Talk:Junta (game)

OMFG

• OMFG! Asdfwiki, you rock! If this page ever gets nominated for FA, let me know and I'll vote for it (In case you can't tell, this is one of my favorite games) Palm_Dogg 07:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

GA

I listed it as a Good Article, although it still needs a little format (header caps) and citation work. Keep up the good work!Deckiller 23:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixed the header caps. Most of the citations refer to the rulebook which is listed. Savidan 03:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Rules as copyrighted

I reverted the user who felt it was a copyright violation to describe the rules. This is like saying its a copyright violation to describe the plot of a book. Look in monopoly (game) which I believe is featured if you want proof. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 21:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Juntabox2.jpg

Image:Juntabox2.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 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 05:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Juntabox.jpg

Image:Juntabox.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 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 05:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Junta presidente.jpg

Image:Junta presidente.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 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 05:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Juntabox2.jpg

Image:Juntabox2.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 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 05:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Juntabox.jpg

Image:Juntabox.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 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 05:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Junta presidente.jpg

Image:Junta presidente.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 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 05:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

First Rebel

So I guess there are not really any negative consequences that accrue to the First Rebel other than that, for all he knows, he might end up being the only rebel, and thus get slaughtered in the coup attempt? Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is a pretty large handicap. Having played the game several times, I've seen enthusiastic co-rebels suddenly turning pro-junta at the end of even militarily successful coups - leaving First Rebel to hang (well, probably get shot, actually). Remember: Even if El Presidente's forces are defeated the coup may still fail if there ends up being a pro-junta majority vote.

On another note, while El Presidente can only choose to execute declared rebels (those who either simply choose to turn rebels, or fire on El Presidente's forces), a successful coup allows new (rebel elected) President to execute ANY ONE PLAYER, even one of his fellow rebels (the revolution devouring its young, you know). This quirk can be quite important when deciding who to support after a coup.

So yes, starting a coup is a quite a gamble, but of course not without its upsides ;-)

Mojowiha (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Cards

So, are we allowed to show a picture of the cards, now that Betacommandbot's reign of terror is over? Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Even under "Betacommandbot's reign of terror" you could as long as it was done in a way that didnt violate copyright and did meet Wikipedia's fair use guidelines. Those facts still apply. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not exactly clear what more those responsible for the deletions expected in the way of fair use justifications. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been on Wikipedia long enough to know the fair use criteria, so please quit assuming that I haven't bothered to click the links. The issue is that people will look at an image, see that it's obviously a fair use, and delete it anyway. And they do it en masse, all over Wikipedia – it seems like the burden of proof should be on the deleter to show that it's not a fair use. If someone quotes a paragraph from a novel we don't immediately tag it and say "Hey, you need to justify that this is fair use, or we're going to remove it in 7 days!" So why do we treat images that way? Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 12:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Combat strength of police

It is incorrect to say that the combat strength of the police leaves much to be desired (except to the extent that desires are unlimited); the police have as much strength as any other armed unit. Simultaneous movement (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Point taken and unsourced analysis removed. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Simultaneous action selection?

I seem to recall somewhere reading that originally, movements in Junta coups were supposed to be done via simultaneous action selection (i.e., each player secretly writes down where they want to move their units and then the movements are simultaneously revealed and executed). That doesn't appear to have made it into the rules, though. Does that ring a bell for anyone? Or am I just smoking crack?

Maybe it's one of those things that, like the negotiation variant of Imperial, reflected the designer's original intent and might have been really cool but was dropped for expediency's sake. It does seem that the separate movement and combat segments of each combat phase would lend themselves well to SAS, since you don't have to worry about, for instance, the 1st Army attacking the 2nd Army in the Wealthy Neighborhood at the same time as the 2nd Army is moving out of that neighborhood. Movements could be made simultaneously, and then combat could be conducted in turn order (presumably starting with the First Rebel during the Rebel Phase, and moving clockwise). Simultaneous movement (talk) 04:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Weakness of the admiral, etc.

It's pretty much common knowledge that the admiral is the weakest character. He has only one unit, and unlike the air force commander, he can't drop it anywhere on the board (it has to start in a region adjacent to the river). Yet, because there aren't a lot of what Wikipedia considers reliable sources on this game, we can't really say anything about it beyond what is explicitly said in the rules, and therefore the commentary on the admiral has to go. No original research is one thing, but is it really original research to say what everyone who's played this game knows, and what many people have blogged and posted about? I think this policy is going to be an Achilles heel for Wikipedia more and more as blogs, forums, etc. become a predominant form of communication and newspapers, etc. continue to decline in importance. Simultaneous movement (talk) 03:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Opportunity to organize a police-led rabble equal in strength to an army brigade

What's the deal with removal of this content? Is the truthfulness disputed, or just the verifiability through reliable sources? It seems to me that 4 police, accompanied by, say, 5 red units, is approximately equal in strength to an army brigade, because each unarmed unit counts as half an armed unit, which would cause the force to attack with 6 dice offensively (the extra 1/2 unit being rounded down); plus the red units would be able to soak up a lot of damage, since the defender can choose which units from his stack he wants to lose. Moreover, if the force were to become armed (through a card to that effect being played), it could become even stronger than an army brigade. An army brigade is 6 armed units. Thus, I think just from looking at the rules and cards, it's pretty evident empirically that the statement is correct. The blog entry just sums these matters up and is provided for convenience. Simultaneous movement (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Judgements of strenghts and weakness and equivanlent power are all analysis that needs to come from a published 3rd party source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Publishing "is the process of production and dissemination of literature or information – the activity of making information available for public view. In some cases authors may be their own publishers, meaning: originators and developers of content also provide media to deliver and display the content." Thus, a blog is a published source. As for third party - what does that mean? Who are the first and second parties? And as for analysis - does that basically mean, if we have a source that says that "Bill Gates has $62 billion" and "Warren Buffet has $58 billion," then we can't say, "Bill Gates has more money than Warren Buffet," because that's analytic/synthetic/interpretive/explanatory/evaluative? Because that's basically analogous to the situation here. Simultaneous movement (talk) 02:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Junta (game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: Delisted

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I believe the article currently has multiple issues that need to be addressed, and as a result, I have delisted the article. Although several references are listed, there are no inline citations for the article's content which is required under the criteria. Add additional citations from a variety of sources to provide a balanced representation of the information present. Perhaps sources can be pulled from the main articles linked to within the article. Look to books, magazines, newspaper articles, other websites, etc. The majority of the article is about the gameplay but its impact in other areas should also be mentioned. In the board/table games WikiProject, the structure recommends a brief mention of the rules, so it would be best to try and trim it down some and focus on other aspects for inclusion in the article. Look to other similar articles for ideas. Although the article has been delisted, the article can be return to GA status by addressing the above points. Once sources are added and cleanup is done, I recommend renominating the article at WP:GAN. If you need assistance with any of these issues, please contact me on my talk page and I'll do my best to help you out. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)