Talk:Infinite Flight

Hanselminutes Podcast Source

Hi all. I want to add the Hanselminutes Podcast as a source for citing the CEO name and programming language for Infinite Flight. The source is here:

https://hanselminutes.com/593/laura-laban-explores-infinite-flight-simulation-on-mobile-devices

The podcast is by Scott Hanselman. He is a Partner Product Manager at Microsoft and a Chief Architect at Corillian Corporation, alongside running this well known independent website and podcast, alongside his social media. All in all, he is well known and his website and podcasts are independent and well-known fact-checking third party sources.

He has been cited in many places including on Microsoft's website and the NY Times. Examples below!

https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/20/21264755/microsoft-build-2020-keynote-easter-eggs-secret-messages-scott-hanselman

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/business/businessspecial/07DAY.html

https://news.microsoft.com/build2020/

This source follows all the rules, but I just wanted to check first as I can see this page seems to have a large number of revisions compared to others I have edited now.

Thanks! Allflightsimsaregreatflightsims (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allflightsimsaregreatflightsims (talk • contribs) 17:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I wouldn't consider the podcast reliable or very useful. The Verge piece was about easter eggs in a Microsoft presentation, and only mentions Hanselman in the context of his presentation for Microsoft. It didn't discuss his podcast or give any indication that Hanselman himself was anything more than a Microsoft employee. Likewise, the New York Times piece is about day trips and includes anecdotes from Hanselman, again referencing his role at Microsoft. The Microsoft Build page and everyone on it would be primary sources. I did search (briefly) for coverage of the podcast and Hanselman himself but there wasn't much, a handful of other small and unreliable sites, plus a few fansites citing the interviews directly. And here's the thing: even if this were a respected and reputable podcast, it's still an interview and those are regarded as primary sources. See WP:INTERVIEW for an essay about that. Now sometimes we might cite reliable-source-level interviewers or hosts for their own commentary/criticism, like what they say when introducing the guest or if they include background information when asking a question. Some exceptional interviewers—or exception interviews—might be worth covering, but they're certainly not the norm. In most cases, what turns an interview into a useful source is when reliable, third-party sources cover it. I hope that helps! Woodroar (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Unnecessarily subtracting substantive information

@Woodroar:, the fact that pilots can fly in the airspace the air traffic controller is controlling seems like an important piece of information. I wanted to add a tad more by stating that “users can fly in a simulated ATC environment with other Infinite Flight users acting as air traffic controllers”. The current description you edited in the first part of the gameplay section, “including an option to play as an air traffic controller”, doesn’t really describe what the gameplay is like according to the sources it’s referencing. I’m not understanding the reasoning why you’d want to subtract descriptive words, that are not subjective, that add pertinent information so one can more accurately convey what the gameplay is like. It’s kind of the theme of the entire page overall. It lacks substantive information unnecessarily. Hellotrio (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I reverted that description because it was too promotional and written like a game guide, highlighting a list of features and telling a player what they can do: where you users can fly. We need to write dispassionately for a general readership, not directed to players. I'm just now seeing that the copy was a close paraphrase of the source as well—which is a copyright violation—so it should have been reverted no matter what. I suppose I'm open to including something about flying in an ATC environment, but at the same time I feel like that's already implied. We say that players can fly, and also that they can play as ATC, so do we need to spell out that players can fly along with ATC elements. Like if we were describing a WWII game, would we need to explicitly say "players can fight on the ground, and in tanks, and on the ground with tanks around them"? In any case, I'm open to something if there's a simple and neutral way of explaining it. We also have to be careful not to give this source (or any others) too much weight in the article, either by relying on this source more than others, or by writing an extensive article when there are so few sources. I mean, we have six sources total, five of which are reviews, for a game that's been out for nine years. When there are so few sources, the article absolutely should be concise. Woodroar (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I think there can be a compromise in there somewhere with certain things to be a tad more accurate, yes. It’s lack of useful coverage from third-party sources from 2011-2017 makes sense based off their past development timeline (global scenery, satellite imagery, added in 2017) when they gained their larger audience. Hellotrio (talk) 14:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll give some thought to phrasing. If you have any ideas, I'd be happy to help hammer something out. Woodroar (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

FSElite

Would FSElite be considered reputable enough to be used as a source? They cover Infinite Flight extensively following every update since update 18.6, shortly after their audience grew. Hellotrio (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so. The site looks slick and they have (or had) a large audience, at least according to their (outdated) about page. But I checked a handful of articles and their author bios don't include any journalistic credentials or experience, and some are clearly pseudonyms. Which makes sense, since their open positions don't require any journalistic background. They also don't have a masthead with publisher and editor information, so we know nothing about them, either. FSElite isn't cited by any reliable sources that I could find—either WP:GAMESOURCES or more generalist sources—only lower-tier tech sites, which means they lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as required by WP:SOURCE. Woodroar (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)