Talk:Top Secret (role-playing game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Role-playing games (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Role-playing games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of role-playing games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Merge[edit]

I don't think that, between them, Top Secret (role-playing game) and Top Secret S/I will have enough content for two articles, or that the games are notable enough in their own right to justify two articles. Percy Snoodle 15:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Support merge. GRuban 19:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I also support merge. Jimmylogan0916 05:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I vote for this as well. Huwmanbeing
Support, too. I'll add infoboxes out for both though and we can decide then whether to merge those two, too, or whether the games are different enough to get two boxes, like Bunnies and Burrows -- Genesis 21:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio[edit]

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)

I support this and I'd like to assist where I'm able. Jeffrywith1e 22:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

Differentiating TS vs. SI supplements[edit]

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)

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)

"Unencyclopedic" lists[edit]

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)

I think the tag should be removed. Jeffrywith1e 15:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic content[edit]

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)

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)