Talk:Live for Speed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:

Contents

[edit] latest patch

I don't think the latest patch should be listed in the article....it is already out of date since patch U is out. Unless someone wants to take the time to keep the patch level current, it ought to be removed Evenprime 22:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep the patch level current Duke toaster 20:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Team sites

I removed the links to teams sites as I don't feel a dozen links to team sites belongs in the article. Most of the sites tell you nothing more than there is a team called xzy and racers a, b and c race for them and add nothing to the article. Please read Wikipedia:External_links before adding them back. - 80.43.76.120 18:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a few team links before I fully read your post and Wikipedia's external links page. Maybe a new article listing the prolific amount of teams in LFS? Prolly a decent idea; as opposed to filling up the links in the LFS article itself E dog95 02:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not a link directory. You can link to an external link directory on the topic, but do not create the list on Wikipedia. -- intgr 04:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition LFS related website links contains many links. Including international sites, leagues and misc sites. Axrtest 18:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SI units

Why aren't the units in SI? The automotive industry uses only SI units...

Good point, whoever made that unsigned comment. Please sign your comments in future though. Duke toaster 16:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brain interface/BCI

What is a Brain interface or BCI, and especially what does it have to do with LFS? I checked the Wikipedia article on BCI, but I fail to see the relation with LFS. Yet it appears in the 'Input' section of the summary overview. Is that subtle vandalism, or am I just missing the point?

Rschroev 23:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FZ50 Description

I would consider the FZ50 to be closer to a 911 than to the Ferrari 360. It is a 3.6L, rear engine, flat 6 . . . thats a 911. The 360 is a Mid engine 3.6L v8. Looks wise, the car has the profile/roofline of the Porsche with the lights from a Ferrari (looks more like a 575 than a 360, especially on the gtr version). BMan1113VR 19:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Directory request

There is now a dmoz category for this game, so I've removed the template from this page and added a link to the article. —Wrathchild (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

The cars section of the article is little more than a game guide, which is not in accordance with WP:NOT. The section contains nothing but car statistics, which is of no use for readers who do not play the game. I will remove the section if there are no objections. --Scottie_theNerd 09:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the car statistics come in very handy for players who would like to look up a tabular collection of car data, for comparison purposes, for example. In addition, since the topic is a racing simulator, it is hardly out-of-scope to include specs about the cars, particularly since the cars are not production-based. In attestation to this, there are several websites that explicitly copy the car stats wiki table on this page. --K3rb 19:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a site that caters for players. Information should be of use to the general reader to understand the position of the game in real life. Game-specific information can easily be found specialised game sites such as GameFAQs, GamerWiki and E-Gamia. If other sites use spec tables like this one, that's more reason to remove the table from this article. --Scottie_theNerd 04:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
What sort of list then would be acceptable? See Need For Speed 1,2,3, HS, Porsche 2000, Most Wanted, Carbon, Gran Turismo, Rfactor has unofficial car/mod list, . They all have car lists and now I added A LINK to the LFS car list and it gets removed also?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.78.161.144 (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
Unsurprisingly, most of those articles have lists made by the same editors. We should be seeking to improve the quality of articles according to [[[WP:VG]] guidelines rather than cluttering them with non-essential information. I will raise this issue on the Video games WikiProject and see what others have to say. --Scottie_theNerd 22:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know who made up those guidelines or who actually thinks that car/track list in a game is non-essential information. I see it as very essential info, same as someone goes looking info about a movie and they most likely would like to know about the cast. Maybe it's not prudent to include the actual list to the article (ie. Gran Turismo series 400 or so cars or Grand Prix Legends' ~550 user made tracks), but to somehow include info of the lists, either by a collapsed list or a link to other article/website where one can find the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.78.161.144 (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Car and Track lists

Would someone care to explain how these lists enhance the Wikipedia article, given that they belong more in a game guide or even the LFS Wiki itself? Before doing so, please refer to WP:NOT and the WP:VG guidelines, which generally do not endorse "lean" lists. Information in the article must be notable in some way, and lists of every item, track and car in the game along with their stats is in direct violation of WP:NOT. An anonymous user has pointed out in my talk page that many other game articles contain such lists - in response, I also direct to WP:INN. Just because another article does it doesn't mean it's correct. Lists end up in articles because they are not frequented by editors familiar with the guidelines, resulting in bloated data. We should be looking at cleaning up articles to be meaningful to readers instead of throwing lists up everywhere.

Additionally, I raised this discussion on WP:VG a while ago, found here. Basically, the article should relate in-game content in real-life terms. I think a section on cars and tracks would be appropriate, but a full list of cars and tracks along with their stats is not appropriate. Such information is of minimal use to the casual reader and more directed at the actual players of the game - a purpose Wikipedia does not serve.

Currently, no racing game or series has been nominated for featured article status. The closest I know of is F-Zero GX. The article is an excellent example of how information relating to circuits and vehicles may be presented. Short paragraphs relating the important aspects of the game, properly verified and cited, conveys the key points of the article to the reader. Remember that articles on Wikipedia are about explaining what the game is, not how to play it. There are plenty of other Wikis for game-specific information, including StrategyWiki and Encyclopedia Gamia.

Since this will turn into a revert war if discussion and consensus is not reached, I propose that editors more familiar with the game decide how to present the information in a useful, encyclopedic manner that will benefit the casual reader, not just the avid gamer.--Scottie_theNerd 08:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I'm the "anonymous user" commented above and the user:62.78.161.144 (who has contributed to this article before) in addition being a person in nonformal-affiliation/credited in LFS for sometime (still, I want to be anonymous here thank you very much). After having slept on it for couple days and read the archived WP:VG discussion started by Scottie_theNerd. I propose something like the following:

==Cars== :Main article: [http://en.lfsmanual.net/wiki/Cars Car list] Live for Speed has 20 cars in total ranging from [[BMW Sauber|BMW Sauber Formula One]] to [[McGill_University]]'s [[Fsae|Formula Student car]] and fictional GT Cars akin to [[Deutsche_Tourenwagen_Masters|DTM]] and [[Super GT|JGTC]] to your family front wheel driven hatchback. and ==Tracks== :Main article: [http://en.lfsmanual.net/wiki/Tracks Track list] Live for Speed has 4 different fictional track areas, including one loosely based on eastern central [[London]], one based [[Jamaican]] surroudings and one near Kyoto Japan. Each one of them has several different configurations and each of those also have mirrored counterparts. Also there are couple configurations only meant to be used in user designed [[Autocross]] tracks.

I find this is the most informative compromise considering the casual user and those users who want to be informed about what content the game has, (wikifying/npoving/etc notwithstanding). I.e., not cluttered with tabular data but still informative in concise form.


Looks acceptable, but two things: firstly, do not include wiki links to other Wikis - that goes against Wikipedia's style guide and the LFS wiki is already linked to in External links. Secondly, drop the second-person references you seem to have unintentionally included to maintain proper tone. --Scottie_theNerd 21:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Scottie - are you here to help make the LFS article an FA class article? I mean, other than winning the battle here with your being rid of these tables with your interpretation (it's ALL relative :D) of WP:NOT, are you interested in collaborating with others to write something that could help this article along? Why LFS btw? Do you play with racing sims?

I'm starting to see how lists CAN be not in the best interest of an article (I've made a move to be rid of an aircraft list here: Regional airliner). The list will still live, just in its own article. Look at this category btw Category:Lists of aircraft Does that make your blood boil?

The tables that are (were) here in LFS are informative tables. Yes. The same information can be represented with prose, but there really are several ways to skin the cat...this way, for this article I think, is OK! So, although I understand (I think) what you're trying to impress on us, is your idea the only way? or just your way? I'm not going to engage you in an edit war. Is this the best use of your time and writing skills? E dog95 07:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The data tables are useful, but useful to who? A casual reader is not going to benefit from track and vehicle stats that clearly belong in a game manual or guide, and there is already a specialised wiki for LFS as well as numerous gaming wikis that are designed to contain such information. I do not question it's usefulness, but just because it is useful does not mean it belongs on Wikipedia. Articles about gaming should be written in a way that communicates key information relating to its real-life development and impact to the general reader, not to the gamer. Not all game articles do that, but that is because not every game article is written to the standards of Wikipedia and the WikiProject Video games guidelines. My interpretation of WP:NOT isn't exactly relative - ask at WP:VG or request a review of the article's quality and you'll get the same anti-listcruft from more experienced editors. Lists aren't necessarily bad, but the content of the lists may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia. I am not editing this article "my way" - I am helping to shape it in accordance to guidelines established through consensus.
As for why I'm actually here: I don't play LFS, or any racing sim. I just happened to clean up some sections of the article, which has consequently been brought up as a topic of discussion here. I know practically nothing about the game and I'm in no position to single-handedly raise the article to WP:GA or WP:FA status. I would, however, strongly encourage that you and other editors familiar with the content help improve its quality. LFS is a popular game and I'm sure many reliable sources can be found and used to add to the article without inflating it with fancruft. --Scottie_theNerd 09:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Scottie - whether the tables in the article are beneficial to the article is not something we'll agree on. We've established that. Thanks btw, for your helpful input on this whole process. I'm here to learn a few things and this is a fine way to do it.

So, with that in mind, I'd like to include the tables in a list that can be associated with the article. Is this something that is agreeable? E dog95 06:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, he'll revert it. I've already tried adding a link to the car/track list in the See Also section - it got removed. I suggested adding the car/track list in the wikipedia format "Main article: linkblah" it wasn't accepted either. So as long we have scottie the nerd policing this article you can't add anything that caters the non-casual reader all the while there are other articles (also non video game) having oodles of tabular data and lists and articles solely comprised of lists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.161.144 (talk)
Again, refer to the guidelines and talk page on WP:VG and you'll get the exact same response from another experienced editor. There's nothing necessarily wrong with articles solely comprised of lists — there's no blanket rule when it comes to that. An article dedicated to track and car lists for Live for Speed is not notable and instruction manual material. You are continually suggesting creating tables and articles for LFS material without explaining why. Wikipedia does not cater for gamers; there are plenty of Wikis that do that. Why don't you contribute to those instead of making this article a personal confrontation? --Scottie_theNerd 18:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm suprised you didn't link to WP:NOT maybe that's because in WP:NOT there isn't anything that forbids car/track lists? And in WP:VG there is only the one archived discussion strated by you which got only about 2 i-agree-statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.161.144 (talk)
Um, I did link to WP:NOT, and there weren't any disagreements with my concern because of the unanimous acceptance of VG guidelines. The specific clause of WP:NOT is this - car and track lists that belong in game guides and instruction manuals, not an encyclopeda. If you would like to raise the issue for debate again on WP:VG, feel free to do so. --Scottie_theNerd 02:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
So, unsigned fella. I appreciate your input & willingness to improve the article. I did see the links that you previously included & they were to external wikis. That isn't what we're looking for here.
The car & track lists, I think, are not instruction manual material, nor are they game guides. This material simply states, in table form, what the game is. There was an item in there though that did fit the criteria for being a bit of a game guide. That was the "car setup" section. That, I think, could easily be considered a type of game guide. I'm absolutely comfortable leaving that part out. However, the car & track lists are very much descriptive elements that say, in an easier-to-read form (as opposed to prose), what the game is...I would like to insert these formerly included lists in a separate article.
Also, Scottie: I am an LFS player; I consider myself close to what LFS is. I love the simulation and have been active with it for several years. Mr Unsigned has stated that he's informally associated with LFS. This makes both Mr Unsigned and I "...editors more familiar with the game". Because of this, we are less "making this article a personal confrontation" than yourself. With respect, of course. Please consider that. You yourself have stated that we are the ones that should "decide how to present the information in a useful, encyclopedic manner that will benefit the casual reader." We're trying to do just that. E dog95 06:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
The car setup table is definitely out. I'm still not clear as to how a list of cars, their specs and a list of tracks describes anything. If anything, lists such as those are raw data that is of little meaning to someone who has not played the game, hence the need to communicate key information in prose. A short paragraph or two about the design and variety of tracks (properly sourced, of course) communicates the important elements of the game to a wider audience. A list of track names and distances, on the other hand, will be mean nothing to someone who has not played the game, and therein lies the problem with relying on lists to convey "essential" information. --Scottie_theNerd 06:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Adding to that, the car/track list doesn't list what the game is; it lists what is in the game. Listing out cars and tracks means listing a lot of things that are not important in conveying information to the general reader. If certain vehicles or tracks are notable in some way, they are worth singling out in the article in some form. If a list of cars and tracks is to be added, there needs to be a reason why every car and every track is notable enough to be mentioned. It's very tempting to include comprehensive information on the contents of a game, but often one needs to step back, read through all the information and consider how a casual reader might make use of it. Fundamentally, lists don't describe. They...well, list. --Scottie_theNerd 06:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to note then, your interpretation of Wikipedia policy does not conform to consensus. In that I specifically have considered your idea and in fact made effort to accommodate it, and that we (Mr Unsigned - and dozens of other contributors to the article btw) know these tables to be useful and helpful in the article, you continue to lay down your "my idea is correct - even though I don't have any other knowledgable editors supporting me" offensive.
I really think that you should, as a matter of benevolence, find a more suitable and more appropriate way to contribute. I'm disappointed in this. Your inability to acknowledge that these simple tables, used in all sorts of web-based and printed information presentations (aka encyclopedias), are useful...is really frustrating. It's not reasonable. I don't see anyone helping you fight your battle. I have, at the very least, an "non-signer" (lol) that validates what I'm sure the previously mentioned contributors to this article have thought to be good as well. To think that tables are not useful in encyclopedias is foolish. Find a cause where editors agree with you and please don't continue down this path. E dog95 08:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me? I'm not saying tables aren't useful. Please stop putting words in my mouth. If you've had enough of me, I strongly suggest you bring this up at WP:VG where you can get a clear consensus rather than using me as a scapegoat. --Scottie_theNerd 08:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
When a person asks "tables...useful to who?", they're implying that the tables are not useful, eh? Scottie, silence = consensus (there was much silence till recently); the Wikipedia rules are not written in stone; and you're implying that these tables are damaging the encyclopedia. E dog95 08:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Clipping out my statement does not mean you can adjust its meaning. I don't disagree on the usefulness of tables. I disagree on what the tables contain, and I have stated so over and over again. A list or table containing comprehensive data on cars and tracks is not useful to the general reader; they are only useful to readers who play the game. Silence does not equate to consensus, and in any case, the silence has been broken. Few editors contribute to this article, and since debate has been triggered, a consensus clearly hasn't been reached. Again, I suggest you raise this issue at WP:VG to get more perspectives instead of listening to what you want to listen. If you want to see this debate as who has more people on their side, it would be better that you discuss this with experienced game article editors at the WikiProject instead of referring to anonymous editors. --Scottie_theNerd 09:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
This article is about a racing simulation, not a video game. The discussion here on Live for Speed doesn't fit within the scope of video games. Stop including WP:VG as a tool to make an argument here. Please take your one-size-fits-all approach to reorganizing Wikpedia video game articles to video game articles. I've assumed good faith here on your part and heard what you've said. I've even adapted my idea (setup table is out) about what can be considered "game guide" material (even though we both understand this software is NOT a video game).
Scottie, I do believe you have got something in that head of yours. You're obviously a fine writer. It IS baffling to me though, how you're stuck on this idea that tables are not useful to the readers of this article. People who are reading this article are looking for information on Live for Speed and would appreciate a nicely formatted table that quickly reveals what is in the simulation. These tables are in the same class of article-enhancing tools as maps, schematics, and illustrations. Why someone such as yourself cannot see that is disconcerting indeed. I, Scottie, am the expert on Live for Speed. You, on the other hand, are the expert on Video Games. These are not the same thing, and your work here is bordering on vandalism. You've repeatedly removed valid, helpful information from the article. This is not OK. E dog95 20:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Your claim that Live for Speed is not a video game is not consistent with any meta-article details. The article is located in several video game categories and has been reviewed by WikiProject Video games, as indicated by the banner at the top of this page. Additionally, Sim racing states that racing simulators are "computer racing games". Most racing simulator articles state that they are games. What source do you have distinguishes Live for Speed as not being a video game? If that is correct, we will need to take steps to correct the categorisation and WikiProject and place it in the correct framework. Even if the article does not fall under WP:VG, the tables may still be contested by other editors in the future. --Scottie_theNerd 08:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The developers of the sim have stated that the software is indeed a racing simulator. They do not refer to their efforts as a video game. See More about the (online) racing simulator on the Live for Speed website. A summary of what it says there: LFS S2 is a serious racing simulator. No arcade modes, no steering aids - YOU have to do the driving. It is therefore highly recommended to drive the sim with a steering wheel, because even though you can use keyboard and/or mouse, a wheel is what you use in a real car, so a wheel should be used in a serious racing simulator... E dog95 23:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't address my point. Yes, it's a racing simulator. Where does it say it isn't game? What about all the meta-article categories, reviews and other tags attached to this article and all the other racing simulators? --Scottie_theNerd 06:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding casual reader, I don't think LFS is not a article "a casual reader"* would read. LFS's market are simulator players, and for the most of them knowing what cars/tracks it has is very important factor. I think we're on a head for arbitration because the full list doesn't pass muster for you, links in "see also" are no-no, links in the wikipedia format "main article:...." are no-no. Like I've said, maybe adding the full lists isn't appropriate, but adding a link to external website or wikipedia article containing the list I'm ok with as long as it's titled as Car/Track list, so the non-casual doesn't have to go through every link in the article to guess under what arbitrarily named link one would find those lists.

* I.e, Joe Sixpack from Bumfuck, USA
Wikipedia caters for the casual, general reader, and the content of its articles should be written to reflect that. Just because a product has a specific target audience does not meant that articles should be written to cater for that audience, as I have repeatedly stated above. There are plenty of sites that do cater for that audience, including the LFS Wiki in the external links section. The main article suggestion is not appropriate because it does not link to Wikipedia articles; and the "see also" suggestion fails WP:NOT and WP:N. It appears you are fixated on using this article as a helpful resource for LFS players, which is not what Wikipedia is for. As for arbitration: fantastic. I've been trying to get you fellows to get more perspectives. User:E dog95 has rejected my advice on seeking opinions from WP:VG on the basis that LFS is not a video game despite the article being categorised and reviewed as such along with other simulators in the same genre. --Scottie_theNerd 16:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
I have to admit that I only skimmed through this discussion, but here's my two cents:
First, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and thus should always be written with the casual reader in mind. Even though I occasionally play the game, I find these tables completely uninteresting — I'd have to be an automobile engineer/enthusiast to actually interpret what the weight/power ratios and other parameters of various cars mean for the player.
But knowing what kinds of cars are in the game is very relevant to the article. So, the only way to convey this to the layman is to include interpretations and summaries of these parameters, not exact details of the cars. -- intgr #%@! 17:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
It's funny you say Wikipedia caters for the casual, general reader (note: I read that as Joe Sixpack from Bumfuck, USA), pretty much every article I find in Wikipedia is the precise opposite of that. In mathematics related articles I find oodles of formulae (definately NOT for Joe Sixpack from Bumfuck, USA), every movie article I find has longish lists of actors. In what is a featured article Accumulated Cyclone Energy Ratings of Atlantic hurricane season for the year 1933 what the hell the "casual reader" gets out of it (it's in tabular data mind you, if you didn't bother to click the link). Choose any subject, find a wikipedia article for it, I'm fairly sure you find that 98% of its content is not for the casual user. So I really think arbitration is good way to end this debate - provided the judges/jury think in *VERY* broad terms, I.e., how detailed information a wikipedia article should have, or is the introduction section many article have enough, it is what caters the casual, general reader. And should the article be written the target audience in mind or the casual reader from Bumfuck, USA, as you say? Or, you just drop it and let us put the car/track list titled link in the See also, External links or the corresponding section of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.28.62 (talk)
The example you provided explains what the data means, allowing the casual reader to interpret it to a basic level. Of course articles in various fields will use exclusive terms and formulae, but ideally such articles should explain what it means in basic terms for readers. Casual readers often benefit from a certain amount of background knowledge to better understand the content. The lists I have seen suggested for Live for Speed don't explain anything; they are a collection of indiscriminate information with the purpose of providing a list of car specs for players. I have worked laterally and incorporated a general description of the content and detail of the game through regular prose demonstrating what range of vehicles are in the game with the help of another anonymous editor, but this has been rejected by User: E dog95. Neither of you have explained how a list of car specs and track details would benefit the casual reader, and "Joe Sixpack" has specifically stated the intention of not writing it for the casual reader. --Scottie_theNerd 04:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm responding to a request for comment from WT:VG. I have two comments: One, a list of tracks and cars available in the game constitute game-guide material that CVGProj has already deemed unencyclopedic, and it falls into the categories listed in WP:NOT. It's not going to help a casual reader understand the game as a whole - it's only information that would be interesting to someone either playing the game or taking a more in-depth interest in the game, and that's exactly what StrategyWiki and similar subwikis are there for.

Two: LFS is indeed a racing simulator, but that does not mean it's not a video game. There are many racing simulator video games - Gran Turismo and Forza Motorsport are two common examples. They are simulators, yes - they model the physics of racing very well. But they are also games - they're set up like games, they have campaign modes, multiplayer support, they are marketed for game systems, etc. So what makes Live for Speed different? Why wouldn't it be covered under the video games umbrella? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Seem that article significantly reduced since I've read it last time. No car list - no matching between "in-game car name" and "real-life car analogue"... And I just wanted to see what is the real name of LX4, that little car which also been featured in Top Gear. I wouldn't say that such article cut is a great improvement. Especially if no trace of ingame-realcar matching is left, even a link to some other site with such information. Honeyman 06:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If you find such a site, please include it under External links. A comparison of cars to real life models is trivial on Wikipedia, unless external sources explain its notability. Otherwise, the best place to locate such a resource is in external links. The removal of the car/track lists has been discussed at length both here and on WT:VG, with the consensus that cars and tracks are not individually notable enough to warrant a full list. The cleanup removes listcruft and replacing it with more information prose. --Scottie_theNerd 09:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change the subheading?

Seeing as Live for Speed isn't a game, I wonder who what some editors think of changing the "Gameplay" heading to "Driving the Simulator"....Gameplay, I think, refers to strategy. Strategy isn't a part of the discussion under the "Gameplay" heading. E dog95 23:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Gameplay refers to the mechanics of the game. Additionally, your claims of LFS not being a game have been refuted both here and at WT:VG#Input_required_on_debate_at_Live_for_Speed. --Scottie_theNerd 03:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside Corroboration

Seems that LFS would need some outside verification that it is not a video game or a new breed of video gaming called Simulation. The American Heritage Dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=video%20game&ia=ahd4) defines video game as "An electronic or computerized game played by manipulating images on a video display or television screen." It does not sound like a good argument if someone on the inside claims to have the inside track no pun intended on cateloguing a piece of software as non-video-gamey. That would be self-defining. There has to be a third party unbiased source to determine whether or not there is such a thing as a Simulation that is not a subset of Video Gamery. Are there any out there? I have not heard of one, but perhaps someone who follows this sport would know of one. It appears like a highbrow attempt at creating a caste within video gaming such that if one uses a wheel one is not among the hoi poloi (http://members.aol.com/njhoipoloi/feature/meaning.htm). Is it fantasy or reality? Both VG and Sims are not reality. Regarding tables, if you look at the Ford WP entry they are a real car company and don't have tables or lists until 2 or 3 clicks in. Perhaps LFS should have a Gloss in the main entry then real stats deeper in for those interested in further discovery. WP may need to bend in this regard because there may be more and more Life going on in the ether, for example Second Life. WP would be the place to go to discover other lands and it cannot suddenly say, "That's not our business." If WP can't do it someone else will. Kristinwt 06:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There are many aspects where Wikipedia can say "That's not our business", as defined by WP:NOT. The issue of debate regarding technical specifications of in-game material is how relevant it is to the article in general. --Scottie_theNerd 06:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
My comment was also about marketing scheme. Perhaps WP:NOT would need to change and allow more branches of input. I don't think it's possible for WPians to hold it static or stagnant. The making of books there is no end. Likewise, WP is an endless book. Who is going to say, "this is the last article?" "This is the last edit." Going back to my blurb about reality vs fantasy, where does reality stop and fantasy start? If software is better written then does that make it more real e.g's Edog95's contrasting VG and Sims, and how when Shrek came out it looked so "real." What happens if racing cars are one day maneuvered by drivers in a control room behind a monitor? Will that be fantasy or will that be reality? But, that's another topic. I'm just afraid that WP will one day say, "Stop." I rather like the "everybody contributes" philosophy and I hope it doesn't stop. I like the grand experiment. Kristinwt 04:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving possibilities

Is there any way to archive this page? I mean it's rather long and I don't want to throw it all away. It's got some good stuff. But, it's sort of been sitting here a while. It has a lot of great discussion and education and passion. It won't be forgotten just moved to have the chapter closed so we can open a new chapter. WikiHow has a way to move it to the back burner where it can be seen if necessary, yet allow for continued discussion of a different sort. Kristinwt (talk) 06:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)