Talk:Full Thrust

message: I inserted the  tag into this article since it really needs third party references to demonstrate its notability.  While I'm sure that those references exist, I don't know where they are and thought that those more familiar with the game would be better at locating them.  I would imagine that at some point in the future another editor is going to push hard for a clear demonstration of notability, as this article has none to show this right now.  At that point a response of "no it doesn't" to the statement "need independent sources" isn't going to satisfy them.  I'm not planning to be that editor who pushes for this, but I thought you should be warned that right now this article fails the requirements for third party sources to satisfy WP:N.  Cheers  --Craw-daddy | T | 07:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you're reading, but it says nowhere on WP:N that an article HAS TO HAVE third party sources to be notable. It says "multiple sources are generally prefered" – that doesn't say it's required. As a major contributor to this article, I believe the best reliable sources for such an obscure game as "Full Thrust" is the rule books themselves. I've played the game numerous times, and even though it's not nearly as popular as other mini games like Warhammer 40K - it deserves mention on Wikipedia - even if the best info only comes from the books. If other info can be sourced then fine, but it hardly deserves a warning tag. Cyberia23 05:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: 15 years later, the page is a bit better, citin a Pyramid review, and some award, but I am afraid it is still borderline when it comes to WP:GNG. We need need to find more rewards and such. Did anyone write, in a reliable source, about the importance of this game? Can we find more reliable reviews (ones that have some editorial control, and are not just user generated)? I've added some reviews to the Polish version of this article, but they are of mediocre reliability at best, IMHO. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. I've added the same revews here to the review section. Still needs more. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: References and notability

message: Where actually do you have the information from, that the NSL falls under a "national-socialist core government"? According to Tufffley himself:
"One important note concerning the NSL: according to our background, they are NOT "Nazis in Space", so no swastika markings! Think in terms of noble Austro-Hungarian and Prussian aristocracy - use WWI/modern German crosses if you wish, though we prefer stylised eagle symbols." 
from http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3565/ft-painting-faq.html#New%20Swabian%20League%20(NSL) (retrieved 11.11.07)
85.127.177.237 01:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NSL Nazis?

message: I'd like to see a section that contrasts FT2.5 with other popular starship games, most notably Battlefleet Gothic. The games emphasize very different aspects of play. BFG, for example, places emphasis on the ships crew quality and leadership, while FT2.5 focuses on ship design. BFG feels very "naval" in its orientation, while FT2.5's vector movement system leads to a unique maneuver pattern all its own. On the other hand, both systems employ a balance of capital ships and small attack craft, with both used to provide power projection. 131.96.91.19 (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs some context