Talk:Rail Simulator

Press releases should not qualify as Wikis

A good 90% of the article was written as if it was a badly-worded (what else?) pro-Kuju press release. Ridiculous.

Unless of course the makers of the game think otherwise.

err, yes. what is this page doing in Wikipedia?

Don't forget that the only info released about the game is press releases and the Games for Windows page. Titan602 - The mind of darkness 18:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that it's providing some very useful information, which is (or should be) the whole purpose of Wikipedia (John259 19:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC))

I agree - It provides a nice centralized description of the up coming game features. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.201.15 (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

What about System Requirements, with particular reference to Vista

Behold the games for windows page with loads of info. Titan602 - The mind of darkness 18:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Having just signed up to Wikipedia to add (and improve) some content specifically on this and other simulation related pages, I agree that the Rail Simulator page does seem to have a lot of information that seems to be sourced from Press Releases. However up until the release of this title just a couple of months ago (and in North America, less than a month ago) that is all there really was to go on. It definitely deserves a place on here though and can act as a hub of information going forwards. What changes does everyone feel would benefit this article? SimUK (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No WP:reliable sources, a candidate for speedy deletion. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Links on article

The links on this article should be changed (e.g. the .wmv file and the .jpg file) It is also a bit outdated too. (Its already been released now right?)

 10014derek  Ӂ  01:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC) The North American version of Rail Simulator will be released on January 16, 2008. This information can be confirmed at www.railsimualtor.com

It has been released in Europe though. There is more to the world than North America, so having the big banner saying Unreleased Game is incorrect for anyone outside of North America. Instead there should be another section for the North American version with any information about the new routes and such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.104.27.5 (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC) For the North American release they have confirmed an ES44AC or DC which this information has been posted on the website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R179 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of advert and citation templates

User 91.109.203.31 removed advert and citation templates so replaced them. This article requires reliable 3rd party references (WP:Reliable sources) and needs to be re-written from a WP:NPOV. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As no-one else volunteered I have cleaned it up and removed the banners. If people want to discuss these edits please do so here. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasnt able to understand the information on the links you posted about NPOV and other elements related to problems with the content of the RailSim Wiki. Sadly the time it took me to compile the data, that has now been butchered, is not something I am willing to repeat. user 91.109.203.31 17.57, 22nd January 2009 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.201.6 (talk)

I reproduce the first paragraph of WP:NPOV as the ip user abiove doesn't understand it:

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.

Which bit don't you understand? Jezhotwells (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont understand how a statement of fact is not an NPOV. Emphasis or embelishment of fact is marketing yes, but pure bullet point lists of contents? For example, listing the specific four routes included in the EU release, and then how the Global release differed. The current article says exactly the same but without the specific routes named. Whats the difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.201.6 (talk) 09:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The WP:MOS#Bulleted_and_numbered_lists suggests:

Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs.

.

The amount of detail was too much, the article still needs more 3rd part reliable sources - i.e. not fan sites or blogs or forums. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Cheers. However, how can more 3rd party sources be used, if only one source exists? Expecially as Fan Sites/Blogs and Forums are not permitted. That rule seems a contradiction to me, but hey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.201.6 (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is only one reliable source it is very likely that the subject of teh article is actaully non-notable. eliable sources do not have to be online. They can include print newspapers or magazines or journals. As long as it is possible for someone to find that new ietem or feature to check. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

afd

please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#RailDriver_contested_prod if you have some interest in this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrolljon (talk • contribs) 22:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sound & Rail Clipping comment

Ive placed this comment here as it was originally added to the main article no evidence of validation. Without citation this comment cannot be considered as NPOV.

"Other critics pointed out the weird sound and rail clipping issues and the sensitive editing tools." added by 89.240.118.240 (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2009

Expansion packs

I see lots ofdetail added re expansion packs but no referencing. This material amy be removed if eitors don't provode WP:Relaible sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, might want to check those links

I'd just like to point out that the website's links don't exist anymore.--Cubs197 23:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Shit, yourre right!--78.180.88.85 (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Railworks

Please work on Railworks page its just a Inproved of the rail simulator — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.221.207 (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rail Simulator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110711010132/http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/showthread.php?t=273796 to http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/showthread.php?t=273796

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)