lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Game Designers' Workshop

message: If anyone can add information about GDW's System 7 then great.  Right now it is very conspicuously absent.  I can't give any date myself (started in late 1970s?) or I'd add it right now.  It was a miniatures combat system for Napoleonics Era warfare, including both rules and the "miniatures" themselves.  In yet another insightful and clever innovation from GDW in its heyday, it tried to make the pageantry of painted miniature lead figures available to would-be miniatures players who either couldn't afford the expense of large collections of lead or lacked interest/patience in finding so many figures and rather tediously painting them all.  The normal convention for lead miniatures in gaming is to glue ranks and columns of the figures onto "stands", which are simply cardboard, metal, or wooden strips that serve as bases to help the lead figures stand vertically without falling over on a miniatures table.  Equally important, in most game rules the stands also imitate the size and shape (if they could be seen from above) of the actual historical formations the painted figures represent.  Typically, one stand represents one company of a particular type of infantry or cavalry unit.  System 7 sold packages of cardboard counters rather than lead figures.  The cardboard counters were shaped and proportioned to represent specific historical units of various nationalities of that era.  The graphical designs on the tops of the counters usually indicated the nationality of the unit by its dominant color with detailed markings inspired by the historical uniforms worn by units.  While it was still somewhat expensive to assemble a large collection of System 7 "miniatures" to play interesting-sized battles it cost a small fraction of what it would take to purchase all the lead figures for the same battles.  Not to mention the time spent painting the figures, of course.  Obviously, the cardboard "miniatures" aren't as attractive as well-painted lead figures, but that's the trade-off.
69.17.65.50 12:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  System 7 

message: The boardgamegeek.com page used as a citation was a user editable wiki page that was only created 7 days after (on 17 March 2007) the previous edit of the wikipedia page (10 March 2007) and both contain these identical passages:
* The company was originally established June 22, 1973 by Frank Chadwick, Rich Banner, Marc Miller, and Loren Wiseman. Originally their main effort went into the Europa series of monster wargames, of which Drang Nach Osten! was merely the first, but they brought out a considerable number over the years.
* By rough count, GDW published one new product every 22 days for 22 years. The designers attributed the company's demise as much to burn-out as to financial difficulties.
Unless time's arrow has reversed its direction of flight the boardgamegeek user copied, without attribution, unsourced information from wikipedia to an external site so that information cannot be used as a citation on wikipedia. Waerloeg (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boardgamegeek.com citations deleted
Talk:History of spectroscopy

message: The article section Frequency spectrum#Spectrum analysis appears to me to be about a significantly different kind of spectrum analysis. A Google search for the phrase appears to show that it is commonly used both ways. I don't have enough confidence in my understanding of the concepts to make any changes, but I hope somebody who does can add clarification. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct that these are two distinct types of spectrum analysis, and I think it would be worth addressing. I consider the type of spectrum analysis described on the current page to be related to spectroscopy. The type of analysis described at Frequency spectrum#Spectrum analysis is more difficult to characterize--it seems to be describing the general mathematical technique that is then used in a number of technical applications. I could see distinguishing it as either a "mathematical" or "signal processing" description. How would you suggest addressing the ambiguity? Two distinct sections on this page or two distinct pages? ronningt (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two meanings for Spectrum analysis 

message: The body of this article contains a lot of information that would fit into a History of Spectroscopy page or section. I would like to move the content. I don't see a reason to separate any of the existing content from the more general spectroscopy article. Does anyone feel there is a reason to differentiate this topic? ronningt (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start for History of Spectroscopy 

message: This book shows spectroscopy work previous to 1860 by M. Masson.
Treatis on Electricity in Theory and Practice - 1856  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.65.248.97 (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible incorrect information 

message: We're adding more information for the sections on infrared and Raman spectroscopy, Laser spectroscopy, and we are adding a section for early 20th century history. Ab6gc (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions to IR, laser, and early 20th century sections 

message: I have proposed a merge from Spectroscopy of multiply ionized atoms, as that article is almost entirely about history of spectroscopy, and does not have sufficient content to be a standalone page on its purported topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge
Talk:Unknown Armies

message: The page text currently says "it is unlike standard systems in that the higher the roll obtained the better the result" ... I'm curious who's defining what a standard system is. Although the selection of RPGs I've played is pretty random, I have to say that this mechanic is the norm in most things I've tried (with BESM being the only exception that springs to mind) --62.49.26.154 (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "unlike standard systems" 

message: I like how the alleged reference to rpgNET is actually a link to the wiki page for a hip-hop album. 74.199.43.20 (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference link totally wrong
Talk:Masque of the Red Death (Ravenloft)

message: Maybe searching for Masque of the Red Death should lead to the short-story by Poe and refer to this, instead of the other way around? To my knowledge, the former is far more widely known and popular.
:Done. And please sign your posts.--Robbstrd 02:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poe story

message: I added a link to cockroach for the word "roaches". I assume this is what the author meant, however there is also a fish called roach which it could refer to. Does anyone know?
Kesshaka 12:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roaches 

message: I removed the link to livingdeath.org. It seems to a cyber-squatter site.
66.111.120.246 (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: removed link

message: OK, for the sake of argument, I decided to look up what the actual issue of Dungeon says, and this is all I found:
*In the far comer of the room is a swarm of wraith roaches---eerily silent beetles with ghostly white carapaces and gossamer wings. The swarm attacks a single target within 10 feet, draining one energy level with each successful attack. A victim drained of all levels dies and transforms into another swarm of wraith roaches (and cannot be raised). A victim who is not slain by the swarm regains lost levels at a rate of 1/day.
 
*Wraith roach swarm: AL NE; AC 7; MV 9, Fl 12 (A); HD 2; hp 14; THAC0 19; #AT 1 per swarm; Dmg nil; SA energy drain; SD impervious to edged/piercing weapons; hit only by magical blunt weapons and spells; SZ T; ML 15; XP 975.
There are some vague similarities to the swarm subtype concept introduced later in the 3.5 edition of D&D.  But the wraith roach swarm was not the first ever creature called a "swarm" nor with this same sort of statistical layout introduced to D&D.  Off the top of my head, I can tell you that the Monstrous Compendium Dragonlance Appendix (MC4) from 1990 introduced insect swarms for grasshoppers and locusts, and the stat blocks were reprinted in the Monstrous Manual in 1993.  So it is a leap of faith to assume that the 3.5 designers took anything at all from the wraith roach swarm, or let alone were even aware of it.
Then there is the trouble with the citation included for the claim.  It is a wikia page, and wikis of all sorts (including wikipedia itself) are disallowed as sources.  It could be anyone who wrote that Wikia page, and they can make any claim they like without any means to substantiate it.  I think if we see a reliable source from any 3.5 desginer or anyone who worked with them at the time or even talked to them, stating "Yep, if not for the wraith roach swarm by Randy Richards, the swarm subtype would never have existed!" then that is golden.  What has been included so far is highly suspect. 
Also, the mention of Dreadmire serves no purpose here other than to promote the author's unrelated work. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance of the wraith roach swarm
Talk:Forbidden Kingdoms

message: As it stands, this article seems to only cover the system used for FK, without providing even a summary of what the setting is.  I've only ever flipped through the rulebook- any chance of someone with more experience with the setting taking a crack at describing either the FK or FK modern setting? --Clay Collier 11:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Originally, I had given more rule-specific information. FK Modern is not significantly different from Forbidden Kingdoms as the only real change is to interpret most of the FK Base Classes as d20 Modern Advanced Classes. The setting is more of a meta-setting for an alternate earth covering three sub-settings: Steampulp, Tesla Time (crude electrical tech), and Nazi Thugs. Bear Eagleson 16:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Setting?
Talk:A Bicyclops Built for Two

message: ==Trivia==
*Three nerd characters who appear in the chat room as well as another player in the game are based on writers David X. Cohen, Ken Keeler and Eric Kaplan. Matt Groening was originally supposed to also appear but vetoed the idea early in development.''
The other bit of "Trivia" removed was speculation/original research, and certainly uncited. This part, however, may have some place in the article. It may be best to remove the references section as well, in favor of integrating it into the article. -- Digital Watches! 20:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As most of the current Futurama episode articles currently contain a trivia section and a better way for adding it to the article has not yet been found (it doesn't belong in the plot or any of the other sections currently) I suggest we take the approach recommended in Wikipedia:Trivia
1. Consider alternatives to naming the section "Trivia" - it can be taken to imply that un-encyclopaedia worthy material can be entered there. Alternative names may depend on content. "In popular culture" - "Miscellanea" - "Personal background" - "Reception history" - ... are all possibilities. As long as such section title variant doesn't amount in a cover-up operation for real trivia, which would be worse than naming them what they are.
2. Only include information that belongs in an encyclopaedia (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not).
3. If you see information that really is "trivia": be bold, remove it.
I think if we follow this approach we can make everyone happy, certainly it is better than summarily removing all trivia sections as many of them do have information directly from cast commentary such as the note above.  The references could also fit a similar section, perhaps? Before removing all of these lets work to find a good solution for everyone.  Maybe we can continue this discussion brainstorming process at the wikiproject?  Thanks for your time Stardust8212 21:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Good point. Summarily removing trivia sections may not be the best approach... -- Digital Watches! 19:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia section 
Talk:CJ Carella's WitchCraft

message: Interview with CJ Carella --Craw-daddy | T | 16:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevant reference for future consideration
Talk:Toon (role-playing game)

message: I remember this game; it was unplayable due to lack of rules inherent in cartoons. SolidPlaid 02:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably depends. I'm a big proponent of a card game where the players draw and write the cards to totally arbitrary specifications. It's completely unplayable as a card game but, optimally, a blast as performance art/stand-up comedy/a creativity contest/a feud-starter/Calvinball/whattheheckISthat. --Kizor 02:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a hard enough time finding people to play a game of D&D through to the end. SolidPlaid 03:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. --Kizor 03:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll politely disagree with the gamerules being unplayable. They were very fluid. Bottom line rule: If it is funny, it works. Not a game to be taken seriously (like Paranoia (game), but fun none the less! Turlo Lomon 13:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gameplay

message: Maybe somebody gave Toon a bad review back in the day? That would be a source showing notability. SolidPlaid 03:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes,they did. The reviews were why I bought the game in the first place (pretty much why I buy any game, actually). The problem is finding them. I believe this article will pass notability with flying colors. It is just getting the information put together that will be slow. Turlo Lomon 13:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an essay on Toon in the recent book Hobby Games: The 100 Best.  That should provide one reference (as I recall, the notability guidelines only call for a few). -Stellmach 23:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A thought
Talk:Murphy's World

message: Hmm... I already made the edit, but I can see that the article has looked A LOT more like an advertisement in the past.
However, it could still be improved upon, by someone who's not me and has actually HEARD of the game. --Jbshryne 23:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertisement
Talk:Cartoon Action Hour

message: On 21 August 2020, the Cartoon Action Hour page and its complete edit history has been exported from here and imported at RPG Museum (page link), a growing wiki on Fandom that intends to be a resource for all tabletop RPGs. RPG Museum is using this content under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Thanks, all! -- Supermorff (talk) 09:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Exported to RPG Museum
Talk:Richard Howe, 1st Earl Howe

message: As Howe was an Admiral, I propose changing the infobox from a Person Infobox (which only contains family info which is in the text anyway) to a Military Person infobox (which contains more military detail). Any views? Dormskirk (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Military person infobox now used Dormskirk (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: He was on Anson's expedition?
I love Patrick O'Brian's The Golden Ocean and The Unknown Shore, which were based on the journals of surviving individuals from the expedition.  Was Howe one of the characters in the novels?  Jack Byron was the protagonist of one of these novels.  One of the other characters, a young midshipman, was the god-son of the King.  Could that have been Howe?
Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 02:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  question... 

message: The EB/DNB material in this article is begging to be rewritten.  Some events (the events with d'Estaing at New York and Rhode Island, to name but one example) are barely recognizable given the POV language used by those sources. Magic♪piano 16:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: now re-written. Dormskirk (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You may have rewritten parts, but you've not (yet) touched the specific paragraph I complained about, which is just as POV when cited to a different source. Howe is being given too much credit for d'Estaing's caution, a more commonly cited reason for the particular passage of events. See Battle of Rhode Island for details and sources.  (I'm also dubious about the reason given for his resignation, but I haven't been in those sources in some time.) Magic♪piano 01:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Now much toned down. Hope it's OK now. Dormskirk (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not as POV, but it's a pretty significant simplification.  (This is not necessarily a problem, but a slightly longer treatment might be called for if you're trying to GA this article.) Magic♪piano 14:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Now expanded a bit. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: At top of article is
Admiral of the Fleet Richard Howe, 1st Earl Howe, KG (8 March 1726 – 5 August 1799)
He was born before 1752, the year England and its colonies changed from old style to new style calendar.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  date of birth
Talk:Over the Edge (game)

message: Should this article include information on the big secret in Over the Edge? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.75.159.78 (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secret of over the edge? 

message: Excuse me, but how in the world can OtE be considered ground breaking with regards to Dice Pools, when Shadowrun predated both it and Vampire: The Masquerade by well over 2 years.  I am not saying that the game is not original, but dice pools had been used before it was published Avador 05:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dice Pool Originator

message: Shouldn't it be worked into the description that Al Amarja is inspired primarily by William Burroughs' "Interzone", from Naked Lunch, and thus bears a significant spiritual debt to Tangier, Morocco, at least so much as Washington D.C.? Baudot (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Al Amarja
Talk:James Bond 007 (role-playing game)

message: This page seems to be copied almost word-for-word from here. Williw 23:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trust me, I wrote it the hard way. It was copied the other way around. :-) Notice the bottom of that page says "This is the "GNU Free Documentation License" reference article from the English Wikipedia."...  GRuban 18:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copied?

message: There's no mention of the Assault Game.  I don't know enough about it to include it myself.  Could someone please add it in? Thanks --Drmike (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing: The Assult Game 

message: Back in the 90s, I wrote the "Dice and Men" article that's referenced. It was originally published on ianfleming.org, but that site is gone. I recently republished the article on my personal site here: https://deanebarker.net/mkkbb/rpg/
What's protocol here? Do we change the link?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deane (talk • contribs) 22:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference re-published under a new URL
Talk:Pendragon (role-playing game)

message: Please consider adding to the Publication history section at the the end (or words to this effect):
In 2023, Chaosium released a sixth edition boxed starter set. 
Sciencefish (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Spintendo  13:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Spintendo  13:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request
Talk:Maelstrom (role-playing game)

message: I find the order and selection of section subjects very... irregular. Perhaps the article have been heavily edited.
A more natural order would be to briefly introduce character creation (including age and livings) first, then do combat and wounds. The section on experience feels out of place - to discuss character improvement you would first need to introduce how characters are built, and how they complete tasks. The Player Interaction section would probably be better suited for a general introduction to tabletop roleplaying in general.
CapnZapp (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  structure 
Talk:Guy Carleton, 1st Baron Dorchester

message: Content under "American Revolution" appears to be a copy of: http://www.berkshirehistory.com/bios/gcarleton.html BradMajors 23:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted this addition as a likely copyright violation. BradMajors 01:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: hi,
I'm wondering if Baron Dorchester's first name is to be pronounced as the French name "Guy" (where the G sound is 'guh'), or if it's the same pronunciation as the slang used to identify males (or, in some cases, to sloppily refer to a group of people).
Whoever has the answer, could you please put a phonetic thinger beside his name so readers are clear on this? 
thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.5.18.142 (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: over two years later and no answer? I assume the answer is "Guy" (pronounced as the slang term for males)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.156.34 (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of first name 
Talk:Indiana Jones (role-playing game)

message: The 'diana Jones Award' page has a reference that the Indiana Jones game was so poor that it was trashed and the remnants used as for a trophy to award excellence. The relevant authority appears to be a single opinion.  Is such an opinionated reference valid? Salisbury-99 (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To read the actual reference, it seems that the reference is quoting one of the award's founders, so it is valid, as it forms part of the basis for the award.oknazevad (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the opinion of one author viable ?
Talk:Boot Hill (role-playing game)

message: The chronology for Boot Hill and Empire of the Petal Throne is backward. (This is in reference to: "Boot Hill was TSR's third role-playing game, appearing not long after Dungeons & Dragons and Empire of the Petal Throne", which appears at two places in the article.) 
Boot Hill is listed as coming soon in Strategic Review #2 (Summer 1975) and available for sale by Strategic Review #3 (Autumn 1975), while EPT is first mentioned in SR #3, with intended release of mid-July 1975 and available for sale in Strategic Review #4 (Winter 1975). Locking that down, Boot Hill's Foreword is dated May 1st, EPT's Intro is dated July 1st. Yes, that means the old TSR chronology at WotC was inaccurate (and I generally would not consider it a trustworthy source).
I suspect that the reason for the incorrect chronology is that EPT is often called TSR's second RPG (after D&D). But, that's because Boot Hill first edition was mainly a man-to-man war game, with the roleplaying elements only appearing in its 1979 second edition, not because of the chronology. (The main arguments for Boot Hill being an RPG anyway? The individual scale and the optional campaign rules, which can extend play over "several years". I personally count Boot Hill as the second RPG at TSR, but that's a minority view.)
ShannonA (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology Backward