Talk:Simming organization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Cleanup - Link Hub 2 Phoenix Fleet 3 Noteable Organizations 4 Removing Importance Template 5 Governments 6 The Sim Org List

[edit] Cleanup - Link Hub

...or whatever alternate phrase takes your fancy - in short whilst I feel this is a subject probably worthy of an article, the article itself seems at present largely to be a 'back-door' for simming groups to get their name and link on Wikipedia - just a quick ad for them. From what I can tell, many of the links are added by anonymous IPs and very few of them are verifyable in the claims they make - Star Wars Unleashed "are known for their active message boards and their IRC chat room?" - Who says so?

I believe this article should reflect the growth and nature of simming since the outbreak of the Internet - not sit here as a hole for non-notable groups to get their name on Wikipedia. - Hayter 14:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm the one who split the Simming article and moved organizations to this article, but it was my hope to see the article used for information on simming groups themselves with a list of organizations as a footnote. It looks like most of the people editing simply want to use it to advertise. ;) I'd hoped to see people edit more of the content. I'll work to expand the article further. Thanks for tagging it. Maybe that will also get it some attention. WarpFlyght 03:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed non-notable organizations and individual sims from the list. I'll work on tracking down citations for the claims made. For now, entries needing references cited are flagged as such. Thanks for your attention to this, Hayter. :) WarpFlyght 04:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I've only had a chance to skim it but it already looks better. Hopefully I'll be able to have a better read and add some stuff fairly soon. Just on point for now though - is there a favoured term for the person who runs an individual game? In Star Trek simms they're often known as the "CO" because much more often than not, the person plays the Commanding Officer of the starship, but clearly this doesn't (can't) apply to all simms. The most common phrase I've heard is Game Manager (GM) but the article refers to "hosts" which may get confusing if you get into the fact that many organisations host or offer hosting capabilities to their "hosts."

I'm not too bothered what term we use (though GM would get my vote) - it just makes sense to sort it out now though before the article gets too big and different sections use different terms for the same things/people. - Hayter 21:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it really depends on the organization. The groups I've been involved with universally use "CO" and "XO" for the two separate GM positions and "hosts" instead of "GMs," but they're organizations that started with Star Trek games and branched out. I'll take a look at clarifying "CO" and "hosts." WarpFlyght 23:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phoenix Fleet

StarFleetIcon inquired (via e-mail) about the reasons for delisting Phoenix Fleet from the sim listing. I removed it for two reasons:

• The organization is small: its simming schedule lists five active sims. The smallest organization currently listed contains over ten. (Clarification: one exception needing removal, see next reason.)
• The organization is young and, according to its webpage, hasn't always been viable since its creation (which appears to be between two and two and a half years ago). There is one organization listed that was founded between 2001 and 2006, Star Trek: United Forces, and it should also be removed due to my first reason. (Eight sims, seven "actively crewing," so only one active. I'll leave it until this discussion is over.)

Anyone interested in exploring the organization's website to consider this issue may be unable to find the menu. If so, visit http://www.phoenix-fleet.org/menu.html(Note that the menu is not always visible in Mozilla Firefox, but there have been no problems reported as of yet when viewed in Internet Explorer). I recommend leaving it delisted until the organization is larger and stronger. I've added no set of criteria for listing organizations to the article because I don't feel that any case is cut-and-dry. We may want to add criteria, however, because this issue will probably recur. • WarpFlyght (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noteable Organizations

Alright, you want to talk about this here? Mr. Mitchell, who made you in charge of whether or not a sim fleet gets posted on this page? It's for Simming Organizations. Not for Noteable Simming Organizations. Any simming organization, whether it consists of two ships or fifty, belongs on this site, because it is an organization, just as much as the FSF or USF or SLA. No, it may not be as big or as well known as any of those, but it's one none the less. The smaller ones should perhaps be on here more than others, because they need the exposure. No, I didn't post my fleet on here just to get members, I posted it here because I felt it belonged up there with some of those other fleets, not because it's as popular as some of them, but because it is a fleet. And Wikipedia is for everyone, not just for people who think their fleets belong on here and others don't. If you want a group where you can control what sim fleets are a part of it and which aren't, go create a web ring or something.

The Icon 22:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The primary issue with listing any simming organization in this article is that it will truly be a link hub, as discussed earlier on the talk page. The "Active Organizations" header is probably inappropriate for this, and I'll try to find a way to make it clearer what should be listed. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and is not intended for advertising (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox). It should not be used to give exposure to simming organizations.

The listing of organizations is provided to give notable examples of simming organizations for encyclopedic purposes. Encyclopedias must strike a balance between providing enough information to cover the subject matter without going into exhaustive detail. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia says "An encyclopedia is a written compendium of knowledge, aiming to convey the most relevant accumulated knowledge on each subject." My reasoning in including "notable" organizations in this article is to provide relevant information. If Phoenix Fleet is notable for some reason other than the fact that it is a simming organization — for instance, if it embodies a unique model of government — then it should be listed. If not, Phoenix Fleet doesn't belong on the listing until it is larger or exemplifies an important aspect of a simming organization that none of the other groups do.

Phoenix Fleet wasn't removed for any reason other than to keep the list of simming organizations relevant. It wasn't intended as an attack, an insult, or any claim of superiority. If Phoenix Fleet is relevant, please document the reasons why. If you disagree with my definition of relevant, feel free to request arbitration on the matter. • WarpFlyght (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely with WarpFlyght's actions here. It's not a slur upon Phoenix Fleet for it not to be included here, it's simply an adherence to policy. The group is considerably younger than others on this page and a deal smaller as well. There is nothing that appears to make it unique, or stand out from the pack. That doesn't mean it's bad, simply not notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. - Hayter 19:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I have the same opinion as StarFleetIcon. I tried to add a fleet earlier and it was promptly removed. Smaller groups deserve a chance too. I'm not trying to advertise, I'm not involved in administering the fleet I tried to add, but I feel that all groups deserve equal treatment and any active group should be included. If you won't do that, then why not add another section, with a list of links to smaller groups? PKIDelirium

This hasn't been done for a couple of reasons. One, it'd be such a large undertaking. I'm not aware of even a semi-definitive list of simming organizations that we could draw on (and cite) when building such a list. Thus far we've been sticking with prominent groups because they are relatively well-known examples of simming organizations.

That leads into the other major reason, WP:NOTE. Wikipedia itself has certain notability guidelines, and my take on them when monitoring changes to this article has been that large, active simming organizations best meet the requirements. This may not be the best metric, but as the primary person who's been maintaining the article, that's what I've been going by. Additionally, a few groups don't meet this at present, but have been leaders in the simming community in the past, so I haven't struck them. When it comes down to it, this is the reason we don't have smaller groups listed here. I'd love to hear suggestions for another metric of notability.

You might consider creating a new article, List of simming organizations, to serve as a more general list. WP:LIST has some good guidelines on creating lists. The items being added to the list should still meet WP:NOTE, however, so the best starting point is coming up with a good definition for what makes a simming organization "notable."

Please chime in with your further thoughts here. The more community involvement in this article, the better we can make it. • WarpFlyght (talk • contribs) 17:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Importance Template

Does anyone have any objections to removing the {{importance}} template from this article? It has quite a bit more content than it did when concerns were first raised about it, and the "link hub" is being patrolled and kept pared down to notable examples of simming organizations. There's certainly room for more improvement, but my feeling is that this article is now about simming organizations and isn't simply a link hub in disguise.

I'm hesitant to remove the template myself, since I created the article and am bound to have some bias on th ematter. ;) In a few weeks, if there's no discussion here leaning against it, and if nobody has come along and removed it, I may go ahead and remove it myself. • WarpFlyght (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it just now. Whilst I'd like to see more in-depth information presented and perhaps less but more plentiful sections, the article does now detail what a Simming Organisation is, rather than simply serve as a links hub for NN groups. It's also steered clear for the most part, of simply repeating information at simming. You're right in that it needs more work, but the problem isn't lack of detail on the subject now. Good work. - Hayter 11:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Governments

There are a few other types of gov models I can think of. "Republic" should be added... its distinct from "Democracy." The key difference is that in a republic you have an elected governing council that makes decisions and approves appointments, whereas in a democracy you have a direct vote of all members or members of a certain rank to fill offices. Of the democratic/republican clubs I've come across, most can be termed republics.

Also, there is the ownership model, which has become more popular in recent years... whoever owns the website 'owns' the club and appoints/removes people from various positions, etc.

Lastly, you have the business/buraucratic model, which you tend to see in huge clubs... think of the ASG in the day or the FSF today... where you have a large hierarchy using different blends of systems and forming committees to tackle special problems.--Chas Hammer 04:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this a bit more and think in the end it's misleading to try to make a list all the types of sim gov out there. I feel that a simple blurb about clubs either consciousnly/officially or not have some kind of governing and organizational structure and that they fall into 3 general catagories is the best way to go... your "ownership" type where one or a group of people "own" the club and make decisions and appoint/remove people... your "democratic" system where the membership votes for leaders, theres some kind of governing body, etc... and your "military" where people with high sim ranks also administer the club. Any thoughts? --Chas Hammer 04:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Sim Org List

Wouldn't it be better to simply have the list of sim organizations be a list? Most of the statements made ("we're the best"; "we pioneered..."; "we have SCORES of ships..."; "we have existed since 79 B.C.") are incredibly hard to prove, and the only REAL corroboration is what the sim organization itself says.

In the instance of FKA, I personally can vouch for their having existed in 1993, and actually earlier than that, but I am not a source that can be cited in Wikipedia.

Why not simply dump all the statements? --ThatBajoranGuy 10:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What would constitute a source that can be cited?--Chas Hammer 17:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)