links to some scholarly/notable discussion of VATSIM on the AfD page. Some (the books) are already cited. Some (the blogs), can only be used to buttress statements, not provide verification, although I would argue that Terranova has an active editorial policy for the main articles. But there is NO shortage of journal articles about VATSIM. I may dig through it if I have the time, but it would probably be faster if someone familiar w/ VATSIM and/or the literature did it. Protonk (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate, I'm going through as many as I can. I didn't realise there was so much material.  A number of the articles discuss both IVAO and VATSIM, so I'm adding them to both articles where appropriate. Icemotoboy (talk) 11:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced Statements
Some reference tags were added to a bunch of material, I've gone through and added as many tags as I could and moved the remaining unreferenced challenged statements to this page below. If anyone can recommend any sources, please let me know and I'll be happy to do the ground work.Icemotoboy (talk) 11:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

During peak periods, more than 1,500 controllers and pilots may be connected to the network. More than a third of members have real-world flying experience: of these, most are private pilots, and about one third are commercial pilots. Five percent of members overall are real-world air traffic controllers. About half the membership is between 26 and 36 years old, and just over ten percent is under 18. In contrast to the real world, VATSIM membership is almost exclusively male (over 99%).

New members can connect as pilots immediately after joining, but should understand the basics of aviation and be able to control their aircraft in the virtual flight space before flying online, with a level of skill and knowledge comparable to that of a student pilot in the real world. A training program for pilots is recommended, but not mandatory.

Training is mandatory for all ATC, users can only assume positions if they have the required controller rating. Connecting as an ATC observer requires no training, but does not allow a member to provide ATC services.

After passing a basic theory test, the Observer rated member advances to S1. At this rating, the student can control airfield tower positions subject to local restrictions. A practical exam must be passed on the tower of their choice in order to advance to S3. An S3 is able to control an approach position subject to local restrictions. After another practical exam, the S3 advances to C1 etc. The C1 is able to control TMA positions in the local FIR.

___________________________________

Training is mandatory for all ATC, users can only assume positions if they have the required controller rating. Connecting as an ATC observer requires no training, but does not allow a member to provide ATC services.

After passing a basic theory test, the Observer rated member advances to S1. At this rating, the student can control airfield tower positions subject to local restrictions. A practical exam must be passed on the tower of their choice in order to advance to S3. An S3 is able to control an approach position subject to local restrictions. After another practical exam, the S3 advances to C1 etc. The C1 is able to control TMA positions in the local FIR.

see for that info Bakerboy448 (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of "Major Power Outage" section
Who did this? I WROTE THAT! If you would like to know, I actually recieved that NOTAM <:{ ZoomDude (talk) 05:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's in the edit history. Traffic from VATSIM itself isn't really notable.  when the outage is covered in third party publications we can put it here.
 * Protonk (talk) 06:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I did. Of course you received the NOTAM, so did every member of VATSIM. I already put this all on your talk page, but I'll repost it again here, I suppose.
 * Only two VATSIM servers were affected and they're now back up. They weren't even damaged, they just lost power for about 24 hours. It's really not a big deal. I think you might've misunderstood the NOTAM, since your edits to the article said that "VATSIM Headquarters" was hit by an electrical fire/explosion. There is no such thing as "VATSIM Headquarters". The explosion was at a datacenter (of which VATSIM is a relatively small customer) that hosts thousands of servers for a wide variety of customers. VATSIM had two servers that were affected (the web server and the forums/sweatbox server). The network itself wasn't even affected during the outage (naturally, since there are 7 FSD servers spread around the globe for just this reason).
 * The explosion is already covered in the article for the host, The Planet Internet Services, which is the only place it really would have any relevance in my opinion. Tim (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well Done
Good work everyone, I see the article has now been rated from Start to C-class. What a great effort in bringing an article that was nearing deletion back into being a good solid start on an high quality article. I'm certain there's at least a B-class article awaiting to be developed here, and I'm really keen to see that happen with this and other Flight simulation articles.Icemotoboy (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject videogames assessment
Hi folks, this assessment is in response to a request at the video game project. I think the article remains a good C-class example with some fairly good sourcing but gaps in information and a scattered layout. Here's some suggestions:


 * To get access to B-grade and above the article needs to be largely complete. One of the things stopping that here is the lead which does not summarize the article. Another missing element is a reception section, it would be nice to see what observers think of the group. There is second-party analysis in the article but it's not focused in one area which allows it to be easily taken in by the reader.
 * History is thoroughly confusing:
 * The first part is about enthusiasts in this general area, is there no main article to link to?


 * Could SATCO be separated from ProController?
 * What does SATCO stand for?
 * What is SATCO exactly?

If this article is about SATCO and VATSIM then the former needs explaining. Could it be clarified whether IVAO already existed within SATCO or whether the former was formed when a group split from the latter? Lastly, what is IVAO? (Ideally a brief explanation would be offered to stop the reader having to go to another article just to find out.) :*"VATSIM was officially formed in July 2001, effectively replacing SATCO." Could this be a bit more specific? "Effectively" muddies the waters here, did the majority of SATCO's members decide to head in a new direction and rename it for instance? :*Perhaps this section could contain the number of members? Growth is a part of history. *The Structure section doesn't seem to need a heading of its own, why not put that information in the overview? Rather than having a bullet-list of regions, why not convert them into prose? There's a lot of empty space produced by the section heading and the list. *What's going on with Peter Sanders' piece, which is referenced three times separately in different locations with apparently different wording?
 * The article seems to set up a lot of acronyms by spelling them out and providing acronyms in brackets, yet not using the abbreviation afterwords. Air Traffic Controllers and Air Traffic Control are both given the acronym ATC, see the problem? For readability purposes it's best not to use acronyms at all if possible, so try and thin them out or eliminate them altogether bar organization names.
 * Under the VATSIM and MITRE section, the MITRE article is linked as a main article above the body of text yet wikilinked twice within the body, once is enough. Make sure there aren't redundant wikilinks in the article.
 * Administration is another heading which doesn't seem necessary, couldn't that go under the membership section, perhaps renamed?

To sum up, the article could do with some tidying, which would not result in lost information but would greatly improve readability. The group's history and the nature of all the things surrounding it need explaining, assume the reader knows nothing of the subject, most (like me) won't. Please ask for another reassessment whenever you feel the article could be ready for promotion, or if you'd like a fresh pair of eyes on it. Someoneanother 14:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a really good, detailed list. I'll get onto fixing that up.  While I'm no VATSIM expert, I'm waaay to familiar with it to be able to read it from a new-user perspective.  Cheers! Icemotoboy (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Have done a first pass on reworking the whole history section. Learned alot about SATCO I never knew! Have struck out the stuff I've done, still much to do... Icemotoboy (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Assessment as of 2009-06-13
Still C-class...it's not bad, but there are many choppy paragraphs, and many unreferenced sections. These need to be tackled and expanded before it can get B-class.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Citation Revision
Specifically, This very-well may be true, though not my experience, but the cited work does not validate this statement.

The original quote from Flying magazine is: "Systems like VATSIM are apparently very strict experiences, however, with standards for training and currency that can be more intense and involved than some pilots want to undertake." In its proper context, the author is referring to "virtual pilots" and "players," while making no connection between "strict experiences" in the virtual environment and "those already involved in real world flying."

Also, the wrong article is footnoted. The correct one is, "Microsoft Unveils Mission-Capable Flight Sim X," written by Lane Wallace on page 45. Ref5c accidently cites the previous article by a different author on an unrelated subject.

I do not want to make this change to the VATSIM article as I do not want to inadvertently alter the author's intent, but think that somebody closer to this page should. As a licensed pilot and a huge fan of very-structured virtual ATC, I felt I needed to be anal on the matter. :) Captjosh (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are entirely correct, that was my fault. Sorry has taken so long to fix it.  I have amended the tag, and also introduced another reference for that sentence.  I have made another sentence that reflects the article better, and placed it in the new "reception" section.  Please let me know if you have any further ideas, and as always feel free to edit yourself.  Thanks! Icemotoboy (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)