Talk:Miniature wargaming/Archive 1

message: I added  here today because this is more of an advocacy/how-to guide than an encylopedia article.  See What Wikipedia is not.  The good news is that there's a lot of good encyclopedic information here that can be used to write a good article.  I'd rather see someone familiar with the subject tackle it than to try it myself. Cmprince 04:05, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Can this be done? --Boco XLVII 23:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It should have been tagged a long time ago. Grimhelm 17:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I have taken a crack at this merger. Feel free to edit if appropriate. Scott Mingus 17:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[miniatures game]] 

message: I admit I'm biased (I'm not a wargamer but I am something of a model railroader) but I really dislike this sentence:
:Miniature wargaming may be seen as combining many of the aesthetics of tabletop train modeling with the more cerebral factors of wargame strategy.
Model railroading isn't necessarily just watching a train go in circles. Some model railroaders simulate the operation of real railroads to a frightening level of detail, which requires a lot of thought. Even for more casual hobbyists, keeping multiple trains from colliding is a very cerebral activity, whether it's done manually or with fancy wiring or electronics.
So I'm going to try to NPOV this sentence but if anyone prefers a different way, please feel free to change it. Both hobbies have learned a lot from the other, and each still has a lot they could learn from the other. Dave Farquhar 14:05, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: There is negligible discussion of the role of naval miniatures wargaming, and no mention of notables in the area such as Fred T Jane and Fletcher Pratt.  This strike me as a major omission.
In addition, the comments on 'most popular rulesets" look suspicious.  Surely and description of 'most popular' would require an indication of reference date, as this can change over years, and in addition the article mentions at least one ruleset that I have never heard of, and I pay a lot of attention to what is out there in terms of rulesets!
Brooksindy (not clear on how to add other things to signature, is it automatically done?  Guess I will see...)
: Signing your comments is done by putting three or four tildes '~' in a row. Also, you should have a row of buttons along the top of the editing box, the third from the right does this for you. :)
: You have very good points. Why not be bold and write up something on them. I know what you're talking about, but I don't think I could easily manage much more than a sentence apiece, so I'd rather defer to someone who sounds a bit more passionate on the subject. :D
: One thought on 'popular rulesets' is to stick with 'long-term popularity', i.e., those that have withstood the test of time. Now defining that may still be a problem.... --Rindis 23:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large gap - Naval wargaming 

message: "Additionally, there is no risk of photosensitive seizures or other similar risks that you can get from playing computer games."
This is a ludicrous claim for motivations behind miniature wargaming. Most wargamers have considerably more concrete reasons for their hobby than that. --Agamemnon2 04:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: errr... yes, I agree. Reading that statement gave me a bit of a shock, I'd never even considered it. Wonder if this is even an overly common reason as to why people would not play computer games? (let alone change over to wargaming because of that) Anyway... I'll remove that sentance. Mathmo 13:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "No risk of photosensitive seizures"

message: You mean the copyright violation that uses the GW minis???
What happened to the picture of the Uruk-hai Battering Ram that used to be at the top of this article? Grimhelm 16:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article also needs a better amount of images in general. Grimhelm 17:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Uruk Battering Ram?

message: As was mentioned in the naval wargaming discussion above, some of the rulesets look suspect. Now I'm not going to change it myself because outside my periods of interest I'll admit there are likely to be rules I haven't even heard off. Plus I don't know what things are like all over the world, something unpopular here might be heavily used on the other side of the rule. Most people will be like me in not having enough knowledge (due to as I said location & periods of interest) to completely write this up themselves, and even if there is somebody here who could... we probably couldn't have enough people with the same experience to verify that (hence nothing stopping us from disagreeing with such an 'expert', because there is nobody else backing it up etc..). 
Anyway.... getting around to the point I'm making which is together we have enough experience, so what we should do is go ahead and vote on the copy of the listing I made below. From this we should be able to determine what ones are "popular" (lets include in historical sense too, such as WRG 6th edition. I include ones that may not be popular where I am, but I know to be popular elsewhere). I'm probably using a fairly low threshold for "popular", becausing wargaming is very small so you can hardly have millions of people playing a ruleset (but for me I'd regard as a couple of things for a ruleset to be popular is that it either has to be etremely popular in a large region (say a country) or is played all over the world). Put an 'H' uder those you have heard of (under the realising that probably even if a ruleset is not popular where you are, if it is popular on a global sense you have most likely at least heard of it) and a 'P' if you believe it is (in your experience) popular (or significant) enough to be mentioned. Once we have cut back and worked out the list we should then come up with a similar voting procedure for any new ones to be put on the list (the exact voting requirements will be more clear after the first voted draft has been made).
To recap:
* H for heard of
* S for significant (if it is significant you have heard of it)
* P for popular (if it is popular it is significant)
Remember to sign you name with four (or three) of these '~'.
Sooo... follow my example below.... Mathmo 14:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I recommend you change them as you see fit. Some of them don't even have articles, and either way, the full list (incuding the less popular ones) can be kept in List of Miniature Wargames. Grimhelm 16:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular rulesets

message: The main wargaming page got an info dump on the 'International Wargames Federation' in the miniatures section the other day. It looks legit enough, and indeed only interested in the miniatures side of the hobby. Could someone take a look over the section (new text is from the third paragraph to the end of the section) and probably start a new page for this? I can do it myself, but I'm hoping for someone who can more accurately judge comments like 'international controlling body'. --Rindis 17:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay I've given the International Wargames Federation its own page, toned it down a little, and given it a link under 'see also' here. It occurs to me that we need a 'wargaming organizations' category/page that would be more appropriate. Or is there one I haven't noticed yet? --Rindis 18:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Wargames Federation 

message: I specialise in painting 15mm historical miniatures and would like to enquire if it would be possible to add my link to the Painting Section?  My website can be found at www.mount-and-blade.co.uk  I look forward to hearing from you.  Kind regards, Maria Cannella Mount and blade 18:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're actually in the process of removing links from this article. An article like this should have a bare handful of links, not the monstrous section that it currently has. If you look at our External links guideline, you might understand the trouble. With such a general topic as this, it's inappropriate for Wikipedia to promote very specific people, groups, services, or companies. To be fair we'd have to include everyone, and that would turn us into a web links directory (which would violate our policy about What Wikipedia is not). Thank you for asking so nicely though, it saves us the trouble of fighting over the link. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: PS, you might consider submitting your link to the Open Directory Project, which you can find at http://www.dmoz.org/ . — Saxifrage ✎ 21:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Painting Service 

message: I just did a major edit, and the diffs might be hard to follow. In summary, my edit:
*converted the external links list of manufacturers into an internal list
*removed the list of miniature wargames which was redundant with List of miniature wargames
**moved the See Also from the rulesets section to the See Also section, as it was no longer attached to the removed list
*removed the painting service section as a being clearly against WP:NOT (a web or business directory)
*rearranged sections so that prose information preceeded all the list information
*copyedited headings and links to follow WP:TITLE and other Manual of Style guidelines (i.e., using sentence case, not title case)
I hope these changes are uncontroversial and are seen to improve the article. I think the External Links section needs badly to be trimmed still, since a screenful of fansites is very much against Wikipedia:External links. Perhaps we can remove them all, since we are linking to two web directories? The list of sites is probably redundant with what the web directories already provide our readers. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You accidentally removed the infobox at the bottom, the article categories and the links to other language editions of this article. I have restored these, but of course left out the extra links. --Grimhelm 17:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm only human and therfore fallible, so I avoided saying we must. Many of those might be salvageable as good links apart from them being fansites. If people are okay with the lot of them going poof though, I'm not going to object! — Saxifrage ✎ 00:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major reorganisation and edit