Talk:The Warlock of Firetop Mountain

message: Nice article, interesting read. Some points below (these are just thoughts and I'm not suggesting that all of these need to be addressed, some may be more personal taste).
*Introduction should give a few sentences to explain what a "single-player roleplaying book" is, this is in addition to a link to an article on roleplaying books which should be included. I imagine it's similar to the "pick your own story" books I read as a kid, but an explanation as to how a person is supposed to read/use this book is needed. Skimming the fighting fantasy article I see that TWoFM was the seminal book in this series, more could be said about this. You have the ISBNs inline in the text, I think they would be better in a footnote not to interfere with the flow of the text. All in all, the intro could be three times as long. Also the intro should include a mention of what role TWoFM plays in roleplaying books in general. (It took me some hunting to find Gamebook should be a link to it in the article).
*Creation section needs more context. "Ian wrote the first half, up to the river crossing, which made a convenient hand-over point, and Steve wrote the climax of the adventure" Is this a common practice? Why did they do it this way? Someone rewrote the other half to make it a more consistent style, so was it a good idea to do this way in the first place? There's some inconsistent style refering to people by their first name or second name, common practice is to use full name on first use then only surname thereafter.
*"Although both authors hated this title, after endless debates they..." Strong language here, tone it down a bit (were the debates really endless, how passionately did they hate it). I'm going with the assumption that the references at the end of each paragraph support all the content of the paragraph (I'm not a big fan of citing every word). But any strong language should be completely supported by the source, it's even a good idea to use quotes if the language is strong.
*Mention of references, are references common in works of fiction? This needs to be explained more.
*"It eventually sold over a million copies in fifteen languages." again context is needed here, was it on a best sellers list? Is a million copies more than other books in the series, in the genre?
*I like the story section, nice and short. 
*The rules section could be expanded, to include more detail about how a person is to use the book, comparing and contrasting the book and the series with other works in the genre.
*After the rules section, things start getting a bit listy, but I'm not sure how you will address this.
*The boardgame section has no content. As is, it should probably just be included in the above list of "sequels and other references".
*Note that in the boardgame section you've got two links (in succession) to the same article (the main article link and the [board game] link which should probably link to board game.) Look for other instances of this, otherwise I find the article a bit underlinked. I added some links but I think that more are needed (does everyone know what a warlock is?).
That's everything I can see on this reading, keep up the good work. Mkultra72 14:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review 

message: I've edited out the following because I can't find a source and thus it appears to be original research, possibly penned by Jones himself. The emphasis has been added by me to show the differences with the previous text.
The original cover of the book was designed and illustrated by Peter Andrew Jones. The design of the cover was unusual for the time, in that book covers usually had the title along the top so they could be read on the 'step' shelves found in stores - Jones, however, left room for the title of The Warlock of Firetop Mountain in the middle of the cover, and whilst it has been stated elsewhere that this was "much to the consternation of the publishers" Peter Andrew Jones states that "the exact briefing by Puffin Books was to "do something radical" and I adopted a cover layout often used in the USA at that time but which was unusual in the UK. When the book then became a big seller Puffin later came to regret their original request. I seem to recall I had only about a week to create the image!"
In later printings Puffin used a different, though very similar, cover illustration, also created by Peter Andrew Jones who says "as the original version had to be done very quickly due to a very tight deadline Steve Jackson and I spent a fair bit of time later on deciding how to bring the image in-line with the rest of the series which had reverted to a more traditional layout. This was how and why the 2nd version came into being."
EvilRedEye 11:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed material 

message: I've forgotten to mention the version of this published in Warlock Magazine. Need to do that... EvilRedEye 11:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warlock Adventure 

message: :Image:Ff16puffin.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Ff16puffin.jpg

message: :Image:Ff20puffin.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Ff20puffin.jpg

message: References such as this one are inaccessible because they require membership to the fightingfantasygamebooks.com webpage. Does anyone know if there is material freely accessible to anyone to replace them? Also, a number of references are actually external links that are not directly cited in the text, would anyone mind if they were moved to the External Links section instead?--Boffob (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with references 

message: The article has been revised over the past few days as due to poor grammar, unnecessary fannish micro-detail (e.g. maps), heavy use of opinion, poor use of titles (a strong Publication history covers most everything), a lack of reliable sources and dead links. These articles must strive to be of encyclopedic standard, and not resemble a fan site (the old version). In short, I agree with Mkultra72's comments from 2007. By the by, the board game entry is very light on and really offers nothing, so a mention would suffice.
There is still some work to be put in the article, and extra sources will be added. Retaining the revised structure, however, goes a long way to making the article acceptable. The thing to do here is study all the changes and determine why they have been changed. I'm as much as fan of FF as  the next person, but Wikipedia guidelines have to come first. 125.7.71.6 (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Please remember to use edit summaries, as unexplained edits to remove content or redirect articles are always likely to get reverted as vandalism. Looking at the board game article, I agree that there's not much there source-wise, and it should be covered in the main article. However the two video games are well sourced and fine on their own. Miremare 18:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: On editing, this () was not appropriate. It is a clear breach of Wikipedia:Civility and grounds for first a caution, then a block if the behaviour persists. Please do not do this. There are ways of communicating your concerns with other users.
As to the edit in question, the map was removed as it is essentially trivia (see Wikipedia:Trivia sections) and is only being deemed important by yourself, the edit therefore becoming point of view. Such in-universe additions are fine for a fan page, but not for Wikipedia, where the articles strive to be encyclopedia standard. I am as passionate about Fighting Fantasy as the next person, but realize that the articles must be written in a neutral, factual fashion without any trivial details. The fact that the information was there for months is actually neither here nor there as it is still incorrect and unfortunately no one thought to correct it before now. Many thanks. 125.7.71.6 (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Abuse

message: The infobox for this article (and at least 8 other FF articles) seems to have a problem. "File:" appears in text before the first image and "|frameless|alt=" appears at the start of the article. It appears to be due to the use of "image = {{infobox|child=yes". If this can't be fixed then it needs to be removed. Is the second image really necessary? I don't see many/any other books with 2 images in the infobox. Deagol2 (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to have happened when Frietjes deleted the template "Fightingfantasybook" and substituted the infobox book template last October. Either that or someone else has changed the code for Infobox book since then. Either way, it is better to do without the second picture until someone finds a way to fix it. Richard75 (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Some edits to the infobox code on 4 February are responsible. The page is protected so I have requested that the administrators look into it. Richard75 (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Problem solved, with the assistance of Frietjes. Richard75 (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox format problem 

message: Isn't Citadel of Chaos also a sequel, sort of? The introduction refers to the events of this book. Or maybe that was just some translations, I haven't looked at the English original. Jikybebna (talk) 07:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is set in the same world but is not a sequel. 88.109.94.4 (talk) 09:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a sequel, Return to Firetop Mountain, which is the 50th book in the series. The majority of the Fighting Fantasy books share the same setting, with about ten or so exceptions, so references to events or locations from other titles are common. Justin.Parallax (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sequels 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on The Warlock of Firetop Mountain. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fightingfantasy.com/fffaq.htm#format
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fightingfantasy.com/fffaq.htm#version
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fightingfantasy.com/fffaq.htm#Countries
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion