Talk:Government simulation game/Archive 1

message: This isn't working anymore. Now there's a spam header on the page aswell. Where is the spam? I'm seeing you people contribute nothing to the article, you only have opinions on what is and what isn't notable. If you can't deliver a solution to SOLVE this problem (because it is a problem) then I'm going to go with my solution. Itake 14:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since none of you have put forward any solutions, I'm going with mine. An off-site list, listing all govsims. No list for the article, but links to the "reputable" govsims in their respective entries in the article. Itake 16:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree wholeheartedly and I think Itake's list needs to be made official policy as the only thing kept on the article - it's proven to be accurate, comprehensive and unbiased. As one suggestion though, Itake, to avoid clutter might it work to separate the list into 'active' and 'dead' sims? Tyking 18:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With no dissenting viewpoint I'm removing the spam header Tyking 19:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've thought about that, but just like with the nationsim list the items on the list tend to get active for a while, die down, then get active again. So I think its enough with the warning that states that most sims listed as "small" are inactive, and leave it up to the reader to make up his/her mind. Itake 21:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not working 

message: We're starting to enter a point in which people are simply adding government sims to the list. I was afraid this was going to happen... Bcarlson33 21:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whats so bad with that? Isn't that the purpose of the list, to list all government sims? Itake 22:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Thats not a good reason to not list it either, neither is your opinion representative on what a correct govsim is. All established govsim deserve recognition, not just your elite cadre. Itake 20:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't understand your defensiveness about this- no one but you is bringing up things like "your elite cadre." Do you honestly mean to suggest that every sim is equal simply by virtue of existing? Do you really think that a couple of posts on InvisionFree.com thrown together three days ago by a couple of people deserves mention in an encyclopedia article about sims? Wikipedia guidelines are very clear- the site does not exist for people to use as their personal promo vehicle. Notability matters. Bcarlson33 20:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There has been numerous discussions on which sims should and should not be mentioned on the site. I was one of the people who pushed the capitol hill sim out of the entries because it is without doubt a small and not really notable sim. Then I established this list instead, so that users could through the article to learn about the really elite and noteworthy sims.
Now there exists no reason at all to start removing small sims from the list. The list has a purpose, that purpose is to list as many govsims as possible. The article has a purpose, to show the important govsims. Both purposes are fulfilled. Itake 20:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't say anything about "removing small sims from the list," nor did I that size is the determinant of what makes a sim notable. My point is that the article (of which the list is part) should not be cluttered with meaningless sims. The list is part of the article; thus, the reason to remove sims is because they don't belong in the article. Don't get me wrong; a list of sims is a good idea and someone should do it- but on a website somewhere, on a page that's intended for the sim community. This page doesn't exist for the purposes of the sim community, so the list doesn't belong here. Bcarlson33 20:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Clear? The list of sims is relevant to the article, the user has the right to know what sims are out there. Not what sims you and the others belive are notable or not. No matter, the problem is solved now the same way the nationsim one was solved. Itake 22:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: For reference, the site that hosts the list is not a govsim. Not even remotely. For the rest: Knock yourself out. Itake 22:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Links to the most notable sims in the genre is not blatant advertising...Itake 21:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Retardo, I do not run/own/play a govsim. So stop lying, and stop lying now. As has already been said, your non-notable shit sims with 10 active players are not deserving of a mention. Why? Because there are (atleast) 100 others of them, each and every one just as non-notable. So no, until your sim is notable enough, it does not deserve its own entry in the article itself. Itake 15:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, 60 registered members. With hardly 1000 posts, like 10 of them are active. So, like I said, its a non-notable sim with 10 members. The REAL sims listed here all have hundreds of members each. So until your sim reaches a level like that, its not worthy of mention. I don't really care about your "innovative approaches" or stuff like that, because the entire "problems with govsims" section has been removed anyways. Unverified research. Now, this may suprise you, but I'm not into the whole blackmail thingy. So no, I'm not going to agree to your compromise. I'm going to continue logging in here a few times every day and revert any changes you make. Let's see who gets tired first, shalle we? Itake 12:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ahahahahahha...lets see which one of us know the most admins then :D Itake 14:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Government Sims Section 

message: This article is becoming an unwieldy mess. First things first: kill the descriptions of every little thing that's happening in every sim has got to go. Describe the concept of how time works and how events take place; if people want to know the current state of events in a sim they can visit that site. Bcarlson33 23:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganize 

message: Mr. Carlson: Is it necessary to repeatedly delete information pertaining to Capitol Hill v. 3.0?  After all, the conceptual changes occuring to government simulations (such as systems of campaign finance, and budgeting, and so on) are relevant in an encyclopedic sense in the same way as are relevant advances in engineering technology which would be listed, say, in an article about aviation technology.  In this spirit I kindly request that you leave my references to Capitol Hill v. 3.0 as I hold that the game represents an advance vis-a-vis the current state of other government simulations.  EK
I think they should be reported after they've happened. That way the site won't be used for advertising purposes beforehand. Put what you've done in a month in the article, not now.
ChrisGlew 15:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Capitol Hill 3.0 Issue 

message: It was John Wegmann, a Politics UK player from a few years ago who created PolCan, actually.
Chris Glew 10:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc 

message: Keep it. No reasons given for deletion, other than the assumption that it's this guy's bitterness. Tyking 14:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion

message: I posted a suggestion under Geo-Political web-based simulator to reduce duplication between the two pages.  I would appreciate any thoughts on the matter.  Perhaps we should post comments there, in order to avoid having two separate discussions.  Thanks. 
Eterry 21:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reducing duplication with "Geo-Political web-based simulator" 

message: This article has gotten way out of control.  All the name dropping, childish POV insertions, advertisements, etc.; that I have spotted have been removed from the article.  Additionally, I deleted the non-US simulators section; but not because one couldn't be added - the problem is that the entire section is dedicated to giving a detailed account of the simming going on within the particular Sims.  This article is about government simulations; not about the histories of particular government simulations.  --Jakob Huneycutt 17:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean Up, Purge of POV material and junk, and Deletion of non-US Sims section

message: *With the creation of an offshoot version of PolCan by Tyler, I've added both PolCan's under the list of Simulations with 'Original' Denoting the version which continued from the first founding, an 'Offshoot' denoting the new version. pm_shef 21:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two PolCans

message: 'micronations' are not generally simulations at all, as our intro seems to say. However I don't know the correct term for simulations of the government of fantasy countries, so I leave it for someone else to fix. DJ Clayworth 17:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MicroNations

message: When going over this for spelling and grammar I noticed that large sections of this article seem ... superfluous. Consider in the section on Problems in government simulations. It seems to me that after explaining that the NGS2 House passed X, Y and Z bills, no further explanation is necessary. One gets the point that NGS2 diverged. All the rest of it could probably go into an article about NGS2 if one exists, or a new one created. I see a number of areas that are like that, actually. Does anyone mind if I go through the article with more of a fine-toothed comb to tighten up the writing? Also, does anyone know of books or papers that have been published regarding this phenomenon? The dearth of citations somewhat begs to be addressed. --Lloegr-Cymru£ ¥ 01:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of areas of/for improvement 

message: What about Republic: The Revolution?--Darrelljon 21:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because that is clearly not what the topic is about. The topic is about a specific genre. Itake 22:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain.--Darrelljon 21:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "A government simulation or political simulation is an Internet-based nation-simulation game" <- That is what I mean. Itake 09:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is entitled Government Simulation not Internet-based Government Simulation, therefore Republic should be included or the article renamed.--Darrelljon 21:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Online and Offline