Talk:Precision Manuals Development Group

Untitled

Please add that they have revamped their strategy, and are now also developing the MD-11 for FS2004.

69.250.70.234 00:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Frank Grivel

Notability and References

I would normally have Proposed Deletion of this article, as its has no primary references to indicate notability for inclusion of wikipedia, beyond simply just existing and having products. Does anyone have any references available to establish notability and verify the information in this article? If I cannot find any over the next few weeks I will proposing deletion. Icemotoboy (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've now spent the better part of a year trying to improve this article but have failed to find any references. Over this time, the article become one big advert. I requested speedy deletion but this failed, so I have now pruned again the weasel wording and spam.Icemotoboy (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe I've expanded the article a bit, just to a decent stub. The chart, however, keeps staying at the bottom of the page and I'm not sure why.--TheFSaviator (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate information

The criticism over the 400X release was not "widespread", it was a small vocal minority on our forum - every FS9 747-400 customer was emailed an offer to purchase the discounted version before the price went back up. The "few new features" criticism is also inaccurate, the 400X features entirely new visual models (still among the only fully FSX compliant in the addon industry) and the gauge framework was entirely rewritten to use SimConnect instead of the older FSUIPC interface. The fact that these are "under the hood" changes led a small number of people to believe that we simply "ported" the 400 to FSX - this is not true, it took 18 months of work in close collaboration with ACES to do it.

- Ryan Maziarz, PMDG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.193.83 (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the material back to a stub. I'll be searching for referenced material to make this into a good quality article. If you know of any sources discussing the PMDG (not the products ideally, rather the company), please post them below so I can use them to grow the article.Icemotoboy (talk) 03:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just added a couple of the products the company has produced as they are essential to the entry. I agree this article should have facts not opinions - cheers Bogsludger (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I fully support the fleshing out of the article down to a stub. The article should only be expanded based on significant third-party coverage, positive or negative (though negative should be treated with more care). Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I think a good stub would be a good place to start. I did find one reference in the last AfD, ill track it down.Icemotoboy (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Information

Why is there virtually no real info on this article. I'm sure I saw a list of products on here before. Isn't this supposed to be an encyclopedia? You know with information that people can look up? Like they could want to look at a list of current and upcoming products. I'm going to put one there and if you have any problems send me a message. Wiki235 (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason that the article has very little, is because there is very little written about it in third party, independent, media. Examples of this would be articles in the Wall Street Journal, a news story on CNN, or something similar. The article does not address the issue of notability, which is a key requirement for listing on Wikipedia. A previous proposal for deletion failed to achieve a consensus on this issue. If you are going to expand the article, please address the issue of notability by referencing relevant sources. As it stands, the article is likely to be renominated for deletion if it can't establish notability and suitable references can't be found to allow the expansion of the article. Remember what Wikipedia is not, such as an indiscriminate collection of information, so it's not just a site with information people can look up. Icemotoboy (talk) 04:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a small update

I have updated a few parts of the PMDG article:

- Changed 'FS' to FS9' in the 'FS2004 products' section, as it is certainly untrue that PMDG have ceased developing aircraft add-ons for FSX.

- It said that there are multiple variations of individual aircraft on top of the existing 12 PMDG products, however these variations (737-600/700/800/900) are themselves included in the product listing thus making this statement meaningless, so I have changed it to refer to the 747-8i and the LCF.

- Hyperlinked '747 LCF (Extension)' in the 'Aircraft' section to the 'Boeing 747 Large Cargo Freighter' page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 02vallancel (talk • contribs) 16:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I added to the 747-8i under Aircraft, the extension also includes the 747-8F.JhanJensen (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Advertisement

It really feels like to me, that this whole article reads like an advertisement or facebook page for PMDG. I don't think this is deliberate, but it really doesn't meet the guidelines for submission. I will edit the page over the next few days to see if I can clean it up, if not I will be nominating it for deletion. Would appreciate some thoughts. Icemotoboy (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Release Dates

Precision Manuals is famous for being secretive on release dates. Mostly because they themselves don't believe in shipping a product until it is ready and being small there are many variables. I feel the Release Date for the Upcoming Products should be removed. It is only a best guess anyways so it has no merit. JhanJensen (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion

Delete this page because of Advertisement for this company --Bookbloxer (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion

An established editor will have to complete the process for me. My rationale: After deleting the unreliable source (AVsim), and removing another which only had passing coverage (Salon), this article is left with only what I would consider to be TWO RS's - PC Pilot (though it itself doesn't have an article despite being the largest PC air simulation circulation), and the WSJ. Doesn't pass WP:GNG in my view. 75.185.34.253 (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

On it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precision Manuals Development Group (3rd nomination).UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! 75.185.34.253 (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Fear-Mongering Salon article

I removed the link to the fear-mongering Salon article that alleged that flight simulators are a security threat. It looks like this has been repeatedly removed and re-added in the past, so I'd like to set out here why it should not be included:

1. A single article in a single magazine is not "critics". It is "a critic". 2. The article itself quotes experts as disagreeing with the author's premise that flight sims are somehow dangerous. 3. Because this allegation of dangerousness has not been accredited by experts, just by the occasional writer looking for clicks, it is a WP:FRINGE theory.