Talk:BVE Trainsim

Should Object Converter and Mirror be counted as needing translation, as there is little if any text involved?

Wouldn't say so - they're just drag and drop things, no text at all.

Source for iOS Version

There is no source for the BVE Trainsim Mobile. Please provide that information, as it is nowhere found on the official BVE website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.44.126 (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Developer hints and other things...

i) Anyone interested in adding some Developer hints in a Wikibook on BVE?

ii) BVE files are essentialy text... So any want to developa route in a Wiki fashion?

WINE

I would be very interested in someone describing using BVE via WINE. I haven't tried to use BVE 2 or BVE 4 via WINE. But openBVE is working in Linux without WINE. More info is on official web-page of openBVE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.85.207.106 (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Routes

In the external links area, I added some notable route websites, Midlandbve has added his route, which I don't beleive is notable until it is released. Tubechallenger 15:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You could have said RSR-UK wasn't notable prior to August 2001 (release of WJ-MKC). I assure you it was TC ;-).

I guess, but I'm talking about current times Tubechallenger 17:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

@Pacific Coast Highway

What's wrong with having http://www.trainsimcentral.co.uk as an external link? They have routes of London Underground and I've tried them out b4, they're not spam!! I hope you replace that link. Herenthere 21:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the main problem. If we add Trainsimcentral, then other sites would want a mention. At the most, there should be a link to the program itself and a larger database that covers an international area, not just the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacific Coast Highway (talk • contribs)

External links

Before adding any site into the external links, please make sure it follows Wikipedia:External links. And when adding a site, please don't shuffle your addition to the top of the list. Wikipedia is not an advertising service and dubious additions of that type will be swiftly removed. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 01:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Source tag

Should we remove the references/source tag since any information in this article is from a computer program/game, and since most of the info is from personal experience, the tag doesn't really fit...? --Herenthere 22:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Focus on UK appropriate?

Although BVE is a japanese program and there exists routes and trains from all over the world, this site currently focuses heaviliy on UK stuff. I think that the image in the upper right isn't appropriate for the same reason. Additionally what's that "Screenshot of BVE 2. A Class 150 ... DOWNLOAD" all about? It's a work in progress in the screenshot and obviously an opportunity to directly download it. I therefore say this article is biased toward UK. Please work on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.239.41 (talk) 13:10, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

OpenBVE

A new open source simulator called OpenBVE is currently under development here: http://openbve.zxq.net/, which attempts to have almost one to one compatibility with BVE routes, objects and trains. The current alpha release (0.3.0.2) already looks very promising. Should this be mentioned here? 84.163.167.142 (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Due to the newer information now available about "openBVE" (Correct Spelling), the redirect from the search has been disabled to make a main article.

Bonanza123d (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Advert

I have placed the advert tag on this page, it also needs WP:Reliable sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I've made a concerted effort to clean the article up. I'm almost certain that the Route Structure, Creation of Content, and Downloading sections should be removed because Wikipedia is not a HOWTO but I'm not 100% sure. I have no idea whether the Comparison section shoud be part of the article or not. If anyone can find a policy page regarding it, please link to it in your reply.Zian (talk) 09:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

This article contains a large number of self-published sources and otherwise unreliable primary sources. According to Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines (Wikipedia:V#SELF), references to internet forums and open wikis are largely unacceptable. This applies to references 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 12. Additionally, 4 of the 14 references are to the programmers' own webpage and must be considered unreliable. The other links seem to be content directories. As such, this article appears to be largely self-written by the fan community of the program and must be considered to advertise the program (see Wikipedia:NOT#SOAPBOX). I have tried to verify some information that is cited, including the occupation of Takashi Kojima (which is not mentioned in the citation given) and the suggestion that the program can only be legally downloaded from the website of the programmer (which is untrue as the Japanese version of the BVE 2 program is apparently hosted on www.vector.co.jp. 89.247.208.90 (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I see that, there was a debate a few years ago about the deletion of the article, and the result was to keep it. The article has undergone many edit since then, but I would agree that the quality hasn't improved. There are many unverified claims in the article, including the sections in which the many templates were recently added (do not use them as a badge, please!), and the source are in fact not very reliable.

Take for example the recent edit that says that there are almost 300 routes available. The references to http://www.bve.cz/en/home.html and http://wiki.bve-routes.com/index.php/Category:Routes seem good enough to support this claim - because if you browse through these lists and end up at the maintainers of the routes, you can see the content. However, there are three other links (e.g. http://www.bvestation.com/) which seem to link to single routes. Wikipedia itself is not a directory, so I would say, too, that these links serve only advertisement purposes. The sections that don't use any references are the biggest problem. Everything that is said in there is not verifiable and likely original research. And the many weasel words such as "BVE Trainsim is noted for" or "many real-life drivers frequently comment" only try to conceal original research. Worse, "simple things such as [...] make BVE the preferred choice amongst many gamers" is completely unacceptable: Everyone has their own preference. There are Linux users who like Linux, there are Coke consumers who like coke. It's unnecessary to mention.

In addition to that, the article contains instructions on installation, which is maybe something for Wikibooks, not Wikipedia. The Downloading BVE section contains a list of tools, but it's nothing more than a list, i.e. not incorporated in a meaningful context, just promotion of additional software. The Creation of content and Route Structure sections needs further explanation as someone unfamiliar with the topic doesn't understand that, not to mention lack of citations. I would agree that the whole article only serves to advertise the project but hasn't encyclopedic value. I have followed the arguments in the deletion debate of 2006 and agree that a niche market should not be the reason why the program isn't mentioned here, but it needs a degree of verifiability to support all the claims.

If nobody improves on these things, then I will remove all sentences that use weasel words (OR) and maybe remove the parts which are completely unsupported or dubious. 72.52.197.200 (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Have done that. Wikipedia's policies are quite clear about that. Content must be verifiable by sources. If there is no citation given, or if citations do not prove the information given (e.g. the youtube links), then they are to be removed (see Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No_original_research). I suggest to consider moving some content on installation and available tools to Wikibooks, because Wikipedia is not a manual (see Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_or_textbook). This page might still constitute advertisement according to Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox, because all references are to self-published sources, e.g. wikis and personal websites, however, I have left the rest of the article as-is for now. 87.123.98.39 (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"openBVE is an independent attempt to create an open source version of BVE": According to Software versioning, a version is a sequential numbering of one program. From that, I conclude that one program cannot be a version of another program. The claim is not supported by citations given. "sparked mainly by the lack of progress on BVE by Mackoy": Not in the citations given. 89.247.240.236 (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Violation of content policies and guidelines

I cannot emphasize this more. This article does not comply with Wikipedia's content policy on verifiability, and Wikipedia's content guidelines on reliable sources. The issue is that this article contains many self-published sources originating from the fan community of this program.

In particular, Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 says that "articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and that "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable."

Information in this article which does not comply with these policies/guilines are:

"More than 300 routes have been built by independent developers, simulating routes in Asia, North America, South America, and Europe" - Not third-party verifyable. The information originates from an open wiki directly affiliated with this project.

"This version supported Japanese safety systems such as ATS-S (ATS-SN), ATS-P and ATC, as well as partial support to British Rail's AWS. It had a fixed HUD on the right of the monitor, where the timetable, safety systems and time of the day was shown." - Not third-party verifyable. The information is if anything a self-advertisement cited from the project's homepage, but even the verification of that information fails because it's not mentioned on the cited page.

The whole "Creation of content" section cites from Google Translate, which is definately not a reliable source and a clear content policy violation. Additionally, the section is incomprehensible as it apparently targets users already familiar with BVE Trainsim creation of content methods.

Apparently, some editors seem to have a conflict of interest according to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. This guidelines says that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising or self-promotion, or a vanity press. As such, it should contain only material that complies with its content policies, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first." The following editors, among others, do not comply with this, because they repeatedly try to advertise BVE Trainsim by including content cited from their own personal websites, by including information that is not cited at all, and by reverting edits that are made in accordance with the content policies:

User: Pacific Coast Highway (reverts edits made in accordance with content policies) User: Mbssbs (cites from personal websites) User: Eezypeazy (cites from a wiki directly involved with the project)

My suggestion is to get rid of all information that does not comply with the policies/guidelines, or alternatively, propose AfD due to lack of reliability. I strongly suggest that the problematic users don't attempt edit warring just because they don't want to adhere to the policies in favor of their self-promotion.

89.247.217.65 (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Back up just a minute. That was my first edit into this foray, I've stood on the sidelines through this whole Afd thing. Before you decide to start a forest fire, how about you try to assume good faith? Because someone does not agree with you, does not automatically mean they are a disruptive editor. Hurling accusations at other editors is not the way to solve a content dispute. I have a lot more to say on this matter, but I will do so later on when I am less busy and have a cooler head to think with. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{spring • ahead}} 01:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I've cooled down, becomed unbusied, and have had some time to think this through.

1. The issue you raised about the 300 routes, is a valid one. I've yet to find a non-wiki source that gives an actual number amount of routes created.
2. Right below that part of WP:SPS you quoted is another section:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

• the material is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

The section on the program's history cites from the developer's site and falls under this guideline. The material is not unduly self serving, it describes the development of BVE Trainsim; it does not make any claims about third parties, it does not involve claims about events not related to the subject, there is no reasonable doubt to the page's authenticity, and the majority of this article, apart from this section, is not based on this source. I've also tracked down another source (Virtual Railroader) that describes the program being made by a "14-year old Japanese student".

As to your concern that Google Translate is not a reliable source, and that it's a clear content policy violation, I've found this about the subject:

English-language sources are preferable to sources in other languages so that readers can easily verify the content of the article. However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available. Where editors translate a direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.

There is no english equivlant availble that describes the development of the program. As long as the original japanese text is cited, it follows this as well. Perhaps the translation issue is better left to someone that is more proficient in the Japanese language, as Google Translator produces comical results.

Now as for your accusations that I have a conflict of interest, can you explain how? Conflict of interest is described as contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. I'm not a route developer, nor do I have a hand in the development of the software. I did not take part in the Afd debate last month, nor have I recently edited the BVE Trainsim article prior to this past week. I should remind you that the first course of action when dealing with COI is to directly contact the editor, not call them out on a talk page as you did above. I should also remind you that using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban. This is a content dispute, and with any dispute on Wikipedia, requires civility, not accusations of bad faith editing, or the use of playground tactics. I hope you remember this going forward. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{spring • ahead}} 19:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

Unfortunately, the article is based primary on non-third party sources that are self-serving. Currently, this includes references 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. They are all associated with this project and are not third party, and are forming the majority of sources in this article. Why are they self-serving? Well, if I create a history section for one of my programs, I can write anything in there, whether true or not. It is not possible to verify this information, which is what WP:V is all about. However, I can write anything in there that promotes my program, thus making the information self-serving for the program. Citing this information means citing anything that is not third-party verifiable. Thus, I have doubts to its authenticity.

Google Translate is not a reliable source, because a machine translation is not a reliable translation. You can include citations from non-English sources, but you have to link against the originals, not against a machine translation - nor can you use a machine translation in an article. "As long as the original japanese text is cited." This is exactly not the case with using Google Translate.

Sorry for my blatant direct attacks, it won't happen again. But there is a problem with this article, and this problem is that the majority of contributions seems to originate from the fan community of this program. This is not something I can definately prove, but when the Wikipedia user names match with those found on forums explicitly related to BVE Trainsim (I can give you a list if interested), then I have strong doubts as to if this article can be reliable and neutral. The problem is that given only third party sources, there is not much to say about BVE Trainsim, because those sources hardly contain any usable information. As this is obviously a niche article and doesn't receive much attention from readers or admins, it is almost an invitation for the fans to write anything in here, because almost no one will notice. If you take a look at the history section, you can see that in the past, most information was entirely unsourced but survived in this form for a long time. Only much later, information was challenged and removed, then reintroduced without sources, removed again, introduced again with unreliable sources, removed again. This seems to continue. Some people want certain content in here so badly that I need to contest. From my point of view, fans are trying to advertise their game here, so I'm stepping in to prevent that. If information is not properly backed with a reliable source, it needs to go. But if the majority of contributors are involved with this project, then a properly sourced and reliable article is hardly achievable. 89.247.200.22 (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I would like to have feedback on the reliability of sources in accordance to Wikipedia's policies. From my point of view:

1. Lew, Alexander. Wired News. -> Acceptable, as Wired News is a recognized "technology news website" according to its Wikipedia article.

2. Simon Tonekham. -> Unacceptable according to WP:SPS, as it's a self-published source by a non-expert.

3. 6. 7. 9. 10. http://mackoy.cool.ne.jp and derivatives. -> Generally unacceptable due to WP:SPS, but may be accepted depending on how one interprets the "on themselves" clause.

5. http://www.bve.cz/en/home.html. Unacceptable according to WP:SPS as it's a self-published source.

4. http://wiki.bve-routes.com. Unacceptable according to WP:SPS as it's a self-published source and open wiki.

8. http://www.railforums.co.uk. Unacceptable according to WP:SPS as it's a self-published source and internet forum.

11. http://www.rockpapershotgun.com. It's a self-published source, and even though it appears to be a third party reviewing page, anyone can set up something like that, which according to WP:SPS would be unacceptable.

By the way, WP:SPS says that "if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

Consent, please. 89.247.233.19 (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

In order to follow this discussion more easily, it is worth noting that the ip addresses beginning 87.123 and 89.247 are all assigned to the same ISP. I assume that all the comments in this discussion, the previous deletion discussion, and the 11 edits made to the article whose ip addresses begin with these numbers are all made by the same person.

I have not made a contribution since the Afd discussion in early May. However, since no one else has tidied up the article, I have made some changes. Since I only downloaded BVE a few weeks ago in order to find out more about it, I don't think I am part of the fan base.

It was decided in May that the article will be kept. The question now is what it should contain. I have read the Self-published sources policy. I believe that basic information about any program such as release dates, versions, operating systems supported, obtained from the author's website is justified by the "about themselves" section. Also information about a version in development can only come from the author. I think the "future software" tag covers this.

If there was an English language version of the author's website (mackoy.cool.ne.jp) with support information, a users' forum and a list of useful links, then this Wikipedia article could be shorter and would need fewer references. However this is not the case. Since the program's website is Japanese, it seems reasonable for this English Wikipedia article to include an English language site that has translated the Japanese information. For this reason I have added trainsimcentral.co.uk to the reference section. The railforums.co.uk reference could be removed since Trainsimcentral links to the same information on Vista compatibility.

The Wired.com reference, which has been agreed as a reliable source, states: "There are hundreds of downloadable routes (found at various websites) that have been created by various users throughout the world." If this statement were included in the article as it is, it would soon attract a "weasel words" comment. The wiki.bve-routes and bve.cz sites provide the necessary detail. I understand the concerns about references to open wikis, however the article does not use any information or opinions from these references, only noting that they exist and have a certain number of links which can be easily verified.

As for the reviews. The Wired article is OK since it was the main justification for keeping the article.

The article from Simon Tonekham was added during the Afd debate as an additional reference to justify notability, however it is from a personal website, so it could go.

The rockpapershotgun article is more valuable. The website is run by 4 editors and has a forum with 1286 members. It is a uk registered company, runs a weekly podcast and its rated by Alexa Internet as the 34,147th most visited website with 1146 other sites linking to it. I would consider it a reliable source.Chris1515 (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Current issues

1. "It is notable for focusing on providing an accurate driving experience": While notability of the subject itself has been established, it has not been established that the program is notable specifically for "providing an accurate driving experience". Whether the experience is accurate or not is not backed with any source, and is highly subjective.
2. "other trains passed along the route are only displayed as stationery objects": I assume personal experience with the program to come up with this, but unfortunately, personal experience is against WP:NOR.
3. "additional routes and train cab views can be added via a number of text-based configuration files": What is "a number of text-based configuration files", and how can they be used to provide for "additional routes and train cab views"? Again, I assume personal experience, but don't see a reliable source for this.
4. "OpenBVE is an independently developed open source simulator that makes uses the same file formats.": The same file formats - but only with a reliable source confirming this.
5. "BVE Trainsim 4 added support for plugins for ATS": As has been tagged for a while, this is not mentioned in the citation given.
6. "By default, BVE Trainsim 4 is not able to run on Microsoft Windows Vista...": Personal experience is not acceptable according to WP:NOR - but a public internet forum is personal experience.
7. "The program aims to be backwards compatible, allowing the full range of existing BVE-style routes and trains to make use of newer hardware": While the first part of the sentence may be acceptable given the "on themselves" clause in WP:V, the "allowing..." continuation seems to be an original synthesis, which is against WP:NOR.
8. "3D models of the trains themselves" and "the addition of animated 3D cab environments and scenery": No source. Please note that the External Links section does not constitute sources according to Wikipedia:External_links.
9. "Internally, Openbve makes use of OpenGL for rendering—this allows cross-platform use across multiple operating systems": The first part is not backed with a source, while the latter part is an original synthesis. Even if it was established that Openbve used OpenGL for rendering, it does not proof that this is in particular what makes Openbve cross-platform.
10. "it shares no code with that of BVE Trainsim": No source. Even if one program is open source and the other not, that does not proof that they don't share the same source base (e.g. the programmer of Openbve could have obtained parts of the BVE Trainsim source code from Takashi Kojima).

I mean to be constructive here. In other articles, it's most often easy to check whether an unsourced addition can be sourced or not - just go to the library, browse the internet, etc. In case of BVE Trainsim, the major problem is that there are no quality sources at all. The thewired and rockpapershotgun articles seem to be the only ones barely acceptable here, however, most parts of the page don't draw information from them, but from personal experience in either a) personal websites, b) open wikis, c) public forums, or d) via no citations at all. In order to improve Wikipedia, I would like to back up the information with sources, but given the fact that since the first AfD debate a few years ago, there have been no major improvements in finding sources, I need to conclude that there simply are no such sources. Please prove me wrong. If you can't, the best thing to do from my point of view would be to aggressively remove all unsourced material and potentially remove the unreliable ones, too - following Wikipedia's policies such as WP:V and WP:NOR in order to keep the encyclopedia free from unveriable personal experiences. 89.247.204.185 (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have consulted Wikipedia's policies and guidelines once again and also asked on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#BVE_Trainsim for guidance. My conclusion: Most of the sources that are used in this article are not acceptable as they are self-published sources that could have been created by anyone who wants to push a personal opinion. However, software itself are published works and may thus be used as references. This means that taking a look at BVE Trainsim should suffice to include information directly offered by it, however, not synthesis in the form of personal judgement or opinions.

I have made an effort to clean up the article while preserving as much information as possible. I have removed a series of unreliable sources in accordance with WP:SPS, and also due to the fact that noone objected to that in the previous section "Violation of content policies and guidelines". Furthermore, I don't see a justification why Openbve should be mentioned in this article - after all, it is a different program among many train simulators. You don't file information about Trainz under Microsoft Train Simulator, either, right?

Just to add my justification for removing sources:

1. GameFAQ: By its own description, it says that most of the content is contributed via its users - thus outside of editorial control - thus SPS [1].
2. Alfred Barten: Apparently, he sells books, but via PayPal, not in stores. This makes him no established expert on the field of computer games - thus not a RS.
3. Simon Tonekham, Train Simmer, Peter Baum: Undoubtedly, they are not RS, but SPS.

I am not sure about the following source, so I left it intact:

• UKTrainSim: Apparently, it's a UK-registered company, but who are the people involved? To me it seems fans of train simulators by the site's own description[2], which isn't too promising.

By the way, is there a possibility to move the references to outside of the source text - it is making editing the source text difficult if most of it is URLs and quotations.

87.123.65.25 (talk) 02:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

For information. The reliable sources discussion is now archived, and can be found at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_41#BVE_Trainsim Chris1515 (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

OpenBVE Issues

OpenBVE should not be part of the BVE Trainsim article it is a different program although some components are the same —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noobbucket (talk • contribs)

OpenBVE should not be part of the BVE Trainsim article it is a different program although some components are the same , two diffrent people in the coding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noobbucket (talk • contribs)

It has been suggested in the article that the openBVE section be split into a new article. openBVE has previously existed as a separate article, but was deleted twice, for lack of notability,in both April and May 2009. See the deletion discussions.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/OpenBVE

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/OpenBVE_(2nd_nomination)

Since version 1.0 of openBVE was only released in March 2009, it is not surprising that no references could be found to justify notability at that time. Unless anyone can provide a newer reference to justfy notability, it is unlikely that a separate article for openBVE will be allowed. In this case openBVE should remain a section of the BVE Trainsim article, since this is the program that motivated the writing of openBVE and runs the same content.Chris1515 (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Since there has been no further discussion on the proposal to split the article since September, I have removed the split tag. Chris1515 (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Split Proposal February 2010. Since the article OpenBVE has already been created using content from this article, I would suggest waiting to see what reaction the new article gets. There still needs to be a section on openBVE in this article. Chris1515 (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Tag Review

There have been several tags on this article since April/May 2009 including Clean Up, Expert, Self published. Since the article has been considerably re-written since then, these tags are probably no longer appropriate, so I have removed them. The Original Research tag was added in August 2009 and, looking at the discussions above, it seems that the main issue discussed on this talk page has been the references quoted in the article. I have, therefore, removed the general Article Issues tag and replaced it with a RefImprove tag. Chris1515 (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on BVE Trainsim. 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/20150606170058/http://www.virtualrailroader.com/faqs.html to http://www.virtualrailroader.com/faqs.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007120549/http://www.trainsimmer.com/article4.html to http://www.trainsimmer.com/article4.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120413113009/http://www.bve.cz/en/home.html to http://www.bve.cz/en/home.html

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) 08:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)