Talk:Government simulation game/Archive 1

Not working

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

With no dissenting viewpoint I'm removing the spam header Tyking 19:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

List of Government Sims Section

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The purpose is to list those who've made an impact, not new ones that have just started out with less than 1000 posts. Wikipedia should be used to document games that are a success not be instrumental in getting them the exposure they need to get there. ChrisGlew 22:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisGlew is right on. As I said somewhere below, "A Wikipedia article about "alternative rock," for example, is not going to list every single alt-rock band or CD that's ever existed. Instead, it provides an introduction to the genre and offers a sampling of bands or works that are representative of the genre. The same standard should be applied here." Bcarlson33 00:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't even beging to compare alternative rock to govsims. Alternative rock is listened to by MILLIONS, while the largest govsim would barely have a thousand players. There are also several ways to measure "success", like in activity, active members, dedicated community, number of posts, posts per day etc etc. None of us should be self-proclaimed critics of what is and isn't a succesful govsim. Atleast not on this encyclopedia. There is nothing negative about new sims getting posted there.

- The fact that alternative rock is listened to by MILLIONS isn't the point. Some bands are characteristic of the genre - for someone who's not familiar, you point them in their direction so they get a sense of what that kind of music is like. Same with sims - you point out those that exemplify what sims are like.

Further: Yes, there are lots of ways to measure success. That's what makes it easy to distinguish a successful sim from some guy setting up a forum for the first time with a handful of his friends. Lumping brand-new sims, most of which usually fail within a month due to poor design and/or inactivity, in with established, successful sims with hundreds of players misinforms readers to the sole benefit of people who run sims. That's not the point of Wikipedia, nor is it in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Bcarlson33 20:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"The list has a purpose, that purpose is to list as many govsims as possible".

No, it isn't. That isn't inline with Wikipedia's guidlines. Wikipedia's guidlines say "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding a list of content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." The debate here is fairly irrelevant, the Wikipedia guidlines are clear on the matter. Games should only be listed when they've become notable. Notability in on-line gaming such as this is usually found via large activity. ChrisGlew 20:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

A list of notable sims is, not every sim under the sun. A small selection of the most popular games is enough, we don't need a huge list of every single sim there is out there. ChrisGlew 00:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We barely need a list at all. Let the sim community create their own list if they want people to find them. Bcarlson33 14:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see alot of talk from you two, but not one single good reason for why there shouldn't be a large list. Only things like "its not needed" or "let them do it themselves". It does lead one to wonder what the real reason behind your sceptisism is? Itake 16:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop questioning my motives - aside from it being rude and unproductive, you have no evidence to back up your speculation. As to your point: Wikipedia guidelines are clear that articles are not a dumping ground for links, and that's all this list is. Now that you've kindly created a list off-site, we don't really need a list here, we can just point people to your list. Bcarlson33 16:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the reason that it is against Wikipedia policy not good enough? Why not? ChrisGlew 16:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you won't let me remove the article list. And stop talking like the wikipedia policy is perfectly clear on this case when its evidently not. There's no concensus that the list is a just a dumping ground for links. Its a list of the govsims, both those who pass your "inspections" and those who don't. Itake 16:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's because you seem to be of the opinion that there should be either a list with every gov sim there is or not list at all. I believe there should be a list of notable sims which have their own player base and have lasted longer than three months. ChrisGlew 16:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll chime in in favour of ChrisGlew's idea here. We could have the notable sims on the article, and then at the bottom the link to Itake's list of every single one. Then we can still provide access to every sim without it needing to clutter the article, and also stay within the Wikipedia guidelines by noting the most popular sims. Tyking 18:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that seems a fair comprimise. ChrisGlew 18:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So your idea of a fair compromise is a solution that would promote your sims before the others? First the links you provide in the text article, then ADDITIONAL links after the text, and then links to your sims on my new list too?

You know what? That does not sound like a fair compromise to me. Itake 19:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a minority of one to me. Tyking 17:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really didn't want to have to wade in here, as it is definintly a conflict of interest on my part, as it is for Tyler and Chris (if the ChrisGlew on here is the same Chris as poluk...). Really, as all three of us run our own games, none of us should be contributing to this article, as that is also in violation of wikipedias rules (you're not supposed to write, or edit articles based on things which you are personally involved in)
- Anyways, to the topic at hand. I see where Chris and BCarlson are coming from. This article wasn't supposed to be a long laundry list of sims in the first place. That being said, I am perfectly aware that one of the first sims to be off the list (unjustifiably) will be mine. Until the situation with the two PolCans is resolved, both must stay on the list - beyond that, I agree that there needs to be some shortening of the article. pm_shef 20:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A minority of one? Is that the best defence of your POV you can muster? Itake 00:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This latest argument is yet another reason not to have a list at all. Bcarlson33 01:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not have a link to a different page with a list of all reputable sims? Would that not make everyone happy? pm_shef 01:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to make that list, fine by me. I'm keeping my list that makes no distinction between "reputable" and non-reputable sims. Itake 01:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Itake's list is more than up to the task, I don't see a need for a second one. Bcarlson33 01:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned at the cartel that exists on this page and I do not think that it is right that site owners should have any control whatsoever on the contents of these pages, as they are clearly being abused in the interests of established games. Authors should be free to discuss ANY political simulation, regardless of age or success, if, for example, it has done something differently to other simulations. For example, you wouldn't refuse to let someone talking about Indie bands in Manchester mention the Happy Mondays because James was more successful. They both offer something unique, and authors should not be constrained on what they can and can't say because of the interests of site admins, who should have no involvement in this page whatsoever.

No, we won't change the advertising policy. Itake 17:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a matter of advertising. This site is barring the ability of authors to write factual content about all sorts of different games because three or four admins think they know best. Either this is revised, or I go to Wiki and ask them. In fact, it is because of Advertising that people like me are censored from referencing facts about PolSims. Furthermore, I propose the list of simulations is linked to an impartial source, rather than another game.

And finally, might I mention that there is absolutely no need for you to be making these decisions anyway? Why not leave it up to Wiki, who already purge adverts on their site?

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)[reply]

A note that the page is routinely being vandalised by deleting useful information about PolSims in order to defend an advertising cartel has been filed to the administrators.

Consistent with Wikipedia policy, I shall regularly be deleting anything I see as blatant advertising for websites on the page.

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

It is when other sims with their own player base cannot be mentioned and when the very mention of any other game, for any reason whatsoever (would you delete information about another topic that is a variation on the main topic because it is not the most significant?), is deleted by the owners of the websites that are mentioned.

I shall be deleting their very mention, just as you are.

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)[reply]

Political Relations has 60 members, but that is irrelevant. Nor am I remotely interested in using Wikipedia to advertise, because I already pay Google to do that for me. What I am interested in is talking about my game and how it has eroded a number of common problems with simulations, which may be of use as an information resource for other political simulations. You have absolutely no right to delete that, or a link to the page that provides that advice. Otherwise, intentional or not, this page just becomes an advert that bars discussion on any but the few who have about 50 members each.

And are you also completely unaware that Wikipedia is a useless advertising resource? Not only is it against Wikipedia policy to do that but also if you actually go and look at a crappy sim with about 10 members, are you really going to bother joining it?

Political Relations does have a marketing strategy, but Wikipedia is not a part of that. Now, you can either agree to the compromise where I can discuss some new approaches to old PolSim problems, referencing them to my page because I created them, or else I will take the same approach as you and delete all links to other pages until the arbitrators of Wikipedia can reach a decision.

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)[reply]

Each of those sims have about 30 active members. Ours hasn't launched yet, hence the focused activity in limited parts of the site.

Now, I shall make this very very clear. You do not have a monopoly on this page, nor do you show any evidence of an ability to write a useful wiki article. If you continue in this way, I shall recruit all my admins to come on here to ensure that a consistent policy is maintained, every quarter of an hour, every day.

Oh, and one more thing. Are you too stupid to realise the reason you can't reference your sources is because you keep deleting them as 'advertising?'

Ahahahahahha...lets see which one of us know the most admins then :D Itake 14:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganize

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)[reply]

I've begun clearing out some of the clutter. The interminable descriptions of each sim's current status are gone, and there's plenty more to come. Bcarlson33 14:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About the geo-political simulations page, I'm actually considering moving all the separate entries for nationsims to separate articles to reduce the clutterness of the article. A similar approach could be tried here. Itake 18:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Capitol Hill 3.0 Issue

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)[reply]

ChrisGlew is on the right track here. The purpose of the page is to outline what government simulations are and how they work. While your game may end up being innovative and exciting and all that, right now it's a concept with a handful of members which we hope will succeed. When it does, it'll have a home here, but presently, it doesn't fit under the notability standard of Wikipedia or this article. Nothing personal, EK. Bcarlson33 19:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BC, what's your standard for 'success'? Otherwise I'll keep putting up the information as long as you're willing to put it down. :) If you give me a clear theshhold, I'll be happy to lay off. Also, you naturally decrease the chances of it becoming notable by denying the game 'air time' on Wikipedia. Whether it is notable or not for its success, it is notable for its ideas. Regardless, thanks for your well wishes. EK

Success is when a game has managed to achieve a significant level of members, lasted for several months and become commonly recognized within the community of government sim players.

As to your second point- the purpose of Wikipedia articles is to inform, not to promote new products/sites/games/etc. Plenty of sims have succeeded without needing "air time" on other sites. You'll do just fine.

As to being notable for its ideas- campaign finance has existed in government sims since at least early 2004, and budgeting goes back to NGS:America, which is already mentioned in this article. Are there others? Bcarlson33 01:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Carlson: Certainly. I mentioned Senate and House coalitions as well. I will repost what I wrote as soon as I get home, and you can take a look at it again. Part of the informational function of Wikipedia is to give people an idea of what sims are "out there" and what is their content. Keep in mind that "Wikipedia is not paper" and that we have unlimited space, so that each sim can be given a segment - just as is done in the "geo-political simulations" page. I also wish to add that there is no way to determine whether a sim has become "commonly recognized within the community of government sim players" - is there such a thing? Is there a poll you will take? Many problems exist with your subjective criteria for recognition of the "notability" of a government sim. EK

EK - A couple of points. Coalitions have been in online sims for at least 18 months.

Wikipedia is not paper, but neither is it a list of links. A Wikipedia article about "alternative rock," for example, is not going to list every single alt-rock band or CD that's ever existed. Instead, it provides an introduction to the genre and offers a sampling of bands or works that are representative of the genre. The same standard should be applied here- in the past year I've seen about two dozen sims start up with huge plans and fizzle out within weeks. Some of them have started and failed several times this year. I'm not saying that yours will do the same, but listing everything that's "out there" is a function better suited for Google, not Wikipedia.

As to the final point - it's easy to determine whether _____ sim has become commonly recognized. If you go to any sim with more than a handful of players, do they know the name of ____ sim? Would a group of people who'd been in political sims for several years discuss ______ sim by its acronym or abbreviation? It may not be a finite determination, but it can be an objective one.Bcarlson33 19:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am about ready to go to the Wikipedia Admins about CapitolHill's repeated spamming of this page. Wikipedia is not a list of links, nor is it a promo page for sims that can't find members. Knock it off. Bcarlson33 22:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misc

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)[reply]

as for PolCan's founder, that would actually be O'Keeffe. I founded the current running version, but Tyler has decided to go petty and dispute that. I dont have the money for a legal challenge, but if the RCMP were called in to answer those questions, I'd win. Either way, these are not worth my time. Players in these games are childish. I deserve better then the way most of your players treat me. This is my last comment to do with anything related to government simulations. the vote is up, looks like it'll fail (as I suspected, it was a political responce to tyler's political decision to erase me from history by claiming I did not found the game) and after that I dont want to hear from any of you (Tyler keeps harassing me over MSN). This will be the end of it, leave it be. Pellaken 18:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about a different game, Chris - there have been many incarnations, but I know that the one I run now draws nothing from any previous versions. Tyking 14:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Nationstates should be listed here as well, but I'm not too familiar with the other sims. Is it comparable enough to justify listing? --Several Times 14:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article links to a number of key election simulations (Road to the Presidency), but does not give info about them. This should be the next big area of addition. Bcarlson33 August 19th 2005

To add to idea above: article needs further categorization. U.S. section should be broken into section about legislative/executive simulations and election sims, while international section should be broken into single country sims (PoliticsUK, for example) and multicountry sims (like Destiny of Nations). (forgot to sign above. Argh. Bcarlson33 02:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Deletion

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)[reply]

it deserves and up or down vote. these games are about politics, and YOU made a political move against me here at wikipedia when you lied about my founding of the game. If your going to take the politics of the game into wikipedia, I will respond on kind, and that's what this vote is. It's a democratic measure, and whatever it's results are, I will respect it. and stop harrassing me over MSN. Pellaken 18:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, this is an important online genre and a large community of players. Itake 05:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will people please quit moving for deletion based on childish impulses? It seems like all of the deletion attempts I've encountered regarding the government sim articles have come from someone disgruntled with someone else or someone who posts anonymously. I can't see any legitimate reason to delete this article whatsoever. Deletion is not a political manuever for whiny crybabies who are mad that someone wrote something they didn't like. If something is inaccurate, correct it. If you see something that lacks any ounce of objectivity, change it. Don't move for deletion, though, because of your little petty grudges. That's selfish and immature. Jakob Huneycutt

Reducing duplication with "Geo-Political web-based simulator"

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)[reply]

I'm unsure as to what you mean. Do you propose moving specific information about individual simulators to the geo-politicial article. Even sims not generally recognised as nationsims, such as USGOVSIM? And then filling this article with general information about nationsimulation, both that of just a single nation and of several nations?

If so, it doesn't sound like a great idea. I think we should keep them as they are.Itake 22:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was what I meant.

Is this article intended to cover only those games which are about a single nation? I hadn't realized that. I have seen the terms "government simulator" and "political simulator" used to refer to a simulation of a single government, but I didn't realize that was how you were using those terms in this article.

In that case, I suggest moving the section on "international simulations" over to Geo-Political web-based simulator, since they do not qualify as "government simulators."

Eterry 22:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be more specific, Qpawn, TrueWorldSim, SuperPower Classic, and Nations should be moved to Geo-Political web-based simulator, if "Government simulation" is only about single-nation games.

Particracy and a couple of the games mentioned in Geo-Political web-based simulator are interesting cases. Both "Government simulation" and Geo-Political web-based simulator indicate that games in those categories deal only with real-world nations. Is that correct? If it isn't, perhaps that needs to be updated. If it is, perhaps Particracy should be moved.

"Government simulation" seems to indicate that games dealing with fantasy nations would be classified as micronations. However, Micronation does not discuss any games. Would political simulators set in fantasy nations be covered under "Government simulation"? If not, would they go under Micronation or some other article?

Eterry 23:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified the definition to explain the difference between government simulators and geo-political simulars. I also added some links. Eterry 14:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AW - I have deleted the item on Congressional Government Simulation, consistent with the policy that this page only notes political simulations that have made an impact rather than becoming a spam board for advertising. Also, it contained areas of contention, for example suggesting it was the first sim to combat cloning, when there are others who have already developed similar methods in the past. It might be worth setting up a second page for a comprehensive list of political simulations.

Clean Up, Purge of POV material and junk, and Deletion of non-US Sims section

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)[reply]

Two PolCans

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)[reply]

The one you have called the original actually isn't. The original game was based on fora that dissapeared ages ago. The current politicscanada.net is "the" Politics Canada (hence the URL), whereas the other game isn't. The rights to use the name probably go with the domain. ChrisGlew 23:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I must agree - especially because if you substitute that link in the paragraph about international simulations, it creates inaccuracy - the "webdotgate" PolCan does NOT share an amicable relationship with Politics UK. Not to mention the fact that the existence of the game does not go along with the phpbb2 files - Politics Canada, the website, has remained constant, as noted on the index page that states it has been running since June 2004 - I have to concur that the rights go with the site. Tyking 02:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the issue of the name "Politics Canada". The second link (the non politicscanada.net one) shouldn't be using the name on Wikipedia as it's confusing. The copyright holder would also be Tyler (as he owns the domain and the actual game). ChrisGlew 15:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's another good point - note that the "webdotgate" PolCan doesn't have any original administrators, players, or any such thing. Having two of the same name is extraordinarily confusing and until the copyright issue is resolved I've deleted the second one solely for clarity purposes. Plus the "webdotgate" one, as a newly established website, would probably go against the precedent here of not linking to newly established government simulation websites. Tyking 16:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is name or continuity. While yes, the webdotgate polcan does not have the original name or sit on the original domain, that is because of an underhanded sale that wasn't open to the public. That being beside the point however, the webdotgate polcan is the one which has continued directly from the game which had previously been located at www.politicscanada.net. The one currently located on that domain was started, from scratch, because of disagreements. Thus, if you want to look at which one is connected to what we are now calling the original polcan, that would be the one on webdotgate. pm_shef 18:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "original" PolCan died out years ago. A sale is not "underhanded" because it isn't open to the public - nobody is forced to open sales to the public before selling something. That's silly, bitter logic. And lastly, the link is not to a game but rather to a website - politicscanada.net remains the same website as all previous politicscanada's that were run on that site. There is a clear continuity with that website, whereas this new website is clearly new, and the forum has been started, as you yourself say about the one on politicscanada.net, 'from scratch'. Plus I see no counterpoint to the point of newly established websites not being linked to by precedent, and the fact that editing the URL in International Simulations would lead to inaccuracy, nor any counterpoint to the ownership issue raised by Chris Glew - thus, no actual reason to change the links. Tyking 21:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply label them by their date of play like I did? If you must differentiate between the "legality" them, label PolCan 2001 as "Unofficial". But, really, it's a pretty petty conflict. Both are fairly legit GovSims based in Canada. As I said, if you absolutely MUST differentiate, 2001 can be considered "unofficial". But, the fact remains that the two head admins of these games are essentially in an edit war trying to discredit eachother. Corey was out of line labeling '68 as an offshoot, and Tyler was out of line deleting '01 entirely. And, besides, they are both active and enjoyable games. Both have a right to publicity. -Devari (MacTorquil/Sydlowski)

The "unofficial" label is an acceptable compromise to me. Tyking 15:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Devari - no one has a "right" to anything here. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to give small sims with few members a forum to publicize themselves. Regardless of the debate over which sim was first or whatever it's about, the fact remains that one of the PolCans has a significant membership and level of activity, and the other does not. As such, only one belongs in this article. Bcarlson33 15:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realize no one has a "right". That was bad wording on my part. As for level of activity, the unofficial '01 version has just as much or more activity as it stands now. And to Tyler, thanks. -Devari

Indeed, Bcarlson, I've watched both boards, and both have comparable levels of activity. In terms of official/unofficial, what makes a game "official?" Continuity? Url? Why not just have both up, displaying the different time periods, and if necessary some other (non-detracting) way of differentiating between the two (Av name perhaps?). The fact is, we both exist, and there is no real reason why we should be fighting like this. I apologize for the whole 'offshoot' thing, it was innappropriate. Can we agree to just put both up with the ddates to differentiate?pm_shef 19:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Whoops, I see that's already been done! Glad we could compromise pm_shef 19:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MicroNations

'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)[reply]

Spam Header, External Links to Gov Sims

Though, I see there is some discussion about the external links section on this talk page, until that is resolved, I have put up the spam header. Capitol Hill has become notorious for spamming and I recommend that any adding of it be automatically reverted and we might possibly have to deal with the users doing the spamming. I am unsure about all of the Sims on the list, however.

Can anyone verify that Extramapol II (Spanish Pol. Simulator) is not spam? I don't recognize the name and I clicked on the link but it appears to require registration. I will delete it if no one can verify its relevance soon. Imperial Politics is being deleted as it appears to have only launched this month and only has about 28 registered users (which probably means a hell of a lot less active users). I might find some others soon, but that's all I've spotted for now.

I would suggest that an open external directory of sims be created somewhere. Itake's list is good, but there is a preference for an open directory. Perhaps someone could launch a Sim wiki similiar to the individual wikis that some of the Sims have created. That way people could keep track of the histories surrounding simulations and also list and/or promote sims so that newcomers can find them. As it is, I try to apply the most liberal standard possible on these external links, but Wikipedia is not a list of links. That is official Wikipedia policy. Even under the most liberal standards, I can not see how newly formed sims with under 15 members can be considered relevant. --Jakob Huneycutt 14:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could we just do a separate "List of Government Simulations" article? Then we can separate it by country, etc. and it'll make the main article less unwieldy. Tyking 15:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not have it in the main article instead then? If we created an article with only a list of govsims, it would be a candidate for merger anyways. Itake 15:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use Itake's list? The work has already been done, and is better suited as an external link anyway.Bcarlson33 18:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any problem with using Itake's list if there is no alternative. I just think an open directory would be better and it is prefered according to Wikipedia guidelines. --Jakob Huneycutt 13:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with Itake's style of list, nor do I think that amount of power should be shipped off-site from Wikipedia. Tyking 11:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's an encyclopedia article. It is not supposed to be used for petty internet "power" struggles. Wikipedia is not a list of links, and the current list, which is something approaching a "list of links" is not acceptable under Wikipedia policy. Like I said, an open directory would be better if someone wants to start one, but otherwise, I think using Itake's list is the best solution. --Jakob Huneycutt 13:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Jakob. It isn't the point of the article to document everything that's ever happened in the world of government sims, but rather to introduce the topic to a general audience. The "power" of who runs a list of sims somewhere isn't a relevant concern to the purpose of the article. Bcarlson33 17:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've pulled the list for the time being, because 99% of current article activity is people putting their new sims on the list and other people pulling them off. I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so... Bcarlson33 15:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the spam last night was absolutely ridiculous. I'm satisfied with the way it is now using Itake's link. If someone wants to create an open directory as well, we could add that, but the consensus at the moment seems to be just to get rid of all the excessive individual links to sims. Since, there seems to be no end to the spamming in sight, this is the way it's going to have to be. --Jakob Huneycutt 21:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be frank on my concern with Itake's list - for example, in the list of Canadian sims he arbitrarily orders them - mine at the bottom, and the rival one at the top. No reason for this - but it seems pretty suspicious that they're ordered in that way, with no definitive category past "nation" to sort them, it's open to bias - I'm fine with creating an open directory but we need something better than one person's opinion.

I'm glad that you finally decided to be open with your accusations. Your problem with the current list is (correct me if I'm wrong) that you belive it is biased against your own sim? The only person who finds the ordering suspicious is you, and its only you because noone else (including me) is involved in your silly politics canada dispute. If you think about it for a while, I'm sure you will realise just how silly your accusations of bias are.

Its categorised first after nation, and then (quite obviously if you would have actually LOOKED at the list) after era. Since your sim is set in the 1960's, its at the bottom of the list of politics canada sims. Since the ordering is pretty obvious, anyone looking for a politics canada sim set before present day would scroll down to your sim. Anyone looking for a sim set in the future or present day would scroll up. The list is designed to meet the needs of the govsim players, not your own interests. Itake 16:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please stop being so needlessly combative. This isn't something to get so colossally worked up about. My concern was not that it was biased, but rather than there was little rhyme or reason to the ordering - your explanation was one I predicted but still thought faulty - for example, with the Canadian sim ordering (and I'm only using that one for example purposes), it was previously ordered NOT according to era - it had the 2000s Politics Canada at the top, followed by the 2006 sims, followed by the 1960s one. You have now edited that, and as a result I am happy with the ordering.

Please don't try and imply it was not ordered in that fashion before. You clearly edited it recently, so please do not imply that I didn't look at it. Tyking 18:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get combative when people want to use the list to further their own sims, and not the govsim community as a whole. The ordering was not faulty and followed a set system. What I did just now was just a reprioritizing, the polcan had different size levels before and there I put the sim with the largest size at the top, instead of doing it by era. But I changed the size of some of the polcan sims, and then forgot to rearrange them. Which is why it is now arranged in its current style.

The problem we had, however, was that you weren't happy about the arranging of the sims in the first place which can only be interpreted as your own bias. Like I said before, I don't really care which order the sims are in as long as the list has as many sims as possible in. That you care about the order they are arranged in shows that you care less about the list itself and more about getting as much attention as possible to your own sim. That, I don't like. Itake 21:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the drama queen stuff. I just told you that I now agree with the ordering, and yet you're continuing to argue and insult me. There's no reason for it as there's no longer any dispute. Knock it off. Tyking 22:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the discussion is over, why do you keep posting? I didn't insult you, I just think your shameless attempts at self-promotion of your sim is wrong. I don't even know what a "Drama Queen" is, and I don't really care. Accept the fact that your sim will be listed as one amongst many others, and move on. Itake 22:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys - your petty bickering is not relevant. Tyking, if you don't like Itake's list, go make your own. Itake, you're making a habit of questioning other people's motives, you need to knock it off. This is Wikipedia, not bitchypedia. Take it elsewhere. Bcarlson33 01:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hear Hear. We've all agreed on something - for once - let's just be happy and run with it. Props to Itake for making the list in the first place. pm_shef 17:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the self-congratulatory baloney. Itake - it's highly hypocritical to say "why do you keep posting?" while posting yourself. Bcarlson, "if you don't like Itake's list" - I JUST said I AGREED with the ordering! Quote - "I agree with the ordering". I have never seen so many people get pissy when I *AGREE* with them! Tyking 18:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you're the one who keeps typing things like "baloney" and "pissy" - just settle down. If you agree with Itake, then let it go. Bcarlson33 22:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that one comment was the only time I said "baloney" or "pissy". The idea was that I had let it go, but people continued to attack me, mistakenly believing I still opposed the solution that was proposed - I was merely setting the record straight about my views. 193.122.239.111 18:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number of areas of/for improvement

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)[reply]

Online and Offline

What about Republic: The Revolution?--Darrelljon 21:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is clearly not what the topic is about. The topic is about a specific genre. Itake 22:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain.--Darrelljon 21:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]