Talk:Top Secret (role-playing game)

message: In the Top Secret/SI section, the description of EVERY supplement is a copyvio of the text on the back of the book in question, not to mention that it all reads like ad-copy (which could have something to do with the fact that it is ad-copy).  Plus, half of them use second person ("you"), which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia.  I'll fix what I can, but I don't have most of these books, and don't really know what's in them. — Wwagner 15:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this and I'd like to assist where I'm able. Jeffrywith1e 22:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My vote is to remove the entire section.  Long lists of available books are probably unencyclopedic per "indiscriminate collections of information". Percy Snoodle 11:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The list has value - this isn't a list of indiscriminate information, but books directly related to the topic of the article.  I had the thought that this might work better as a pseudo-bibliography, so I removed all the descriptions, copyvio or not, and changed all the entries to have the title, author, pub date, and ISBN number.  I was unable to find an author for two, and the publication date for one.  But I think it works much better in this format.  If somebody really wants to have descriptions, they can write a separate article detailing the book in question. — Wwagner 16:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio 

message: The current list of supplements are from the TS:SI era.  There were some supplements/modules released for the Rasmussen game, IIRC. 4.232.129.226 22:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there were.  I just added several, including some that were published in Dragon.  Filling in the missing info (ISBNs and pub dates) is left as an exercise for somebody else. — Wwagner 02:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differentiating TS vs. SI supplements 

message: I'm not entirely sure why the unencyclopedic list tags are on this article.  Aren't the books and other items published for the game, part of the game?  Shouldn't parts of the game under discussion be noted?  Another way of looking at it:  most D&D modules have their own article, and there's a very long article just for the list of those modules, but somehow such a list, even if it's quite short and contained in the main article for the game, is "unencyclopedic" when applied to Top Secret?  Can anybody offer some reasonable sort of rationale why these tags should stay (or the lists of Top Secret game books and other publications should go)? — Wwagner 14:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the tag should be removed. Jeffrywith1e 15:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unencyclopedic" lists 

message: For some strange reason, I'm unable to save any changes to this article. But quite a bit of the article is written in the form of a game review and should be deleted. (This isn't the place to discuss the merits of a simple combat system, for example.) Is anyone else having problems editing this article? I can edit other articles just fine. Rray 20:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, reading back through the article, you're absolutely right.  It's not very good.  Hmmm, let's see what we can do here. — Wwagner 23:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unencyclopedic content