Talk:List of space flight simulation games

The creation of this page

Holy crap that took a long time, I have tried to be as concise as possible. The www.dictionary.com definition of simulation reveals that simulation means "imitation or enactment, as of something anticipated or in testing" this can be found on this page http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/simulation. This is the reason as to why I have included FMV style and | Rail style simulators. As they too imitate space according to www.dictionary.com, hence space simulation. I have not included 2d simulators or 3d strategy simulators as according to http://www.dictionary.com and http://www.merriam-webster.com a simulator is "a device that enables the operator to reproduce or represent under test conditions phenomena likely to occur in actual performance", in which 3d strategic simulators do not duplicate. I would love some input on this and some good discussion, it is my hope this list truly expands. Also, please don't just delete something because you feel it doesn't fall into the criteria of space simulation genre. Research the game, discuss the deletion of it on this discussion page, and talk about it.--Kirihari (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice list. SharkD (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Are these all space flight simulation games?

Resolved

That is, the core gameplay involves piloting a spacecraft? I might suggest a rename to List of space flight simulation games, or list of space flight games. Space simulation is usually used to refer to simulated planetariums and the like. Randomran (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, you might be right. I have been fighting with myself trying to accurately define what exactly this page is. List of space flight simulation games might be better, but I have just one question, when a person thinks of a flight simulator, they think of games that are on a planet, adding space in front of that I hope is good enough to accurately define what exactly this list is. There is a horrible debate in the space simulation community as to what exactly space simulation is, that’s why the space simulator page is really ugly, and space combat simulator is even uglier, and the space combat and trading simulator is terrible too. In everyone's opinion, what is the best most accurate name for this list?

List of space flight simulation games ?

or

List of space flight simulator games ?

I think one has to leave simulation because when one refers to space sim, an immediate image of a combat simulator pops into your mind. Also, the games themselves are categorized as space sims by such places like gamespot.com. Kirihari (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC/GMT +9 hours)

Renaming of this list

The list has been renamed after repeated people have emailed me and discussion on this page. Space flight simulator accurately describes in detail what the games are on this list. If there is any more discussion about this please let it be stated immediately because renaming all the links from other pages to this page can take a long time after this list has been linked to several more pages, however I believe most people will agree this is the correct name for this list.--Kirihari (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Good call. Keep up the good work. (By the way, don't take the gamespot tags too seriously. They're just sloppy tags applied by the gamespot community, rather than anything well-researched or informed.) Randomran (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

One more thing... I agree that the space simulator, space flight simulator, combat space simulator ... that whole series of articles is really messy. None of the definitions are very tight, so we end up with planetariums blended in with NASA training chambers blended in with all kinds of space flight games that appear in three or four different articles anyway. This is definitely an area that needs more clarification. But it's not something that can be done with small edits. It will have to involve a plan, and seeing how all the articles relate to one another, and pulling some of the mess apart so everything is in its right place. Randomran (talk) 04:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

New article based on re-organization

The mess of space simulation articles have been merged and split ... the new page for basic flight (no combat) games is space flight simulator game. If anyone wants to help expand that article, I'd welcome them to do so. But all things considered, there aren't many games that focus on space travel without any combat. Randomran (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

AquaNox

I think AquaNox should also be listed. Though it technically takes place under the sea, it is a classic space sim in every other regard. SharkD (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am with ya a 100% man, I will add it in the next day or so if there is no objections, I this this is a fantastic game that fits within the realms of space flight simulator in every respect. --Kirihari (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Added! I have made a couple of notes next to the games as the reason of there inclusion in this list. The look and feel of ALL three of those games is that of a space combat sim therefore it makes only sense to add them to the list. To back up the inclusion, I have found three different references stating to that effect. Even the Wikipedia page AquaNox points out a very interesting fact that laser beams just wouldn't work quite right underwater ;) ,again making this game perfect for inclusion in this list. --Kirihari (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

RTSs

Should RTSs, such as Homeworld or SotSE, be listed in this article, maybe in a separate section? SharkD (talk) 04:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No, personally I don't think so, that would go under the List of RTS games. Although it would be nice to list some of my favorites side by side, it is probably inappropriate for this list.--Kirihari (talk) 0:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The description for Star Trek Online seems much more like it will feature Homeworld- or Earth & Beyond-esque ship controls rather than first-person. You've removed such games in the past, so... SharkD (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Games

Resolved

I removed three games, but I want to start a discussion about them and see how you all feel about my action as even though I created this list, it is defiantly not my list it is all of our list and I honestly feel bad deleting what someone else has created. Today I have removed Galictic Trader, Flatspace II, and EVE Online as they have nothing to do with space flight simulator, they all take place in space but the creation of this page was soely for the purpose of finding flight simulators that had some form of space flight simulator in them. How does everyone feel about this? --Kirihari (talk) 0:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It's tricky, because while they might not have the same gameplay as other flight simulators (e.g.: accelerate, pitch up/down, turn left/right), they're still space combat and trading games. (At least, that's my limited understanding, having never seen them or played them.) Randomran (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think they should stay. Anything which simulates operation of a single vessel in a space environment, in which a ship is a clearly defined object (as opposed to a general playing environment) should be here. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That's tricky too. We're not putting Star Control or Gradius here. There's a certain kind of gameplay that's expected in a "space flight simulator", even if it's not about realism. Randomran (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that I agree with Randomran's comments the most as games like Star Control and Gradius although are fantastic games, they do not belong here as flight simulators in general operate in a completely free environment with pitch and yaw. A flight simulator is a system that tries to copy, or simulate, the experience of flying an aircraft. It is as realistic as possible. So basically in a nutshell even though games take place in space and even though Flatspace II is one of my favorite games as it incorporates trade amongst some beautiful game play, that would most likely go into a different list as it does not incorporate anything even remotely close to flight simulator into its game play.Regardless of all of this, I think we can all agree that text based adventures like Galactic Trader have absolutely no place here, right? --Kirihari (talk) 10:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of a weird conundrum, though. Because there are these "space trader" games that don't simulate flight at all. Some do such as Elite, but many games treat space flight more like an action game like Space Rangers. I guess what I'm getting at: these space trader games are not an exact subgenre of space flight simulator game. Not every "space combat and trading simulation" is a "space flight simulation", in spite of the name. Randomran (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree, and it really pains me to delete work that other people have done to try to grow this list. I mean, we have to agree that browser based games that are point and click on the flat icon adventure style games are definitely out. I do feel bad for removing Star Sonata and Star Exodus as well, but both of those games do not incorporate anything to do with flight simulator into them. My purpose for building this list was in my absolute love for space trader flight simulators, that was my reason. The other games just fall into the space trader category. If someone was to build a space trader list, those would definitely fit perfectly on that list but because the purpose and the goal of this list is to find games that incorporate flight simulator aspects into them, text based games and browser based point and click adventures, and even the holy grail of sci-fi coolness EVE: Online is out, because you cannot pilot that ship, it is just a point a click adventure. A really cool point and click adventure but none the less, a point a click adventure. It was so difficult to find Space Simulator games, now through the hard effort of allot of us we have a really nice list; someone the other day added Parkan 2, what an amazing thing, I am really in touch with this genre and I have never heard of that game, it looks really amazing and I am going to buy it. If this list gets corrupted with 2d shoot-‘em-ups, and browser based adventures, then we will have something that looks similar to the page that is supposed to be our Space Flight Simulator page here on Wikipedia; a mess.--Kirihari (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you're focusing a bit too heavily on the term "simulation". I think reviewers are a lot less restrictive and a lot more generous when applying the term to games. The space trading games in particular I feel should be remain grouped together, as there is a documented lineage stemming from the release of Elite, and other facets such as trade and combat often overshadow the importance of flight. Anyway, I think that if the basics are there--if players are allowed to control a space ship individually--then a game can easily be called a simulation. Also, with few exceptions, space simulators of any kind can hardly be described as realistic; complex processes such as the interaction of gravitational fields and relativistic phenomena are rarely modeled, and even the mainstays of the genre, such as FreeSpace or X-Wing, only feature arcade-like, "sci-fi" flight models. SharkD (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

While I agree your concerns have been expressed within the space simulation community, I feel you are basing your changes on Original Research. These games have been labeled "simulators" in the press, and we should stick with exisiting naming conventions. SharkD (talk) 03:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC

Listen, SharkD you and I are in absolute agreement, everything listed in this page is a space simulator, everything deleted was a space simulator, they are just not a space flight simulator, everything that remains is a space flight simulator, this page is named the way it is based on previous discussions with different Wikipedians. It was originally named List of space simulation games, then that name was changed to Space Flight Simulator Games based on research done by many people within this community. I absolutely agree with you my friend, I agree that Galactic Trader(a text based game), Flatspace, EVE Online, are space simulation games, they just are not space flight simulators. My friend, your argument is not with me, it is with the person who originally created the flight simulator page on Wikipedia. Get him to change his definition of flight simulator and then we will be happy to change the contents of this list. This list has a very specific name, Space Flight Simulator, if flight was not included in that name, you would be correct, but you are correct, the games that were removed are definitely space simulation games, they simulate a ship in space, however and it is a big however, they do not simulate flight in space. That is where this list gets very specific, very fast.--Kirihari (talk) 12:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

So... rename it back to List of space simulators? If you'll look closely you'll see that only one of the three articles you linked to in the list has "flight" in its title. Further, Space combat simulator expressly points out that games of its class may have arcade flight dynamics and are not necessarily realistic. By your reasoning, none of these games should be featured at all. I even dug up an old review back from the Sinclair days that hesitates to call Elite of all games a simulator, yet you still list it in the article. If you want to stress the fact that a game in question doesn't feature "space flight", or has disagreeably unrealistic dynamics, then just point it out in the "Notes" column--that's what it's there for. SharkD (talk) 05:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you look at the old revision of Space flight simulator, you'll see that the qualifications are a lot more restrictive than what you've done in this article. So, your claim that "flight simulator article says so" seems kind of silly. SharkD (talk) 06:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey man, we are all with ya a 100%, the only problem is, again, this article is about space flight simulators, it was done this way because this genre is a relatively rare genre now days. I recommend that a new page be created for space simulation games and then copy this list and you will have a head start, I sympathize with what you are saying and I do wholeheartedly agree with one of your comments, I do believe aquanox should be included on this list because the flight physics and everything associated with the game are that of a space flight simulator. Now, my friend, this list was created with only one purpose in mind, to catalog all of the space flight simulators ever made. While the argument can be made that virtually none of them actually truly mimic the feeling of actually being in space, the same argument could be made about Microsoft flight simulator X, in that you couldn't jump into a 777 aircraft and expect to have a true understanding of how to take off and land in a real aircraft. I see your point SharkD and I understand your feelings and I truly appreciate your input and recommendations, I still don't see how it has any bearing on this article. It is like me going to the RTS strategy list and wanting to include X: Beyond the Frontier in there because it incorporates strategy in it. X:BTF does incorporate strategic elements into the game in that you need to acquire resources in order to wage war and build up your ship and buy guns, then kill the enemy. It is by all intents and purposes not a RTS game and does not fit into that specific genre. This list is for space flight simulators. The other actual Wikipedia categories of space flight simulators, space trading combat flight simulators, and space combat flight simulators are and have always been an utterly devastated mess, they might never be put back together properly. Even their earlier revisions are still horribly put together. My goal is to keep this one article clean with the help of those in this community. This list was put together with painstaking effort by all of us over the past couple of months. I understand what you are saying however I think what you should do is build a new list my friend. Copy and paste what is in this list to give you a head start however, we all have wanted this list for a long time. Go and build your own list that incorporates every single game with any space element in it and you will have the list that you desire. This list was created for only one purpose, to seek out and find those games that incorporate a flight simulator in space. Even you have just stated to change the name of this list...again... because it doesn't fit with your argument. This list is just that, the list of space flight simulator games. There is no purpose to change the name of this list. Make a new list, call it the List of space simulator games, and then there is no problem. The name of this list is very specific and deliberate. Stating that something or someone is silly is really for a different place. I have nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for everyone on Wikipedia. Please let’s keep this conversation clean, I really enjoy talking and discussing things with you. It is how this list was first conceived.--Kirihari (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC) -Tokyo

First of all, your aura of personal ownership regarding this page is a bit vexing. Wikipedia is not about you, and these are not "your" articles. It's not compulsory for me to create "my" own article. Secondly, you seem to be adding even more confusion to the mix, as you are categorizing articles into "Space flight simulator", "Space combat flight simulator" and "Space trading and combat flight simulator". People are going to be confused when they see this list and these games aren't located in them. Thirdly, if you want to create a list based on the flight properties of the games, you should sort them by accuracy of their flight dynamics. I mean, sort them based on being low quality, 2D simulators to high-quality gravitational simulators with full 3D motion. That would be a lot more useful. SharkD (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Every one of these games is a 3d space flight simulator, nothing is 2d. Everything takes place in a 3d environment and also in space. Listen, I recommend, read this article again, look at the list of items on the actual page, read the flight simulator article on Wikipedia. You lack knowledge about this topic. Basically add something to this conversation or start a new one, your antics are offending me. For the final time, this is a list of space flight simulators, what is your issue with this specific list? There is even a List of characters in The King of Fighters series, why don't you post a Space Simulation game on there; it is because it doesn't belong there. Why do you want to put RTS games on here? Why do you want to put text based simulators on here? And why are you insulting me and others who are trying their best to develop this list? You are breaking the rules of good conduct here on Wikipedia. Please cease and desist your insulting comments, I and others are offended by your accusations and your actions. You desperately want to have a list to add games that you find interesting, so I highly recommend creating it. Please cease and desist breaking the rules of good conduct here on Wikipedia. --Kirihari (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I must say something complimentary though, the list sure does look a hell of allot more professional since you appeared SharkD, thanks man. We need options; I would like to start a constructive conversation to solve the issue. Here are the available Lists of video games as you can see there are many lists available, there are many lists within lists, there is much to see. And as you can see on the list of flight simulator games, they all mimic what we have in this list, except for these are in space. Would you like me to start a list or would you like to for space simulation games of all genres whether it be RPG or RTS or flight simulator? We need constructive options, not constructive insults. ;)--Kirihari (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

How would you two feel about a compromise? Keep all the space trading games, but have two subheadings: "first-person" (for Elite) and "other" (for Trade Wars, Space Rangers, etc.). This wouldn't be original research, and it wouldn't be about making up our own subgenre. It would be a verifiable, neutral, unoriginal observation about the games in question. Randomran (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think putting "first-person" or "2D" in the Notes section would be better. If you put them first and are consistent in the way you label them, then you can just click the little sort icon (inverted arrows next to the column heading) and the table will automatically sort itself based on these criteria. When clicking on this control, the tables even sort themselves again using a second, alphabetical (in this particular list's case) sort rule. The table template could even be modified further to allow readers to choose how the tables are sorted, such as the "Column A", "Column B", "Column C", etc., sorting rules in MS Excel or OpenOffice. I'd have to do a bit of research in order to modify the templates in this way. I'd be willing to do this (I'd be interested in the project), but maybe not at just this moment as I'm kind of busy.

A third option would be to create another column in the table solely for this condition. This would clutter the table a little bit, but would be the most powerful option. SharkD (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious about how others (Kirihari? Sm8900?) feel about this proposal. I mean, compromise is a two way street. Randomran (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Randomran I honestly like the way you think. I say sure, absolutely, but then there are subgenres that we need to think about too. For example even if something is a "first person free form space flight combat simulator" like the X games, then something else is a "2d free form space combat arcade simulator" like Flatspace, and then something else is a "first person linear mission based arcade simulator" like Freespace. The thing is, is even when we have everything split up into subgenres and everything is really clear to us. There will be someone else who disagrees. I believe that everyone is doing their best though; I don't believe that people are malicious in their discussions on either the space simulation page or in trying to properly categorize this list. I believe that the space simulation genre is a huge genre. I believe it will require much time to properly organize and properly define just what exactly space simulation, space simulator, space flight simulator and every other combination in between. We are cleaning house so to speak, every dirty room must be completely emptied and then things slowly and surely put back into their proper place. We need someone to go and create one main page; "space simulator" and within space simulator create many headings. Space flight simulator should be combined with space simulator. Everything should be under space simulator. Whether it be RTS, 2d, 3d, text based, first person, shoot-em-up, first person, anything that has anything to do with simulating anything in space should technically fall into this list. Then we change the name of the list to the list of space simulators, and include absolutely everything from the space simulator software genre. Right now, I do believe for all good intents and good purposes that this list is properly named and categorized, however it does not make sense to have 20 lists and 100 different subgenres within all of those lists, for the purpose of finding 1 specific game, that game might fall on that list in 15 different categories as many games now days are multi genre. In fact that might be a new genre of game, multi genre, and then we can go on to list exactly what genres they are. Basically this is a cute list right now, it includes most of the 3d first person free form space simulator games that have been created, however expansion of this list and renaming it is inevitability, SharkD was correct. We need to get organized. Who wants to start to build a plan, an outline so to speak? We talk about adding different genres and categories to this list, well, I say that in my opinion, we need to have only one wiki page for space simulator. Within that page we will list all the genres and categories within the entire space simulator category, for example space flight simulator game is still a space simulator so it should go into the space simulator page. Just like 2d space simulator and RTS space simulator are both still space simulators and they should definitely in my opinion both go into the space simulator category. So let’s make a plan, an outline for the space simulator page here on wiki. We must properly define what falls into the space simulator category, and then we can rename this list to list of space simulators and then we can make headings on this list and properly define the scope of this list so there is no further confusion. If we know what should appear on this list, and where to put it, then everything is black and white. We have like 10 pages on this discussion page, or more, imagine if all of that effort was put into creating a shining example of what a space simulator wiki page should be. It would have been beautiful. We have three committed people; none of us have very much time on our hands however we do have enough time to discuss things at length. Let’s fix the space simulator category, let’s make it perfect. Then change the name of this list, add all of the genres of games. Then start sorting. Gradually eventually everything will appear in their proper category. What SharkD said was correct in that we need to get some of the old people back and start adding to things again. We cannot do this massive project on our own. I do believe that we can make the space simulator page or at least get a very nice rough draft of that on our own. So, anyways, what do you guys think? Create a really accurate page of space simulator, combine everything, and then change the name of this list and start adding different genres to this list? --Kirihari (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in. I don't think we need to aim for perfection right off the bat. Incrementalism should be our guiding principle. For the debate on this list, it means that we should distinguish the actual flight sims (first person, physics based, even if they're unrealistic) from overhead or text-based ones. If we need to make further distinctions, we will do so as needed, whenever it helps organization. To summarize, I think the most important thing is to populate the list a bit at a time, and deal with clarity/organizational problems as they come up. This is the first time a clarity problem came up (trade wars is a Space Trading Game, but not really a Space Flight). Let's deal with each individual problem. Randomran (talk) 07:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, we have all discussed many things at length, we have talked about what Space Flight Simulator is referring to, it is something that simulates flight in space that in general operate in a completely free environment with pitch and yaw. Combat simulators or the more arcade style of space flight also go ahead and simulate flight or combat in space with pitch and yaw in an environment that tries to simulate space. Needless to say, trade wars doesn't even begin to fulfill this requirement, so I removed it, and needless to say someone added it back. So I removed it again. Why do people do this, I don't understand, am I missing something. The name of this article is very specific, it doesn't leave room for too much speculation however, so many people continue to speculate, maybe there is a more specific name that we can rename this list too. How about "The List Of Software that has spacecraft in it that has pitch and yaw and is set in space and sometimes incorporate trade and or combat or both"? --Kirihari (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Space simulation games

By the way, I would like to suggest that we partially revert the recent renaming and modification to the Space simulator articles. I would like to reinstate the earlier distinction between "space flight simulators" and "space (combat or arcade) simulators" (all games, though, of course). While I think the move to separate games from the nonrecreational/professional sims, I concur with the earlier categorization of "space flight simulators" as a separate class. The previous article versions didn't define the "space combat simulators" and "space combat and trading simulators" as types of "space flight simulators". Rather they maintained the distinction that "spac flight simulators" feature a great degree of realism in their space flight models, and the other types of sims are arcade-like in their quality (at least more so).

Currently, the Space flight simulator game article says this:

"Space flight games that also feature combat are called space combat games or space combat simulators. Space simulators which feature trading in addition to combat, such as Elite or Freelancer, are called space trading and combat simulators or space trading simulators."

Previously, the Space simulator article said something different:

"Space simulators which, try to replicate the experience of space flight as closely and realistically as possible, are known as space flight simulators. Space simulators, usually of the arcade game variety, which feature combat are called space combat games or space combat simulators. Space simulators which feature trading in addition to combat, such as Elite or Freelancer, are called space trading and combat simulators or space trading simulators—sometimes with the term "exploration" thrown in between."

What I suggest is to create a "space simulation game" article, and from it link to a "space flight simulator game" article that is dedicated to games like Orbiter, Noctis and Microsoft Space Simulator. The "space simulation game" article would also link to "Space combat simulator" and "Space trading and combat" simulator just like the old Space simulator did. "Space simulator" would be meant for more professional types of space sims, and would link to "Space simulation game". This is more similar to how the articles were structured earlier. I think it would be safe to say that we can count on some amount of previous authors' support retroactively. SharkD (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool, now we are getting somewhere, this is a good conversation again, I have read your post a number of times but I still don't understand how many categories are we going to make, and what the list will be renamed too. Can you go into a little bit more depth on the number of categories and exactly what might be a good idea to do with the current list of games that we currently have? So sad, I believe this page will be dead or a mess in a month. I am kind of stressed, I and others have spent so much time developing what was here, seriously I think I put in about a 100 hours of time, now we are talking about re-categorizing, renaming, re-everything something that is nice, or something that I consider nice, and others do too. I don’t no, I guess it doesn't matter, I just built this list for everyone who was on the discussion page of Space Trading and Combat Simulator to let know what was out there, I have learned allot in the process but I just wish I could understand what you are trying to do. Can you go into more detail on what you would like to do a little more, what you consider the games on the previous page to be? For example, a game like X5700: Mantis Experimental Fighter mimics actual flight physics in space, and a bunch of the other games do too, but games like Tie Fighter don't, where as X-Plane does. Does this mean that we should have like 7 or 8 different categories for just the games on the original list. Plus more categories for RPG games and RTS games and Text based games, how in the world are we going to categorize all of them? I am so lost and really worried that this list will be destroyed. Please explain in super great detail what you will do to improve this. I would really like this list to be improved of course and you do seem to know a hell of allot more than I about how to make stuff look good on Wikipedia. So honestly, I truly am open to your changes, please describe it in more intimate detail, what will be on the new list, and what wont and how exactly it might be categorized. I am just stressed that’s all. Thanks for your patience and all of your explanations. I do appreciate it. Also, I want to help, if my little bit of work expands into something truly great, it would make me happy! --Kirihari (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick point, at the inception of this page I pointed out the huge debate within the space simulation crowd about what exactly a space simulator is. Maybe we should fix the space flight simulator and all the related pages before we touch the page, so when we get to this page it will be very easy to put games into a specific category. Right now there are many people who will argue what is even a space simulator, everyone has a different definition, and everyone has a different idea of what could be considered a simulator. Just an idea. I would be more than happy to do research and help someone come up with a really nice space flight sim page and free form space flight trading and combat simulator page. We have a big mess on our hands right now with two of the pages on Wikipedia space flight simulator game and space combat simulator, why make three? --Kirihari (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important to avoid creating too many short articles when a larger article will do. The initial merge solved three problems: (1) unclear categories (what's the difference between a space simulator and a space flight simulator? Sure you could read the discussion page, but most editors aren't so prudent.) (2) redundant information (related to #1. People adding information to both articles because it wasn't clear which was which.) and (3) too many short, low quality stub articles.
The need for clarity and precision is still important. The main thing that's changed since the last proposed merge is that the Space Trading games have expanded substantially (thanks to SharkD). I would support a split of this into "Space Trading Game" (or whatever name we could agree upon). At the same time, I would recommend merging "Space Combat Simulator" into "Space Flight Simulator Game". I know there is a distinction here, but I don't think there's enough information to elaborate this into two different articles. Really, the general space flight simulator game article would explain that there are some realistic simulators, but most aren't. And it would explain that most feature combat, and very few are just civilian space flight games. If that information got expanded, we could split them back out. But in the short term, we don't need both space combat and space flight games. (Space trading games should get their own article, though, because there's enough information to support a split.) Randomran (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, with everything. Merge the two and create a new article called what

space trading and combat flight simulator or free form space trading and combat flight simulator or just space trading and combat simulator? Space trading and combat definitly does have enough to make its own article. --Kirihari (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

One of us should do that merge / split. SharkD mentioned a similar agreement at his talk page (see: User_talk:SharkD#space trading games). Move the space trading and combat simulator stuff from space combat game into space trading game. That will leave us with two stubs: space combat simulator and space flight simulator game. There's no sense on having two stub articles on highly related subjects -- see WP:SIZE. So we should merge the remaining space combat simulator stuff (after the space trading split) into space flight simulator game. Does that make sense? Randomran (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

How about merging space flight simulator game and space combat simulator into space simulation game? In this way, there's room for space "flight" sims as well as other space games that don't feature as high a fidelity. SharkD (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree we should do some kind of merge. I guess the last issue is whether we just have "space simulation game" or "space flight simulation game". I think the word "flight" is important, to prevent the article from containing virtually any game that takes place in space (e.g.: Space Station Tycoon, Spore (2008 video game)). The words "flight sim", in the game genre literature, are a useful shorthand that lets people understand the gameplay: pitch, yaw, acceleration, brakes, cockpit... The resources I know of say that "high fidelity" isn't a prerequisite for being a space flight simulator game. "Flight" is more about the gameplay than the realism. So, I think "space flight" would still allow low fidelity games like Wing Commander, while still excluding other space games without that cockpit-style gameplay. Is your main concern that the article sounds like it keeps low-fidelity games out? Because I'm almost 100% sure we can find a good reference/quote that can make sure that doesn't happen. Randomran (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

New Opening Paragraph

Right now as it stands, the opening paragraph doesn't really explain what this list is. Here is the opening paragraph, "This is a comprehensive list of commercial, indie and freeware space flight simulator games, separated into three main groups: space flight simulators, space combat flight simulators and space trading and combat flight simulators." I would like to change this, and I think that everyone will agree that something explaining what this list is would probably be more proper. How about this? --Kirihari (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

A space flight simulator game is software enables the operator experience spacecraft space flight in outer space with the added elements of gameplay. There are many different types of space flight simulator games. These simulators range in purpose from pure simulation to sheer entertainment. All space flight simulators weather being for scientific or entertainment purposes all have the ability to roll, pitch, and yaw. The simulators all have the ability to use flight dynamics in a free environment, this free environment lets the spacecraft move within the three-dimensional coordinate system or the x, y, and z(applicate) axis. Adding to the importance of this genre, at one time it was very popular having motion picture spin-offs of some of the video games. In recent years, the space flight simulator game has been called a dead genre. This however could change with big budget games and new releases in 2008.

This is a comprehensive list of commercial, indie and freeware space flight simulator games, separated into three main sub-genres.--Kirihari (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the first sentence applies to space combat simulators and space trading and combat simulators. There is very little about these games that is "likely" to happen. Faster-than-light travel and the space combat itself is pretty fanciful. Also, the last sentence sounds like an advert. SharkD (talk) 03:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but I just love this genre, ok I will change it.--Kirihari (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference #5 seems to be supporting the position that space sims require pitch, yaw and roll controls, when in fact it doesn't. Either use the reference in support of something it actually says, or get rid of it. SharkD (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference #5 is about the dead genre of space flight simulator games, I added the citation where you requested it after doing some digging on the Columbia University's dictionary website. May I refer you to the Civility section of Wikipedia? We all really enjoy discussions with you as you bring allot to the table in terms of ideas and knowledge, please be civil with the members here you can find it here on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette. Your strong language makes me and others here very uncomfortable. Please help this page, if there is a need for a citation please doesn’t be afraid to help search for it. We really need your help to grow this page and hopefully get all of the space flight simulators listed here. Again thank you for your contribution. Like for example, please help me with Galactic Command, we have researched allot, but no one can not find much information. The members who visit this Wikilist I am sure would be in appreciation if someone could help find out what games exactly Derek Smart has completed, or will complete. --Kirihari (talk) 08:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I meant Reference #5 according to the Talk page, then (see below). And, I don't see how I'm being incivil—I'm just pointing out things that need to be changed. SharkD (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

O geeze, hey I am sorry man, sometimes I read too much into a word or something, I apologize if I have interpreted the sentence wrong. SharkD you seem to come here often, man I tell ya, if you can help me and the couple of other guys expand or fill in any important information that maybe missing from the games side I am sure we would all be in appreciation. You seem like you　know quite a bit on this subject from past discussions and your help would be very much sincerely appreciated.--Kirihari (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what I am talking about! Thank you very much, that was a very nice change my friend! A few more touch ups like that and we will have a really nice list on our hands. It is my hope we can all work together to create the best list on Wikipedia. What do you think about adding color to the list?--Kirihari (talk) 04:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is this genre being referred to as 'dead'? You've provided two citations which are meerly forum opinions. I, for example, could get me and a couple of buddies to state on seperate forums that we believe George W. Bush is an excellent linguist, but it doesn't make it true - and when there's clear evidence to the contrary, opinions from a small selection of the public are hardly noteworthy, or accurate. Please remove the statement. 71.228.202.159 (talk) 04:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You are correct in that the references to forum threads are improper. There are much better sources referenced in Space combat simulator. As for your second point, maybe space sims will pick up again in the future; however, in the recent past there has been little to suggest otherwise. SharkD (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Galactic Command

Ok, I am running into confusion upon confusion at every single corner every single time I run into anything that has anything to do with Derek Smart. So far there are 6 games on the in the development stage. I am reading the stuff on the website, but I can't really make much sense of it. If someone can help me verify the information relating to all of Derek Smart’s games on this list, that would be much appreciated. I always double check everything I put up because I really love Wikipedia and this list. I like to make sure everything is correct. I have never heard of any game development house developing 6 different titles at the same time. It doesn't make sense. I donno, have the changed the name of the Xbox 360 game? Who is publishing it? Is it just another Xbox live game? I know that all of his new games do not have trade in them; they are more of a mission based type event. Also can someone verify who is selling Echo Squad? Not Echo Squad SE, just the regular Echo Squad? I will do my best, but I find my mind slowly imploding between his website and the incredibly long game title names. --Kirihari (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Today I am happy to report that I have removed NightBlade from the upcoming releases section. With any other game, I would be sad, but because it is a Derek Smart game, I am just happy I found information about it. I liked Derek Smart, but after I contacted 3000ad by email several times, they sent me a kinda rude email back. On top of that, play anything by 3000ad, then comment on this comment. I am committed to adding every space game ever made, it is my mission, but it is more difficult to find info on a Derek Smart game than it is to find info on a Korean sim made for a cell phone. So I have removed KnightBlade because it has been canceled.--Kirihari (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think D. Smart just wants people to spend money regardless of whether or not they are confused or have been properly been made to understand the game mechanics. SharkD (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Newly Released Games

"The Tomorrow War" - has been released on September 12th 2008 as stated on Amazon and eBay. So as of today, I will move The Tomorrow War into the released Space Combat Sim area. --Kirihari (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"Dark Horizon" - has been released on September 23th 2008 on GamersGate.com, Amazon, and eBay. So as of today, I will move Dark Horizon into the released Space Combat Sim area. --Kirihari (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"X³: Terran Conflict" - has been released today as of today October 17th 2008. I have pre-ordered this and it has been marked as released, so just to be extra sure before I moved this game out of the development area, I double checked from a number of sources on the internet that it has in fact been released. So as of today, I have moved it to the released "free-form space trading and combat flight simulator" area! --Kirihari (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Dynamic list

I moved the dynamic list under the main paragraph because when you first open the page instead of reading something about space flight simulators you read something about the status of this list. I thought that when a person opens up this page, the first thing they should read is something that has something to do with this list, not with the status of this list. Now this is just my thinking, I could be wrong, if anyone has any objections, please let it be heard. Kirihari (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Messages of this type (indented and italicized) tend to appear at the top of articles or sections. See the articles that link to the template for examples. SharkD (talk) 05:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I have checked a number of lists and it doesn't seems to have a set place on allot of the lists I have checked, we all really do value that message and we really do appreciate your efforts in making this a better list. I am just wondering if it matters to you if the message is directly at the top of the page or if it is just past the first paragraph. It kinda matters to me, but it is not that big of a deal, if you have strong feelings towards the formatting of this page and believe it is in all of our interests to have that message at the top of the page then by all means change it. My friend, can you help me search for new space flight sim games? Hey, did you check out Dark Prophecy? I have just added it, I was amazed I have not heard of that game before. Also there is a new free game called Space Combat, it is super simple and really fun, you should give it a try! --Kirihari (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Mobile Phone Games

Should we be including mobile phone games? From time to time I have spotted a space flight sim for mobile phones, pocket pcs, or palm. I hate adding these things because finding information/references on them is more tedious than finding information on anything Derek Smart touches. Should I be adding them too, the problem is honestly is references, most of the time it pops up on the internet and then they will just fade away? I know the obvious answer is yes, but how important are they? Ahh I guess I will add them, but damnitt, it that ever boring to add those games, if someone knows of a few games for mobile space flight sim games that would be much appreciated. If anyone could add them, that would be better, we must complete this list! ;)--Kirihari (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So the first additions have begun, well, it is kinda difficult to find these things, man o man, I kinda just stumble across each and every single one of them. Then to find out information about them is even more trying. Half of the game companies have gone out of business however the game is still being sold on places like clickgamer and such. So when I want to find out the official release year it has been a little trying. Honestly if anyone can help with the mobile phone and windows mobile additions, that would be great. After relentless searching, I do believe that I have found most of them. There are not very many 3d space flight sims for mobile phones but I could be wrong, only time will tell. I encourage everyone who visits this page to go ahead and search for one title a day and add it. Email the publishers and distributors of the game if you have to and find out information about the game like the original developer and find out when it was originally published, do you best my friends, I believe that we have now turned the tide with this page, I believe it is close to completion.--Kirihari (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

SharkD

I was wondering if you would be able to help me add some mobile phone games or PDA games for windows mobile and Palm? Recently within the last month or so there has been a lack of people adding things, but I know you visit this page often so you must have an interest in this topic. If you could help me add mobile games that would be really great, thanks! I am doing renovation on my house and I will be very busy over the next month but if you could help take care of this page that would be very much appreciated, and damnitt I keep on forgetting to add Aquanox and Aquanox 2, I really think we should add that game as that game is the sequel to Archimedean Dynasty. Also there are at least 100 links referring those games as being Space Combat Sims. On Gamespot.com those games are under the space combat sim category too! So please add them, man I wish I could tell you how busy I am over the next month, so if you have time please help finish this page. Thanks very much, your friend. -kili Also I would have emailed privately you but I could not find a email address for you so this will have to do.--Kirihari (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

J2ME for Windows Mobile

Something very interesting crossed my mind today. I have a Hermes 200 Windows Mobile cell phone but I can't play any of the new games that are coming out because they are all coming out for the J2ME mobile java system for regular mobile phones. Then it hit me..."someone else must have though of this before me" so I did a quick search and it seems as if there are many people out there playing their J2ME mobile phone games on their Windows Mobile PPC or Smartphone. So my friends I would like to start a discussion here on exactly how to do it. One day when I finally unpack my house and finish my renovation, I will find out exactly how and spell it out for all the newbz including myself. --Kirihari (talk) 05:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

EVE Online

You missed the best ever space trading/flight simulator ever made. http://www.eve-online.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.152.76.137 (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that EVE Online is not a Space Flight Simulator. EVE Online is a more of a point and click Sci-Fi MMORPG adventure, I don't think EVE has anything to do with this list, I think it's more closer to a strategy game than it is a space flight simulator. Don't get me wrong, I love EVE, I think EVE is one of the best games ever made, but it has no place on this list, every game in this list you can fly, most with a Joystick, in first person view, having full view of the cockpit. Please read the entire discussion page, and please read the main article on the list and then post a reply to this comment, I am not dismissing your claim, every game deserves good discussion however I do sincerely believe EVE does not belong on this list.--Kirihari (talk) 04:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This list is ... complete ... I think

Hey people, every day, I search for 20-30 minutes for new games to add to this page, in the past month, I haven't found any. I think this list is complete. For this reason, unless anyone has a better idea, I would like to remove the incomplete list paragraph on the main page. Sounds good? --Kirihari (talk) 0:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I am removing {dynamic list} from the main page as of today, as it is just not necessary anymore, in the past it has served to be a valuable addition to this page however, since this page is most likely complete, its services are here by ... terminated ;). Have a great day!--Kirihari (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I am really excited as I thought this day would never come, I am really excited to announce that this page is really easy to maintain at this point, this list, is easy to maintain as most newer games within this genre are usually high profile and discussed on forums and what not so adding new games is very painless. Compiling this list has been one of the more tiring things in my life, I have really searched though magazines, published articles, emailed authors, done allot of footwork to track down references, and now ... it is complete. I am happy! Another thing that I would like to discuss is the fact that Space Combat Simulators are back on the chart in a BIG way, there must be about 10 space combat sims being released in the 2008-2009 season, many of them MMOG games, I am just really excited for the genre. I beleive that the Space Combat Sims have been resurrected in a big way! Can't wait for Dark Prophecy! --Kirihari (talk) 05:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Freelancer

What about this one? I dont know a reason why it shouldnt mentioned :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basinator (talk • contribs) 13:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is there... it has always been there... I think... let me check, yep sure enough, it is under "free-form space trading and combat flight simulator" ummm... heehheh... have a good day my friend, ya man, Freelancer is the stuff!! I love that game! --Kirihari (talk) 10:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Tone of edit conflict

I don't think it's appropriate to cite WP:POINT in this case. I was not editing to disrupt the article. I believe a chronological ordering is better than alphabetical, and made the according changes. There's no reason I can't do this as per WP:BOLD. SharkD (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I consider your edits and general attitude regarding this article as in violation of WP:OWN. And I find it difficult to want to continue participating with you because of this. SharkD (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I own nothing, this is not my list, this is our list, I have messaged an Arbitrator and he will come to a conclusion. I am trying to protect something from being deleted. The ENTIRE section of Space Combat flight simulators under development has been deleted!? There is a difference between being bold and being destructive. Can't we just sit down and talk about this? Can't we have a discussion on the table? Or on the deletion of the list, can we not talk? --Kirihari (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Look more closely next time: no content has been deleted. All the titles have been integrated into the other sections. SharkD (talk) 03:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes but now it is impossible to tell if a game is released or not, these changes have been made without discussion, no efforts have been made to consider other people's contributions, no efforts have been made to have a discussion even if it is a brief one. If doesn't matter what you may call it, the entire section has been DELETED, without discussion? --Kirihari (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You can tell the released games apart from the unreleased ones by the fact that they have TBA instead of a date in the Year column. If there are some games that do have a date but have not been released yet, we could modify the dates in some way to reflect this (i.e. by adding a short code in front.) SharkD (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Recently this page underwent some unexpected life altering changes.

A user recently changed this page from the List of space flight simulator games to the "Chronology of space flight simulator games" plus deleted the upcoming games section, added a legend and MANY other changes that he/she deemed necessary. First I would like to say first of all, change is great! Let's discuss the changes as this page does not belong to any one person it belongs to all of us. This page is not the "Chronology of space flight simulator games", this page has been created as the "List of space flight simulator games." Now, I will be the first to encourage anyone who is interested in this particular genre to by all means create a new page called the "Chronology of space flight simulator games" because adding more information about this genre into Wikipedia will just create more interest, and interest is good. Making heavy life changing modification to a page that someone has contributed so little to deserves little attention. I am in the process of contacting a Wikipedia mediator to clarify the situation. However I am sure that because almost every rule in Wikipedia was broken over the past week concerning this page, I am sure that they will agree.

My friends, if there are any changes that require heavy modification to this page or other people's work or efforts, those changes need to be discussed. --Kirihari (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Holy crap man, you are violating every single wikirule there is. I am sure when a moderator takes a look at this you will be close to getting yourself banned from Wikipedia! Discuss things! Please read WP:POINT and discuss major changes before doing them. --Kirihari (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As of today I am contacting a Wikipedia Arbitrator, I will inform them of the things that have just occurred, of your actions and your inability to discuss before major life changing page decisions are made. --Kirihari (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, as soon as these changes were made, I posted comments on the discussion page, no effort at all has been made for a discussion, WHY? It says Wikipedia:Be bold Be bold, ...but please be careful! This is not careful, this is a vicious want and destruction of a page that has taken a thousand hours to compile! Please talk to all of us here on the discussion page. --Kirihari (talk) 03:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It was impossible to tell whether you added a message or not because you had the whole discussion page sorted out of order! Also, please refrain from using language like "vicious want and destruction" and WP:Assume good faith. SharkD (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I never mean to point my arguments any anyone in particular and I always try to assume good faith. So if I have hurt your feelings I sincerely apologize. Now, my friend, lets discuss things. You like the Legend, that is good, I think it looks nice too however, I don't understand how combining unreleased games with the released games makes any sense, we would be better off deleting those games then to add them to the released section. I feel that deleting those games would not be a wise decision because it is much more difficult to keep track of new additions to the list that way. How do you feel about that? --Kirihari (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

See my response, above. SharkD (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, I reverted the page back to an earlier version as everything was in a state of absolute chaos. Please discuss changes on this page, then we can talk about them, and I can promise you we will always come to a good decision if we constructively work together. Obviously our goal is the same, to make this list as good as possible, please, lets discuss things. Also, I have contacted an Arbitrator as an impartial view is needed here. Also, I have asked them to review the actions that have happened over the past two hours and help iron out any crinkles. Again, I am humbly asking from the bottom of my heart to please use this discussion page before making LIFE changing decisions without consideration for anyone's contributions or input. Again, can't we just talk about some of these things? --Kirihari (talk) 04:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm a Wikipedia administrator. You don't have right of first refusal on any edits made to this page, Kirihari. Discuss the edits on their own merits, and don't accuse other editors of being insufficiently invested in the page to be able to make major edits. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, sounds good, but he moved the page, deleted a section, changed the list entirely without discussion. Is that OK? --Kirihari (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's entirely okay, because Wikipedia encourages people to be WP:BOLD. That said, you're entirely within your right to revert it. The cycle is bold, revert, discuss. We're now discussing. Everything is working exactly as it should, and nobody's done anything wrong. Me personally, I actually like SharkD's edits, and think they've improved the organization of the list. Randomran (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This contradicts A Man In Bl♟ck's (an administrator) earlier statement: "You don't have right of first refusal on any edits made to this page, Kirihari." Some elucidation is needed. SharkD (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is, basically. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Randomran, I respect your post man, everything you have ever written has been in good efforts to try to be constructive, you have been here helping from the beginning, and for that, because of that, after careful consideration, I agree... with everything.... BUT and this is a big but, Space flight simulator games under development in my humble opinion should not be removed as everything is easy to find right now, you can find all the star wars sequels because they are in the star wars area, you can find all the X sequels, because they are in the X area. I love this list because all the sequels to the games are listed below their prequels. Everything is very easy to find. If listed in a chronological order, how can people find that vital information out? This is something I have gotten feedback from over the year, people like the fact they can identify sequels very easily. Looking nice and being useful are two different things. As it stands right now, this list is useful. Incorporating SharkD's changes makes it look nicer. I am more than content to combine the two, however loosing information or painstaking work, making the list less useful, is something I will work to prevent.

So chronological is good but there has to be a way to identify a game's sequel in there otherwise a valuable piece of information is lost. I like the look of the new list most of all, I thought it looked great, I nearly pissed myself when I clicked on the list and the name had been changed, nothing looked the same, and games were organized into wrong categories. EHEHHE.. but... all is fair on Wikipedia, so I have two issues,

1. I and many others (I am sure), by the email I have received from people visiting this page, would be sad if there was not an easy way to identify sequels or games set in the same universe, eg. Star Wars, X, Freelancer, Colony Wars. Many games have completely different names and so people have no idea what the game is about or if it has a sequel. Can we include that piece of information somewhere, and make that sortable for that category?
2. The category of Space flight simulator games under development absolutely can't be removed, or again an easy way has to be or should be implemented to identify which games have been released and which games have not been released. As for example many of Derek Smart's games say they will be released in 2008 when in fact they will be released much later if not canceled, so having those games mix in with games that have already been released is misleading. --Kirihari (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason why verifiable information about upcoming games shouldn't be included at the end of the list. (e.g.: the release year would say "in development" or something). I think that would be the best of both worlds. Wouldn't most of the sequels be obvious when you sort by name? Randomran (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Information regarding sequels/expansions is also included in the Notes column. SharkD (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If we add the unreleased games back into the list, would both of you be basically satisfied with the list overall? Randomran (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The unreleased games were never removed from the list. They're still there, at the end of the list. What Kirihari wants is a separate list for unreleased games, which I think is unnecessary. SharkD (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean like in a separate article? I think what we have now is fine. Randomran (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No. Notice how in the article there are four separate lists. Want What I have done (though the changes were reverted) is merge the fourth list into the other three. When sorted chronologically, the "under development" titles automatically appear last in the list(s)--though a special code might be helpful for games whose release years are known. An added benefit is that the unreleased games will appear next to other games belonging to the same sub-genre, which is currently not the case. Kirihari worries that this will confuse readers, though I'm inclined to give readers more credit. SharkD (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with including them in the chronology, so long as they say "unreleased". Randomran (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to use a short acronym for this purpose. Something like TBA or TBD ("to be announced" or "to be determined"), except with the meaning, "in development". Do you know of any such acronym? SharkD (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing comes to mind unfortunately. Would "soon" be ok? Randomran (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No... I will go ask at the help desk. SharkD (talk) 02:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice list, however, all the games that are unreleased need to have TBA or whatever put into the release year. Computer games always get pushed back, so that date is meaningless anyways, also, seriously, there needs to be a way to sort this list so all the sequels are next to each other or easy to find. That piece of info is totally lost with this list, if we can come to a consensus on that, I will start to think that SharkD is actually a nice guy. >:D Now, my friends, this list looks nicer now, for sure, I mean absolutely. We have indeed lost one piece of information, the list is less useful now. So please lets work to correct this and this list will be better than it previously was. --Kirihari (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Click on the sort icon in the Title column. This will sort the games in alphabetical order. There's also data regarding sequels/expansions and so forth in the Notes column. If information is missing please add it. SharkD (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

TBD looks good enough to me. Good work! Randomran (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I want to add another column. A universe column. Create another smaller universe legend up top and add in abbreviated universe to games with sequels so when people sort the list all the games that have sequels, mods, remakes, or fan creations are all grouped together. This would be fairly easy to do, only games with sequels need a universe because there wouldn't be a purpose to games without sequels. How do you feel about this? Also, I really feel strongly about this item, I really feel it would be of benefit. Please step back and think about it, because otherwise a valuable piece of information is lost. There are so many entries in this list that a layman or newb wanting to find out if there are any Elite remakes would be lost. Honestly I absolutely feel this is important, that is the sole reason why I clicked on the undo button yesterday. We could do this a couple of ways, sort the list like it used to be, or add a legend as described above, however SharkD's knowledge of Wikipedia greatly surpasses mine as I am just here for one reason. I am solely here to improve this list. We must find a solution to this. I like the added notes about sequels, however we must find an easy way to group games together that are set in the same universe or something along those lines. --Kirihari (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this would be excessive. This can be handled sufficiently well in the Notes column. Also, I don't see how anything was lost if this didn't exist in your version either. SharkD (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It did exist in the earlier version. All games were grouped together. They were then sortable by year. This list looks nicer but it is not as helpful. Also you being very passive aggressive telling me to add things to this list is very mind numbing and belittling. I am here for this list, I added 99.9% of content to this whole bloody thing, that comment is totally unnecessary and just works to build animosity between you and I, please refrain from breaking this very delicate truce. Now, lets get onto the fact. The fact remains it is very difficult to tell if remakes and sequels exist without reading the whole list and clicking on each title, where as before it was absolutely simple. How can we fix this? --Kirihari (talk) 04:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You really don't want to go down this road. SharkD (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, SharkD, you are funny ;). HA HA HA. Wow... Anyways, how about answering my question? --Kirihari (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we can get some other opinions in order to form consensus? SharkD (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Listen man, it is impossible to come to a clean and clear consensus on this issue because the only people who edit this web page are you, Randomran, and I. So I always feel at a disadvantage. I don't play around on the internet that much, I am not that well versed on these things, especially rules on Wikipedia, one day last year before I got married I thought it would be a nice idea to help create a list of games on Wikipedia of my favorite genre. This of course is the space combat sim. Now, now, now, honestly, one of the fundamental things that I built this list for is to quickly identify sequels, spin offs, mods, freeware that were based on the same game or in the same universe. For example, Starlancer is based in the same universe as Freelancer but Starlancer is not necessarily a prequel to Freelancer. Fringespace is a remake of Tachyon: The Fringe using the Freespace open engine in an effort to bring new life and graphics to the original Tachyon game. Fringespace is not a remake of the original however it was supposed to recreate the same fast passed feeling of the original. Another one, Elite Starfighter is a game that was originally published by Pepper Games and it was intended to be a total remake of the original Elite. A good one is Archimedean Dynasty, the next game is AquaNox. Many of these games are totally separated on the list and no one really knows where the next game is easily, you will really have to read through the whole list. A better example are games like RiftSpace and Evochron renegades, one doesn't know that these games are set in the same universe and are not necessarily sequels but have an overarching story line that continue within the Evocrhron universe. There are probably about 20 more examples I can go through. Having a note in the note area is great! One would still have to read through the whole list in order to identify if something has a sequel however sequels are not the only issue. Games that are remakes or freeware like Fringespase just get lost. This is why I am so adamant, this is why I am so being bold and stubborn on this one point. It says in Wikipedia, to acknowledge other people's efforts, I have recognized yours and I have come to an understanding so to speak, time has come to acknowledge my efforts in at least giving my request some thought. A useful piece of information has been lost, I am humbly requesting that it be restored in any fashion. It does not have to be anything I have mentioned, but there needs to be a way to easily identify games set within the same universe. Also, I humbly request that my point be given some thought, it takes me a long time to type these friggen messages only to get a half sentence reply. In good faith I hope this true, this is my last point and my best point, SharkD, everything you have done is for clarity. Having the list in chronological order, then possibly changing the name of the list to the Chronological list of space flight simulator games, is all about clarity. Making a legend for the game systems that these games are on, is all in the efforts of clarity and making things more simple. So... won't having the option to group games together that are within the same universe, that maybe have overarching storylines as well but are not necessarily sequels, just serve to make things clearer? We then don't have to go into every notes section and update it with prequels and sequels every time a sequel is made. This just serves to make think clearer, more simple. Even by your own admission "Maybe we can get some other opinions in order to form consensus?" you wouldn't have said that if you didn't think it was a half decent idea. Let's come to an understanding my friend, we both want the same thing, we both want this page to be as good as possible. Let's both work together on this man :D! --Kirihari (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If you feel at a disadvantage, then maybe you should seek elsewhere for consensus? It's not my business as a Wikipedian to protect your feelings. SharkD (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You should understand that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, so there are no special preferences awarded to a top contributor or creator of an article. You are effectively releasing all material into Free Use when you put it here, so even the maker of a single edit (or none at all) gets the same treatment. Also, issues are decided by consensus, or the opinions of a majority of editors, not just by the top editor. If you don't have enough editors on a specific page, use the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games‎ page instead of taking your own initiative against the wishes of another editor. Even if you worked for a hundred years to type an article, and some noob comes along and "ruins" it, you can't just revert it because you dislike it - you have to give a reason based on Wikipedia POLICY.--_{ZXCVBNM [TALK]} 22:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I love how SharkD breaks every policy Wikipedia has, including Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette, and of course WP:POINT. She has made threats to me on more than one occasion, and just gets away with it because she knows how to bend Wikipedia's rules. No one dares speak up against her as she can crush them under her lawyerish knowledge of the rules and regulations. Also, she just knows more people here. I am a hard working guy with a family and don't have time for your "Edit Wars?" these terms are foreign to me. I made this page to the best of my abilities and it looks like garbage now. Look at SrahkD's history, look at how many wars this "Wikipedian" has started, look at how many "friends" she has made over the past doing what she does best on Wikipedia. Her passive aggressive behavior, and willing want and destruction of others humble offerings to Wikipedia will blow some of your minds. It is amazing she has not been banned. I supposed this is a place where people like her thrive though. Hiding behind rules and regulations, the internet and her monitor just like a coward and a bully. You are a prime example of everything that is in WP:POINT. I have messaged many of the Arbitrators, they will be in here soon I hope. You threatened me before saying something like "you don't want to go down this road with me", I tell you the truth buddy, I wish, I so wish I could. :) I am sure in the end I will be banned for just trying to make a list. A list I have invested over 1000 hours of time. For what? I don't know ... also since SharkD has not added any content to this page in over a year I assume that the most saddest part of this is that this list will fade in time and most likely be deleted or merged with something bigger and the purpose will be lost. Who comes here? The people who come here are random, but over the past few days, the people who come here are all of SharkD's like minded "Wikifriends" just to agree with her and push her agenda of hate ahead. So much so that even the Admins must agree with her. If anyone reads the above posts from beginning to the end, you can see constant threats and sarcasm coming from SharkD, and constant attempts to put out a fire coming from me. Nothing I say is taken seriously and every idea I have is just pushed aside. So what is the purpose of me here? Right now there is none, I will do my best to ensure the future of this list, but I am sure I will fail, I will try my best to make sure things do not get out of hand, but once I am banned and once SharkD rapes this list the way Stephen Spielberg raped Indiana Jones in the last movie, at that point, this list is lost. So sad. So be BOLD SharkD, be BOLD, like the bold person you are, and fight for your Wikibeleifs, cuz in the end that is all you will have. Go through SharkD's history on her talk page, it is amazing people like her are allowed to exist here. Absolutely amazes me. One more thing before I forget, one can say all they want that the page looks better now, and that may be true, but vital information has truly been lost. I asked SharkD to help me find mobile phone Space Combat Sims about 6 months ago, because I was renovating my house, she couldn't be bothered with something constructive like that, so I did it myself. Now she takes something good and just reworks it as she sees fit and where something is too troubling to fix like the introduction or links, she posts a message up top for someone else to do it. SharkD, you started this, now finish it, fix the links, correct the opening paragraph, and rename the page. Fix what has been lost. However, I know your game plan. Your plan is for me to rewrite the opening paragraph just so you can find issues with it again, just so you can make me angry and hopefully get me banned. I don't get angry though, couldn't care less about small people. That is your game plan though. You also found problems with the sources, so fix them, I have got no clue what falls into your realm of perfection. All I know is I did my best to fallow the rules of Wikipedia, but you found there were many things wrong with my work, so fix it. Don't just point a finger at me after totally changing the page. Stop being a quitter half way through and fix it. I do know that if I touched it again, you would find something else that was wrong. There are in total three people that make changes to this page. You Ram, and I. So the likelihood of Ram or you fixing it is not very plausible, and I sure as hell am not going to risk spending 6 hours trying to fix stuff only to have my work thrown in the garbage by some passive aggressive megalomaniac bully. Fix it yourself. :) Have a great day! It's not my duty to protect the feelings of others around me either, however I do try to be considerate in all things I do, except now, I understand you. I have met many people like you, you are the bully. Zxcvbnm, thanks man, I know that, but thanks for pointing it out, just read the whole article and you will understand. The problem with SharkD has been escalating for almost a year, it just does things to upset people. Doesn't Wikipedia say somewhere to take into account other people contributions? Doesn't mean they are correct.. but you should be mindful of others contributions. Or other people don't matter? -Kirihari (talk) 06:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yay! I love doing these. SharkD (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I know that, it is evident in all of your posts! You put people down and instigate in every possible situation, every single one, you make me laugh. You are a bully. You will get away with this, but for how long I wonder? --Kirihari (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

One last thing, you said, "Yai, I love doing these," exactly how many of "these" have you done? EHEHEHEH, how many people's feelings have you hurt? How many people have you "bait & complaint?" This has got to stop! I mean you didn't spend any time finding out how to do the complaint, you knew if off by heart, this is absolutely unbelievable to me. Man, I hope an arbitrator or administrator gets here soon. I can't beleive this... blows my mind... --Kirihari (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Now in Wikipedia:Requested moves

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• List of space flight simulator games → Chronology of space flight simulator games - Following an edit war and consensus. — SharkD (talk) 03:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• If there was an edit war, then for darn sure it doesn't count as "uncontroversial".--Aervanath (talk) 05:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• I don't have a problem with a name change. Change it up, but is the name change necessary because right now "List of space flight simulator games" is already a long enough title and difficult enough to type in the Wiki search. If we change it to "Chronology of space flight simulator games" then does that make it simpler to type in, is there a point when something even though correct makes it more difficult? It has always been a chronology, there has always been an option to sort it in chronological order, but this list has remained "List of space flight simulator games" for the better portion of a year. Whether or not it is changed to "Chronology" it is still a List. So whatever you think is best however for simplicity sake I think just List is better. However, you would probably know this better than I; What is the Wikipedia standard, when you have a list that is sorted primary by dates, does the name usually have "Chronology" before it? If it does, then there is no point to a conversation, go with Wikipedia standard. --Kirihari (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• It wasn't a trend before, but it's become a trend. The first Chronology lists were related to the RPG lists, because I think editors were somewhat interested in seeing that information by date. We should probably be consistent though. Randomran (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• And, for most of Wikipedia's existence the list did not appear at all. Does that [Ed. mean] the list should be deleted? As for your wanting related games to appear grouped together, Wikipedia:List#Organization says that lists should be ordered in an understandable pattern. I.e., A, B and C should be followed by D. Mixing the alphabetical sorting and by-series grouping is confusing. SharkD (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• "When using a more complex form of organization, (by origin, by use, by type, etc.), the criteria for categorization must be clear and consistent." Doesn't that mean that you could technically have something organized by universe? With the option to click on the sortable year category? Yes it does. I love how you systematically bend or omit Wikipedia's rules to fit to your own personal beliefs. You are a Wikibully. I have sent off another email to an Arbitrator. I have gone into your entire history and pulled up as much of your wars as humanly possible, how you lack the TACT to talk to anyone with a normal tone and you systematically bully random users to force your image of correctness upon them. This has to stop.　　When people pull up the WP:POINT　area in Wikipedia, there should be a picture of you in the top right corner. In fact, that's sounds like a good idea! ;) --Kirihari (talk) 07:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sources

I've been looking at the various sources in the article and noticed a few problems:

• In the article it says, "There are many different types of space flight simulator[1] games."; yet the article used as a source doesn't mention "space".
• Next, the article says, "All space flight[2] simulators, whether being for scientific or entertainment purposes, have the ability to roll, pitch, and yaw.[3]"; yet, the first source makes no mention of "simulator", and the second source only says that professional training simulators feature pitch, roll and yaw. In the first case, I'm not sure what the citation is trying to support. Is it that space flight simulators take place in space because space flight takes place in space? This would be WP:Synthesis. In the second, synthesis is used in order to say that roll, pitch and yaw applies to all types of space simulators when only one type is supported by the source.
• Next, the article says, "Adding to the importance of this genre, at one time it was very popular having motion picture spin-offs of some of the video games.[4]". The citation however only mentions one video game franchise [that] was made into a motion picture--not several, and certainly not a trend. Also, Wikipedia is being used as the source which is not allowed.
• The next sentence, "In recent years, the space flight simulator game has been called a dead genre.[5][6]", is supported only by forum posts[1][2] which are not considered WP:Reliable sources.
• Finally, the article says, "This, however, could change with big budget games[7] and new releases[8] in the near future.". This is entirely WP:Original research, as the sources (Wikipedia again!) are being used to support an original argument instead of the facts put forth in the article. SharkD (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Then fix it. --Kirihari (talk) 04:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Also a quick question, why did you delete most all the text next too the sources, now you go to the sources and you can't find which one you were looking for or even why it is there because there now is no text next too it? Or is that the Wikipedia standard? I mean, I don't really care, I was just kinda suprised. --Kirihari (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's because of the standard. SharkD (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

References

PROPOSED ARTICLE CHANGES - Please remember to enumerate and keep orderly

I am creating this section IAW previous discussions at WQA, for the purpose of building constructive dialogue on article changes among editors. The rules again, for your perusal and enjoyment (sorry, no musical accompaniment);

• Clean slate. What's in the past is in the past, period.
• Leave the article content alone for now, until consensus is reached on each change.
• NO FLUFF! What I mean by that is proposing to make a change, getting consensus, and then adding other changes in addition to the agreed-upon change.
• NO EDIT WARRING. If an edit war breaks out again, rest assured that I will have the article protected, or the warriors blocked. Sorry, not negotiable guys.
• Above all, COMMUNICATE! When I say that, I mean no finger-pointing, no name-calling, no threats, no "he said she said", no malcontent. I mean constructive, positive and cooperative communication.

These are just the basics. I'm sure we'll have a few hiccups along the path, but if everyone is serious about making this work, it will work. Now, let's get started! Edit Centric (talk) 08:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, just a real tiny couple of requests:

1. I don't really think a name change is warranted, this list could be called the chronological list, or even the alphabetical list, or even the list of publisher really... and so on, but in the end it is still a list so.. I just think List of Space combat flight simulators is already difficult enough to type in, and it is sufficient.
2. Second but absolutely mission critical to me is the grouping of games according to "universe", or "sequels", or "exacting similarity(fan remakes)". Otherwise it is very difficult for a person to know if a remake has been made or that there exists a fan made sequel, if there was an easy option to sort this piece of information out I would be ecstatic. I want to go into more detail on this because I really want to explain the purpose of this grouping. The purpose of this grouping is to essentially make this list useful. If someone wants a similar experience they can easily find sequels, remakes, or mods based on an original game. This is just one example of about 50 I can probably come up with. The list is big enough that a person will definitely not know or see that Tachyon: The Fringe has been remade(of sorts) by a group of modders utilizing the FreeSpace open engine and called the game Fringespace. This is not a remake or sequel it is just designed to recreate the feel of the original's combat. There is no way to tell that these two games are in anyways related even with a comment in the comment area, a person just browsing the list will never see it. The list was maybe more ugly before but much more useful in that the sorting was originally sorted like this, and then if the people wanted, they could go and sort it by year or in chronological order, or they could sort it in alphabetical order if they wanted it in alphabetical order. The list looks nicer now, I will be the first one to say that, so thank you very much, but it is less useful because this vital piece of information has been lost. People who are looking to find Fringespace, Evochron, Star Wars games, Babylon 5 mods, and so on and so forth will never see any of the other games that might interest them that are within the same universe but are not necessary sequels. Adding information to the notes section is great, but one would have to read the entire list and maybe do a whole bunch of Google searching to recover the information that has been lost since the change of this list. I really hope to be diplomatic with this post and I hope that this point is received well. It is honestly because of this topic that I made this list originally. I didn't know that there were so many fan made remakes of Elite, that are never known because they sport a different names than the original. This list makes them all known, I humbly ask that people consider this idea. Thank you for your time. --Kirihari (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This has already been discussed. There has been some support on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games (ZXCVBNM) that chronologization would be a good idea. Randomran also voiced his support. SharkD (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I really do want to make an honest effort with you to work on this page together, so eventually that many people are editing it and adding to it, so we don't have to(vacation), let's do it :)! There has really been support both ways about chronological (Torsodog, Zxcvbnm, じんない)? Where did Randomran voice his support (I really do respect that guy! :) ehhehe, he always says logical things eheheh)? Why do do you think it should be organized by date in the first column anyways, your post states that in your opinion you like to see how games influenced each other, but wouldn't the >< button do that to? I mean not that that part really matters to me but, everything was kinda happy before, "the list originally featured a mix of alphabetical sorting and sorting by series" (so everything was easy to find) and as Zxcvbnm stated if a person needs it to be sorted by date they could just click on the little >< sort bar then it could be sorted chronologically, what was the previous list's issue in your opinion? The new list reform created the main issue point #2 illustrates... umm, what do you think about my second and in my humble opinion the most important point? I would be more than happy to rename the list to Chronology of space combat flight simulator games if there could be some way to still incorporate some kind of grouping based on related series (sequels, spin offs, fan remakes, you name it!). I just still don't see the purpose of it all, the list before and the list now are exactly the same minus the grouping of related series. If it was not important 6 months ago to change the name to Chronology, why is it so imperative now? Anyways, lots of questions, I apologize about that, but if we all can come to a mutual understand then we can work together to help add to the importance of this genre by creating a great list on Wikipedia. --Kirihari (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Besides the rename, are there any other outstanding issues of disagreement? Randomran (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Issue #2 above is the other one I disagree with. SharkD (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do you disagree with both? Let's work together and build a nice dialogue to come to a happy solution! ;) Randomran, how do you feel about the loss of the grouped items, not having Sequels and things next to each other anymore? I mean before things were nicely grouped and you could just click on the sort button if you wanted to see it chronologically or alphabetically. --Kirihari (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

How many instances are there where we lose that? In an alphabetical list, Game 1, Game 2, and Game 3 would all be next to each other, no? Randomran (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Many, let's start from the beginning. All games with different names as sequels will be lost, it is right now next to impossible to find those games or sequels (without reading the entire list), even Tarr Chronicles, as the second game is just called Dark Horizon, Decent Freespace, and Freespace 2, the Evochron Games, no one will know now by looking at the list the Arvoch Conflict is part of the Evochron Universe, different games, same overarching story within the same universe, this isn't even counting all of the mod creations and everything else that other people have produced, take a look at the old page and see how much more simple and easy to find sequels and games within the same "universe" so to speak. How about Wing Commander, Privateer II is somewhere down the list, Battlecruiser (Yai D. Smart), the Babylon 5 mods, the uncountable elite remakes, on and on. Plus the many examples I have already given above. I could go on and on, please step back for a second and consider that someone might find this information vital when choosing the next game to purchase or the next article to create here on Wikipedia based solely on the information that is easily retained by a single glace of this list. As of right now, that information is lost. Also, do you feel a name change is critical Randomran? --Kirihari (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There aren't many games that would be affected as far as I can tell. Maybe someone should double-check by looking through the article's history? SharkD (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• I don't have a strong opinion on the name change. But for the sake of consistency, we might want to ask if we should be using "list of" or "chronology of" lists for these kinds of genre articles. The best place to have that discussion is at the VG Wikiproject, since it affects such a wide range of articles (lists).
• I think the sequel stuff is lost only in a few rare cases where a sequel isn't named in a conventional way. In those rare cases, people should be visiting articles such as Wing Commander (franchise) and Template:Wing Commander series for more information. The best we can do in these rare events is add something in the "notes" column, and make it easier for people to find that information. But we can't organize this list by franchise. Or, at least, I can't see any way to do that without losing the dynamic list (which is pretty useful). Randomran (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As for my reasoning for the "Chronology of..." title, I believe it is better for technical reasons. A "chronology" is more encyclopedic, and the title looks better when being linked to from the History section of articles. I.e. a chronology is more relevant to the History of the the articles. SharkD (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I browsed around Wikipedia and went to the Lists_of_video_games. Did you know that 186 of those lists are just "List of (item)" and only 18 are "Chronological list of (item)"? So that means that within the video games lists only about 9% are Chronological. So if we are trying to follow some kind of standard it would be probably be better to just leave it the way it is. Unless I am missing something. I would like to really make my idea known on this also I would additionally like to move the date back to the second column as I would like to follow the the more popular standard. The name "List of (item)" is very evidently more of standard. Again, I have another question, the list before was sorted very purposefully and easily, giving people a reason to sort by date or alphabetically making this list one of the more useful lists on Wikipedia because it could be sorted in 3 different useful ways. What is the purpose of having the >< sort buttons now? I think discussing this article on VG Wikiproject would be the best idea too, getting more input is always good. We should probably bring people from the VG Wikiproject here though so everyone can be updated on the current situation. Bringing many more like minded people into this would definitely serve help. We should bring up a couple of items before the name change though to the people in VG Wikiproject. I really would like to move the date column one over again. What is this about? Is it about the dates or is it about the games? What is the content? Also, the many of the publisher's names have been cut short and need to be read by a mouseover, is that good? After browsing many lists is cutting the publisher's or developer's name short doesn't seems to be done, or at least not on any of the lists that I have seen. Again, couple things, how do you all feel about these topics, the names have been cut short, the moving of the date column back to the second cell. Also my question, before and now the list is the same minus the grouping, however the only difference is now, there is no reason to click on any of the sort buttons, keeping it this way makes their purpose minimal, what was so bad with the list before other than it just looks nicer? Again, sorry for so many questions, but thanks Randomran, absolutely, lets take this to VG Wikiproject, those guys know more than I will ever care to know so hopefully this list can become super popular one day. Man, why didn't I think of that? Anyways, I will be back after work, see you all later! Do we discuss it in Wikiproject and then come back here to make the changes known in this section, what do we do? --Kirihari (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Simply because 90% of the articles follow a normal list pattern doesn't mean this one has to. And a good bulk of those lists don't even have dates. SharkD (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this is the kind of discussion that should occur at WP:VG. Randomran (talk) 05:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't agree with you more Randomran, can you start a little section on WP:VG? I've never done that before, I will try to figure out how, but if you don't see it by the time you read this message, then that means I haven't figured out how to properly do it yet, or I ran out of time. Thank you for your ideas man, I said it before, I will say it again, I like and agree with your logical, normal thought process that seems to come from yer brain. Let's do it up! Also, seriously guys, we all seems to be talking now, I have real faith that with the help of our peers and fellow gamers, we can come to any solution! I have sat down and seriously asked myself to be also as logical as possible and to state things in a reasonable constructive fashion. Here is my best opinion and argument or reason. For the dates issue, this is the question I will pose in that forum. This list has compiled all or most of the space combat flight simulators, what is important in this list? If you remove the years from this list you would still have a list. Above was stated that "a good bulk of those lists don't even have dates", that is exactly my point. If you remove the names of the titles from this list, then the list would cease to exist. That point alone proves one thing, what makes this list important and useful is not the dates, but the names of games. So do we have a useful piece of information in the first column? Should we put in the first column a piece of information that really means nothing and is completely unimportant when compared with the importance of the actual game name? The date really could be removed entirely and the list would still exist and be a functioning helpful resource. Why put an item of unimportance or at least less importance in the first row? I want to argue this in another fashion, is the game relevant because of the year, or the year relevant because of the game? Take away the year, you would still have the list, take away the games, you don't have anything. Important information always dominates. What is important here? The name or the year? To go even further with this idea, because logically speaking, year is unimportant (or at least minimally) important, why would we even consider a name change to Chronological? Chronological formation is nonsensical in this case given the facts above because it has absolutely no baring on genre of space combat flight simulators or this list whatsoever! In fact after my little argument, I have no idea what its purpose was being in the second column, I vote to move it right beside the notes area. Wow! Hey what do ya think of my point? It is a pretty good point? I mean seriously heheh, kinda surprised myself, I even changed my own mind, wow eheheheh! Lets do it up though, I am sure we can get all the issues figured out with the help of like minded individuals and friends on WP:VG. Seriously though what do you think of my point guys? Thanks, --Kirihari (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I created a discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#"Chronology of ... games" versus "List of ... games". I know there was already another discussion related to this article, but it focused more on behavioral issues. This time, let's just focus on the content, and what an appropriate organization is for articles such as these. Randomran (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Edit Centric, following big discussion and having a majority of people agreeing that there is no purpose for a Chronology for this list and that Alphabetical is the preferred way I am going to change this list back from "Chronology of space simulator games" to "List of space flight simulator games" and sort it Alphabetically. The conversation can be found here at WikiProject Video games talk page. If you can kinda post a note and just authorize me to make the changes, that would be great, so no one thinks I am making unauthorized changes. I want to try to do everything in as open of an environment as possible. --Kirihari (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's the only reasonable way to read the discussion at WT:VG. That said, those are the only changes that were discussed: the name sticking with the traditional "list of", and the default sorting sticking with the traditional alphabetic default. We should obviously keep the benefits of the dynamic list, including the ability to sort by date. And we should discuss any other issues (like organizing it into subsections, or adding other information in the "notes" section) if there are any outstanding disagreements. Randomran (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I've not been monitoring this since SharkD decided to pointedly decline the mediation, but I've reviewed everything since getting Kirihari's recent message, and it looks okay to me! Of course, you don't really need my "by your leave" to make the change though, you've done a wonderful job following the discussion framework we set out with. Best of luck with this article, and remember to keep a positive outlook on all of your future Wiki endeavors! Edit Centric (talk) 06:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverting of the Page

So much content has been moved and rearranged and lost that I have reverted the page back to the origional before the edit war and before major changes were done. To prevent list decay I have added the game that has been released in this time and it is my hope that within the next few weeks we can use some of the looks from the "Chronological" list and spiff up this original list.--Kirihari (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this was a pretty major revert and probably should have been discussed first. But rather than edit warring, let's take on some edits from the chronological list and find some common ground. Hopefully we can find a version we can all basically live with. I'm not that picky, just don't want to see the discussion get bogged down. Randomran (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no no for sure, listen, anyone who is willing to combine both lists together is more than welcome, I am really busy in the next couple weeks, there are some minor changes that needed to be done, I did a revert to preserve this list but ALL of SharkD changes minus the sorting chronologically will be converted over to this list in the coming weeks. Oh hell I like most all of what SharkD did and I am sure others do too, I am going to bring back the little legend of systems and sort this alphabetically and make the list pretty, I just did this to prevent further list decay. The last thing I would want is an edit war, we are definitely going to do this up right. There is no crazy stuff going on here. No worries Randomran ;) heheehe. --Kirihari (talk) 04:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not just load the chronological list in a spreadsheet and re-sort them alphabetically? You claim to want to edit on a level that is on par with other editors; now's a good time to start. SharkD (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly I didn't even know you could do that... listen, today I am building my kitchen, if you have time today, would you ... or anyone else for that matter please do it up, I will have time probably tomorrow. Thanks guys. --Kirihari (talk) 05:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

As an experiment, I uploaded my spreadsheet to EditGrid.com. I'm not sure whether you will need to register in order to view/edit it. It would be best if the article and spreadsheet remained synced. SharkD (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow man, that's awesome! I joined EditGrid but I can not see the spreadsheet that you uploaded at the link. Is there something I am doing wrong? I will go back and read the instructions. Can anyone else see it. Shark man, way to go, that is a really great idea I think. --Kirihari (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

HA, I am blind, I see it, thanks man. I will get to work today! --Kirihari (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I moved the Date column to right beside the notes column to 'fit' in here on Wikipedia as most of the lists that I checked out look like that. Now, if you disagree with that, by all means change it back to the second row, makes no difference to me but just browsing a couple 20-30 lists here, most of the dates are closer to the right hand side. Also.... just kill me but, I have got absolutely no idea how to cut and paste the information in that list to the list here... now please tell me to RTFM ehhehehe.. no problem, I like to read & learn, but would someone be so kind as to point me in the right direction on where to look for the information on how to cut and paste it? Also, SharkD man, got to hand it to you, I have said it before, but I must say it again, collaborating with you is great. Also you creating this excel list must have taken a long time, that's pretty cool man, thanks. You speak in a very sarcastic way that makes me go fricken insane :), but your actions speak louder than your words (I mean that as a compliment, as being you do good and productive stuff), so I will just get used to the way you type heehhee. Anyways, thanks and please don't take the above as an insult, I just think I have figured out how to work with you. EHEHE, ignore what you say >:), but take the idea of what you say and put that to good use. Anyways, please forgive me if I sound rude, I don't mean to be, I really want to work with you, as working with you will only help to improve this list and other articles. I really like what you have done with the Space flight simulator game page as it didn't exist in a comprehensible fashion before you, so thanks. I really love this genre and want to help contribute. So I will do so. If you can point me in the correct direction to help me with my above problem I would appreciate that. --Kirihari (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

For now, just copy the "Output" column to a text editor and replace the string "\n" with a carriage return. I've started a discussion on their forums to see if there's an easier way. SharkD (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

With a little more work I made it so that you only need to go here to get the WikiMarkup. SharkD (talk) 07:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, I changed the permissions levels, so let me know if you can no longer see or edit the spreadsheet (you should be able to unless I made a mistake). SharkD (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to touch base, I am busy with home renovations for the next day but will commit myself to this as soon as it is done. Thanks for all of the hard work though. That's awesome. --Kirihari (talk) 12:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that I reverted some changes because an anon messed things up a bit. Go ahead and re-add your edits. SharkD (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I truly apologize for the wait, I will get to work as soon as my kitchen is done, it will be prolly be on the weekend. Just wanted to check in and let you know that I am not dragging my ass on this one, everything will be changed and back to normal on the weekend, thanks guys. I really want to make the changes so I can indeed learn how to edit like normal people here. This is my top priority. Thanks. --Kirihari (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Wikipedia can sometimes move very fast, and sometimes move very slow. It depends on who you're working with, and what you're working on. Randomran (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, you were specifically warned by the mediator not to make changes that weren't agreed upon. Instead, you made the changes you wanted to see made in addition to the other changes. You have to stop doing this. SharkD (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Galactic Command

I was just browsing around the internet and I stumbled upon some information.

The original Galactic Command Echo Squad game was not cancelled. It was developed exclusively for GameTap and completed.

Talon Elite was the console version of Echo Squad SE. The name was changed to differentiate them. It was only in concept stage and most sites posted that it was in development. 3000ad never did do it, instead they chose to do Echo Squad SE which they released in 2008.

Galactic Command SE is called Galactic Command - Echo Squad Special Edition. The episode that it includes is called "Rise Of The Insurgents" All the follow-up episodes for Echo Squad were canceled when they decided to do "All Aspect Warfare" instead.

The name of their next space combat game is "KnightBlade". That’s it. Nothing else. The previous names were development code names. There are currently no "episodes" planned for it because it is not and episodic title.

The MMO following KnightBlade is "Galactic Command Online". --Kirihari (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Claimstake site a Joomla advertisement?

Is it just me or has the entire Claimstake site been made a advertisement for something called Joomla? Some of the pictures reference asteroid mining and such but every article on the site talks about Joomla. On top of this the forum is empty except for one post which is "This is a test" for the topic title and the contents are "What do you think?". Does anyone know what is going on here? 98.125.59.58 (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I kinda know the guy so I sent him an email, I know that he has had problems with hackers in the past so well hheheh, I will give ya an update when there is one to give. --59.156.17.159 (talk) 05:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah he said he is just remaking his website, he is using a pre-made template that happened to have joomla crap on it but no worries in a few weeks it will be better than ever... supposedly. :) --59.156.17.159 (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Escape Velocity series

Escape Velocity was a modernized Elite clone (with RPG elements added) for the Mac in the mid 90s. I believe the game, and its 2 sequels, were among the most popular Mac shareware titles ever. And it's notable enough to have a pretty long article on Wikipedia, and articles on both sequels.

The most interesting thing about EV was the moddability. In fact, the sequels both started off as third-party mods.

I believe EV Nova (the last sequel) has been ported to modern Mac and Windows platforms and is still being sold by Ambrosia, with the first two games available as scenario mods but I doubt the fan modding community is as active as it was in the mid 90s.

At any rate, I think these three games belong on the list, so I'm adding them. --166.135.73.46 (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)