Talk:Traveller (role-playing game)

message: Would it be worth mentioning the two video games, MegaTraveller 1: The Zhodani Conspiracy and MegaTraveller 2: Quest for the Ancients? Pseudo Intellectual 06:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Traveller is supposedly the framework for the Firefly tv series by Joss Whedon. see http://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/13668/is-the-firefly-tv-series-based-on-joss-whedons-game-of-traveller 72.181.182.218 (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting article you linked to. If we could find a reliable source related to this, it would make a nice addition to the article. Rray (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's reliable enough for its purpose. It isn't intended as a reference to anything else, it simply is a laying out of the argument in favor of the proposition that Firefly is based on Traveller. As long as we note here that this is supposition and the reference presents the facts, it seems like we include the important information ("this is widely understood to be the most likely case, though for some reason the series creator has chosen to remain obscure about it") while also not actually endorsing it. The facts are available and relevant, they belong in the article. Whateley23 (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Message board posts are not reliable sources. There is no reason to believe this isn't some fan theory with no validity. It absolutely doesn't belong in the article. oknazevad (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: greetings  removing all of the changes was a step too far. there were legitimate changes in that set. —¿philoserf? (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Redundant tags and removal of a key setting aspect based on an old spurious tag are not needed. oknazevad (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I was interested in the replacement of the word three with the word more. I found that to be an improvement. it too got whipped away. —¿philoserf? (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

text: But I see you found that. I had a note to come back tomorrow when this was in the past. —¿philoserf? (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traveller in other media 

message: I have set up a wiki just for traveller at Wikicities. I don't see that wikipedia is a place for all the minutae of traveller. Also I am trying to set up a Ship's Library type search resourse. Please feel free to come on over and add content. Dcorrin 19:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that wiki no longer exists. However, Traveller now has a robust fan-maintained wiki at https://wiki.travellerrpg.com/ which has already been linked from this article. Winged Cat (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traveller Wiki 

message: This currently resides here if someone wants to incorporate a link: http://www.2000ad.org/markus/travellers/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.154.240.195 (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mark Harrison's Travellers 

message: Regarding this edit and use of :Template:over detailed .. I don't edit war and won't revert, but the tag is not justified. It's hard to imagine an article about this game not containing a lot of detail about the game which happens to be fairly detailed. Compared with Featured article Dungeons and Dragons. The only thing one might say is the article is a kind of listy with too many bullet points but that's easily fixed just remove the '*' -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over detailed 

message: Is there any sourcebooks with magic for this or is it pure scifi? Ranze (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch!  Psionics is dealt with in the core rules.  I'll add the note. Washi (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Magic

message: I think CE is close enough to Traveller to warrant a mention.  I'll put it under the "related rules" section. Washi (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cepheus Engine? 

message: Added back after edit warring to remove it from a sockpuppet. Album has as much right to be hear as any other spin offs (video game etc.) and this sort if thing is normal on a mixed media article like this for approved and licensed products. Primary connection trivia is a made up police by edit warring sockpuppets. Canterbury Tail talk 15:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album 

message: Unfortunately, ideological opinions that aren't supportable from the actual materials have crept in here. The first example I've seen that brings this up is the idea that "capitalism is the major driving force of civilization" is part of a central theme, which is directly contradicted by, for example, the Hivers alien module, the economic model in the Planet Tamer's Handbook for TNE, and numerous other elements of both the official Traveller Universe and various iterations of the rules. This nonsense needs to be cleaned out in favor of a NPOV, but that's a big project in an article of this length, and I was burned out long ago on Wikiedit wars. Even beyond the obviously ideological, there are many, many statements of fact that are not supported by reference to any outside source. I'm surprised that someone allowed this article to be rated "B", or perhaps it's been altered for the worse since that rating. Whateley23 (talk) 07:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling a generalization of a fictional universe "ideological" when there's no evidence that the authors have any ideological motive is itself ideological. That is the true issue. Plus, as I said in my edit summary, the existence of some in-universe exceptions doesn't mean the broader generalization is unsupported or original research. It just means that there's exceptions. Maybe those should be noted, which would be fine. But to say that the article is pushing some sort of ideology because its summary is very broad and generalized is reading into it far more than is actually there. oknazevad (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the true issue is that there are multiple issues with this article. Sorry that I picked the first one I noticed and titled the talk section here after that, but there are numerous instances of original research here, as evidenced by the lack of supporting footnotes in several sections. I see from the history that these issues go back years in this article, and that previous calls to fix them have also been swept away by various editors. For example, the "Adventures" section is entirely original research with not one footnote supporting the taxonomy proposed nor any indication as to how this structure is unique to the topic of the article. Back in April of 2015, there was a flag to support the material that was swept away without any attempt to address it when an editor reformatted the section. Stop fixating on one issue that you disagree with for whatever reason (but still don't want to support with a footnote; and of course that whole "Key Features" section is completely original research as well) and look at the state of the whole article. It's terrible. Whateley23 (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

text: If you used the proper  tag then it would have made more sense. The OR template is for issues of people using Wikipedia to publish original thought, not for marking insufficient sourcing. oknazevad (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Are you asserting that the extensive section on types of adventures and the section categorizing key themes (among others) are not original research? From what source were they taken? They are not found in those forms in the game materials, and I am not aware of them being common knowledge found in multiple sources. They are clearly original thoughts published by an editor at some point in the past. If someone wants to keep them here, then they should be sourced. If they can't be, they should be removed or replaced with material that can be properly sourced. Whateley23 (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree they need to be better sourced. They do jibe with my (admittedly limited) knowledge of the game universe, so I wouldn't call them original research. It's not original research to put a summary in ones own words; in fact not doing that is a copyvio. But referenced they need to be. oknazevad (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't say that my knowledge of the game and the default setting are unlimited, but as I noted from the beginning there are (were) statements in the article that directly contradicted statements made in various game materials, so they do not jibe with the actually published game. Whateley23 (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideology 

message: It's been a week with no attempts to resolve the marked issues, so I've boldly chosen to simply remove the worst offenses. If someone wants the "Adventures" section back, they can find a source and use that as the basis for a new one, but the section that had been there showed every sign of being someone's personal taxonomy of adventure types. As such, it wasn't even particularly related to the subject of this article. I'm also eyeing the entire "Key features" section even though I've just made some cuts and adjustments. Again, it has every appearance of being someone's personal theory. There's still more to work on here. Whateley23 (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I support your efforts in this area. It's been on my list of things to do for multiple years, along with a rewrite of BattleTech, but I've obviously never gotten around to it. Since I own approximately 95% of all Traveller material published, I can help if you need sources for particular items. Canterbury Tail talk 23:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

text: I too agree with ditching the Adventures section. That was pretty clearly unsourced analysis. The only part you removed that I'd re-add, albeit rewritten, is the part about in-game rewards being material, that is equipment, as opposed to more abstract rewards like experience points, as that speaks to game mechanics as much, if not more, than setting. A rewrite to avoid the use of economic terms, which aren't appropriate anyway, is definitely needed, though. oknazevad (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starting To Work