Talk:Precision Manuals Development Group

Video games Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game

Stub

This article has been rated as Stub-class on the project's quality scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Featured content candidates

Yoshi's New Island (nom)

Good article nominations

Ayane (Dead or Alive) (nom)
Donkey Kong (character) (nom)
NHL Hockey (start)
Ducks Ahoy! (start)
Look Outside (start)
Vault 101 (start)
Buffy the Vampire Slayer (2002 video game) (start)
Deus Ex (video game) (start)
Sonic Mega Collection (start)
Juno (Overwatch) (start)
Blood Bowl 3 (start)
Danan: The Jungle Fighter (start)
Honey (Fighting Vipers) (start)
Crash Tag Team Racing (start)
F1 24 (start)
Isaac Clarke (start)
PlayStation 2 (start)
Five Nights at Freddy's (start)
Pixel Privateers (start)
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (PlayStation video game) (start)
Cho Ren Sha 68K (start)
Ingrid (Street Fighter) (start)
Air-Sea Battle (start)
Space Invaders (Atari 2600 video game) (start)
Williams Arcade's Greatest Hits (start)
Amstrad GX4000 (start)
Crash Nitro Kart (Game Boy Advance video game) (start)

DYK nominations

Golden Lap

Reviews and reassessments

Articles that need...

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 June 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]