Talk:Virtual airline (hobby)

Untitled

The majority of this page is absolute rubbish. As per Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files ("Wikipedia articles are not: [...] 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 links to VAs should be deleted, and replaced with a link to an already extant web directory of VAs (I'm sure there are plenty out there already). This'll make the article a lot less daunting, and relieve us of these childish squabbles about which VA is the 'real' one with regard to real-world airlines. Unless someone can give a very good reason for them to stay, I'll be deleting the links at the end of the weekend. --Scott Wilson 02:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

External Links Statement

I have undone the deletion of icemotoboy of external link "www.va-list.com". As I can't see why it was even deleted? It's not a link to any direct virtual airline and is the same as the other two existing links to "Vatsim approved airlines" & "IVAO approved Airlines". IVAO & VATSIM have many hard requirements to achieve before a virtual airline can be accepted by them and thus won't appear on their website. The VA list is the internet's ultimate directory of virtual airlines holding over 150 of them. And it only lists active ones too. So it provides great information to the reader for airlines that aren't approved by VATSIM or IVAO as they either don't want to be affiliated or are virtual airline that flies offline. I wouldn't be biased and only list online virtual airlines, that's why the external link to VA-list should remain. It is basically the same as the existing VATSIM & IVAO ones and so if this one gets deleted again then they should be deleted too. So the rules say not to overcrowd the article with links, but 3 is hardly pushing it. Besides there aren't any VA directories that are as good quality as the current three listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cruise Reviewer (talk • contribs) 16:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi there! Link inclusion has been discussed in the past, and the consensus was to follow wikipedia guidelines of notability. All links must be notable (see WP:NOTE for more information). While the list may be the same as the IVAO and VATSIM ones, we can provide third party, verifiable confirmation of their notability on the subject (for example: VATSIM was featured in the Wall Street Journal and in numerous books). Please remember that guidelines for wikipedia say that it is not a list or help-guide, as such - we are only interested in notable, verifiable, information from independent third party resources. Perhaps you could say why the link is needed? You note that the list is virtually the same as the other lists, so why include it? I have removed it, but if you still think it needs to be added we can ask a third party to give their opinion. Or we could discuss it further and maybe some other people might have ideas. One solution is that we remove the VATSIM and IVAO ones as well, if you would like? Icemotoboy (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to add this, please read: WP:External links - note that it suggests (at the bottom) that disputed links should be removed until they can be agreed upon, unless there is consensus to add them. Icemotoboy (talk) 04:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned by Icemotoboy himself, the VA-List is exactly that unbiased, independent third party resource. In this sense Icemotoboy is somewhat contradicting himself. It provides a list of many Virtual Airlines the reader of this wiki page can have a look at if he / she is becoming more interested in joining a Virtual Airline of his / her liking. In my opionion the link is relevant to the article and helps the reader to the right direction if the reader is interested in joining a Virtual Airline. JRichards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.103.223.11 (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the inclusion of va-list. When one looks at the largest and most-linked to virtual airlines (say, via a Google search) how many appear on VA-List? None. The fact that this list can consistently omit the largest and most notable virtual airlines is to me a sound reason for exclusion. -LukeKolin — Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeKolin (talk • contribs) 17:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

When one learns abuot virtual airlines, for example here on Wiki, the search for "Virtual Airline" or "Virtual Airlines" for example on Google, the result will be that the second site is mentioned is in fact the VA-List, right after this Wiki page. I strongly disagree with the above statement as the VA-List is strongly related to Virtual Airlines, the fact that some Virtual Airlines are not included in the list is not the responsibility of the List, but of the "CEOs" of these Virtual Airlines. The Virtual Airline list is a strong independent source for a lot of Virtual Airlines and Virtual Airlines and potential virtual pilots will benefit from the link to the VA-List included with this Wiki article. Keep it on Wiki, it is the most relevant link on the page actually. JRichards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.213.198.232 (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

JRichards, I think you're missing an important point - you can't blame the VAs not included on this list any more than you can get around the notability requirement by stating that it's the choice of external parties not to take not of you. The lack of inclusion means that the largest, oldest and most successful virtual airlines do not consider the list notable. Second, the list's methodology cannot be claimed as unbiased or independent - its ranking directly depends on votes and several virtual airlines (notably Livewire) were running continual efforts in their forums to stuff the ballot box. I imagine va-list encourages this because it is a way to increase their own site traffic. However, it doesn't make the list unbiased or independent. The reality is that it's simply a way for non-notable virtual airlines to get themselves listed for a month or two, nothing more. I vote for removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeKolin (talk • contribs) 16:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I contacted the owner of this Virtual Airline list and he mentioned that the main intention for this list is that Virtual Airlines can be searched and found easily by potential pilots looking for a suitable Virtual Airline, and that the votes is just an indication of how active these Virtual Airlines can be. They check votes and of course it might be manipulated in one way or another. Besides this fact, it is still ONLY about Virtual Airlines, and having a link on this WIKI page, might result in recognition by probable "oldest and most successful" Virtual Airlines, whatever that may mean. Even the oldest and most successful Virtual Airlines might not be up to par with non-notable Virtual Airlines. Again, the fact that this page is specifically created to help Virtual Airlines makes it, again, the most relevant link on the page. It definitely should remain on this page. And I will keep adding it to support its cause. And so should anyone else. I suggest Luke you should take a look at the va-list first before condemning it. It also has a pretty interesting Virtual Airline magazine which is unfortunately not updated that much. JRichards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.213.198.232 (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

VA Site Design

I removed the section on VA site design as it does not seem relevant to the article and looks like original research to me. -- Canwolf 06:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

VA Screen Shots

I have removed the linked image, ignoring uncited "special permission from Wikipedia PR department" -- LukeKolin

New Section: VA Applications

I write and maintain a web based VA admin system release under Creative Commons license. Is this relevent for this page? Opinions sought. JamesHuckle 09:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Does it pass WP:WEB? :> Or you can link it an see what happens. I have no idea what anyone is talking about including myself. Marasmusine 09:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of notable VAs

I've removed the list of notable virtual airlines for much the same reason as I removed the links to individual virtual airlines; it'll be hard to stop people 'me too'-ing their own (non-notable) VA in. I would, however, welcome links to Wikipedia articles on virtual airlines, similar to what's happening at List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft. That way, we guarantee that the VAs in question are notable, verifiable etc.. Comments? --Scott Wilson 15:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Removal of notable VAs

It might be worthwhile to set up some criteria by which a VA might be considered notable. For example SunAir Express being recognized as the first VA in existence is notable for that reason alone. Delta Virtual (http://deltava.org) may be notable due to its large membership (in the thousands) and because it is one of a few virtual airlines that is authorized by VATSIM to provide virtual flight training/instruction. I founded an virtual airline in 2000 called "Saint Paul Airlines (SPA)" which may be notable because it may be the only VA that specializes in virtual bush flying/cargo/charter operations (disclaimer: I left SPA years ago and now fly for Delta VA). So, I don't see an issue with having a notable VA section. Perhaps an alternate (and maybe more neutral?) solution could be to simply include a link to VATSIM's VA directory for prospective virtual pilots. Tpkatsa (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Undo of the "Trivia" Removal, 7 June 2007

feel free to discuss...

1. Sry, but there was absolutely no commercial advertising to identify in this chapter. Names of existing or not existing virtual airlines in an article about virtual airlines should not be reason enough for deleting the whole article immediately. I know this problem with this "'me too'-ing", as written in the chapter above, but i think this doesnt meet this "Trivia" chapter. (By the way.. have a look at the "Pentium" page, which is linked to the producer's pages... here seems to be acceptance depending on sizes...)
2. "Trivia" per se are usually not "important" but often "interesting", especially for those, who find their way to this article. They contain information, maybe not for everybody. Dont mix "importance" and "information", please! I love trivia chapters as they often add information which cant be found somewhere else.
3. This special "trivia"- chapter never claims to be important, but it introduces, to report about problems, how "real" and "virtual" can collide. It contains information which cant be found elsewhere than in an encyklopedia. At least to me it was interesting, which problems can grow for a simple non-profit hobby-community having common names or common interests with a commercial company.
4. Wikipedia as an encyklopedia is full off articles about "dead" topics. All the details about wars in the last centuries, all these relationships between kings and princesses... really important for everybody? Virtual airlines - if existing - are "living" institutions. Nobody will think about any kind of "advertising" in an article about Alexander G. Bell and his telephone. If there's an article about the CEO of a today's phone company, it will be interpreted as advertising immediately. Strange somehow... Keep realistic. Not everything "existing or "living" has to be interpreted as "advertising".
5. Trivia like this make encyklopedias interesting. Wikipedia also intends this, remember the "today's featured article" and more. So, please, no basic discussion "why not trivia?"

By the way: today's (7 June 2007) featured article on the German wikipedia version is about "prostitution in ancient times" ("Prostitution in der Antike"). "Important" or "interesting"...?

--80.109.77.143 13:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC) oh.. i dont need to hide behind my ip... --GS-VIE 13:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply -- I have to disagree, this trivia post is becoming one big advertising pool. Every virtual airline based on a real airline is now discussing here how it has struggled once upon a time with its real time counterpart (just check NWA, AWA, Color Air) . This adds absolutely no value to this thread. And where are we going to draw the line? We can just as well add KLMs, Delta's, Ryanairs, Easyjet; Southwest etc etc etc relation to their real counterparts. And why not? They have just as much right for doing it as NWA, Jetstar and others.

If such trivia makes it interesting as you claim (which could very well be the case, but is not the point here), than we should also add the history of every "notable" virtual airline on this page as well. Some would claim that to be advertising, while others would find it "interesting".

This is the exact reason why Encyclopedias do not write about companies, because it could become very subjective, which goes against the main idea of an encyclopedia in the first place as it should be objective and give a fair and true view.

Original Research

I have added an original research tag. I added a referenced paragraph and an example of the least we should have. I am going to try and source/cleanup the first section which I believe contains the majority of the original research. Any help would be appreciated. Icemotoboy (talk) 01:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Tidy Up

• I made a first crack at tidying up the article, included some references I could find. I also removed the Virtual VFR Flying Clubs section (main article was deleted), as I couldn't find anything legitimizing its existence and establishing it as a type of "Virtual Airline". I also added a disambiguation page, as Virtual Airline (economics) is an economic term.Icemotoboy (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have requested semi-protection of this article, as all the spam links to VA's are being added by unregistered users, with at least one a week being added and it is becoming tiresome removing them. Please do NOT add your VA links to this article! I am trying to increase the quality of this article, and adding these links does not help.Icemotoboy (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The request was unsuccessful as we do not have enough vandalism to warrant it. In its place I have added a warning, to further clarify that links will be removed.

• I have moved the following section to the Talk page as it is unreferenced, and it links to an external site. Please find an independent, verifiable, source and post it here. If you are not comfortable with adding the reference tags (it can be confusing), feel free to post here or on my talk page and I will be happy to do it for you.Icemotoboy (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Virtual Flying Clubs
Virtual Flying clubs are made up of members who enjoy a more independent, but social virtual flying environment. These clubs usually do not fly routes, keep schedule, or pay a virtual salary (unless they are participating with a program such as FS Economy They usually fly under Visual Flight Rules. These clubs foster community through activities such as virtual air shows, air races, and some even have virtual display teams. Clubs communicate on websites, forums and Teamspeak accounts.

• I have moved the FS Economy and VFR Flying Club external links to this page as links do not add to quality of this article. Wikipedia is not a directory or repository of links, these kinds of links should be added to DMOZ. Icemotoboy (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

After discussion with user, I have hunted out a reference and added an amended version of the text, with a verified reference. If anyone else can find any verified information on Virtual Flying Clubs, that would be great. I agree that its probably worth noting them, as they are very popular on the VATSIM network and probably worthy of a mention here. Icemotoboy (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject videogame assessment

A request was left for assessment at wikiproject videogames. I've left the rating as-is, it's currently between start and stub class, some more improvement and expansion would be helpful. Here's some suggestions:

• "It has been proposed" "It has been suggested" - redundant, if you've got a reliable source stating something then just cite the source and state it as fact. If you have conflicting sources, for instance, then you would need to give appropriate weight to them.
• 'Types of virtual airline' - each subheading needs expanding, if little can be found then the types should be merged together and 'types' should be a subheading within an overview or a paragraph of it.
• Though there are sources listed, they've not resulted in a significant amount of text - can they be used further? If not, cast the net out further, the article needs more context.
• This is a specialist area, reliable sources of information need to be identified.

There's little else I can suggest until the article has been expanded and more sources are brought in. Someoneanother 14:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:VG Assessment

Although Gears of War didn't leave a note that he changed the rating, which should be common courtesy, I agree with his rating. This is a strong jump from the previous assessment. You should be proud of yourself. I have removed your request on the "Requests for Assessments" page. --haha169 (talk) 04:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Another WP:VG Assessment

This article now seems to be relatively thorough and well-written. It appears to be accurately sourced. I made a few grammar changes and reworked a paragraph, but overall, I think it should be at least B class and I have marked it as such. Someone may want to consider images to display customized livery or a virtual airline interface.

Moved from Article

I moved the following here from the article, as it was added unreferenced:

The first virtual airline was SunAir Express created by James Martin Swanson in May of 1992. SunAir Expressed focused on the popular "Flight Assignment: Airline Transport Pilot" or "ATP" by SubLOGIC. Later that year, Geoff Bergey created the second virtual airline named ComAir Express. Then on July 1, 1992 Geoff Bergey also developed a totally new virtual airline named Lynx Airways Worldwide. Lynx Airways Worldwide focused on Microsoft Flight Simulator. From there, hundreds of virtual airlines have come and gone. Of the tree original virtual airlines both SunAir Express and Lynx Airways Worldwide have continued non-interrupted operations. While each has their unique format, those two virtual airlines have set the standards in virtual flight operations which are still followed today.

Icemotoboy (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Support for this statement?

"For younger members, virtual airlines provide a sandbox realistic environment where they can experience the corporate environment of traditional commercial business in the airline industry, without the risk of financial loss".

Are there facts to back this up? If not I think it should be removed, as it is somewhat misleading. Tpkatsa (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Virtual airline (hobby). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071225121338/http://www.bandt.com.au/news/e3/0c0201e3.asp to http://www.bandt.com.au/news/e3/0c0201e3.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)