Talk:List of miniature wargames

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Board and table games (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Main article[edit]

Some time in the future when there are more it will probably become a very good idea to list them according to period. Mathmo 06:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

A good idea, but first we need to decide which ones to remove from the main article. Grimhelm 17:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Not sure about this, but I agree with whoever removed the "Popular" rule sets from the main article since such category is quite subjective. Perhaps dividing this list in "live" and "old" could do some good, but that would also raise some issues regarding what is "live" and what "old". 17:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

List maintenance[edit]

Forgive me if I'm doing this incorrectly. This is my first posting after creating my account a few moments ago.

I would love to help edit the list of wargame rules. I am perplexed by what constitutes a "keeper" set versus which get deleted, and why. Also, I note that some of these rules have links that take the user off Wiki and directly to the manufacturer's site. I was under the impression that a rule set should link to an article which describes those rules in factual (rather than sales) terms, and not to the commercial site. Am I mistaken? SeattleGamer 07:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just going to mention that. Would it be a good thing to go through this list and "sanitize" a little, removing at least the external links? Roryhinnen 16:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So, how about sanitizing these off-wiki links, then? Would there be any problem with starting that as a first step to regularizing the list? Comments? Roryhinnen 17:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That's probably the best place to start. As pointed out in the comments below, ideally we (or whomever does this) can check to see if an article exists for a ruleset, or if the blue link indeed points to an article for the corresponding game. If no article exists, it's best just to remove the external link (otherwise we'll have lots of red links). I can try to help with this too, so it need not be an all-at-once job. Craw-daddy 17:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, rereading the note below, I noticed the suggestion of having redlinks for the games. Don't know what would be best, redlinks or no links. Craw-daddy 17:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

My opinion would be no-links, personally. When I was new to wiki (about 48 hours ago), I found the red-links really confusing. It's great if we plan on writing an article for each game, but that's a bit beyond me at this point in time. I'd vote for initially just removing the external link, and leaving it without a link. YMMV. Roryhinnen 17:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've started going through the list and trying to regularize the information. I figure I'll just chip away at it for a while, and get through it eventually. I'm running into some problems with the following entries however:

  • Alvearian Crusades - I can't find any thing about this game - most of the google links point to this wiki page.
  • American Battlelines - No information
  • Armati & Advanced Armati - Okay, I'm inclined to list these as one game. There's no "publisher" per se, it's available for free on the internet.
  • Age of Musket - Another free set, covers a range - On second thought, I'm going to go back and do the best I can with this one, fix it if you don't like it.

My inclination at this point is to remove Avearian Crusades & American Battlelines, but I'll leave them in there for now. If anyone knows anything about these games, it would be great if you could update them or mention something on this page. Roryhinnen 17:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I also question the graphic for MJ12's game conveniently next to the listing. I'm thinking that graphic should show up on the MJ12 page. I don't have a problem with the "Chainmail" rule picture, because a) it's not a ruleset you can buy anymore, and b) it's a fairly pivotal ruleset IMO, being the beginning of D&D.Roryhinnen 17:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Another question, looking for comments - Chivalry and Sorcery is listed as a wargame, but to my knowledge this is more of a role playing game. Any opinions on removing it from the listing? Roryhinnen 17:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Two more questionable games:

  • Combat: WWII
  • Combat: American Civil War

I can't find anything after a quick search except wikipedia entries on these games. Unless I hear something else, I'd favor removing them. Roryhinnen 17:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've been able to find a lot of information regarding publishers and published dates on Roryhinnen 21:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

How about those graphics? I'm not real comfortable with "The Lord of the Rings" rulebook, "For the Masses", "Full Thrust" & "Warhammer Ancient Battles". All of them feel a little aggresively like advertisements. I don't have any problem with "Chainmail", the Blitzkrieg picture or "Tractics" rulesbooks, because they are either older, out-of-print games or generic enough not to promote any one game over the others. Any comments? Can we remove the first three? Roryhinnen 19:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would tend to leave the pictures in. Or, if you like, we could find some pictures for other "more generic" games. I think, as is, the list could use a few more pictures. I certainly have not idea who originally inserted the pictures (or maybe I just don't have the stomach to scroll through the history to see if I could figure this out). Maybe for a bit of balance we could replace one of "The Lord of the Rings" or "Warhammer Ancients" (as they're both GW products). But in any event I still think it's encyclopedic to include pictures of rulebooks, and barring other options at the moment I would leave them in. Craw-daddy 20:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind pictures, per se, but those four just feel a little weighted. I'd love to throw in a picture for "Iron Stars", because I really like the game, but that seems wrong. That's why I'm suggesting those four be removed. It would be great to get more pictures in there, though.
If I'm the only one who objects, I'll gladly drop the subject. Roryhinnen 20:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
If you're going to disallow pictures disallow all pictures of rules, you can't just pick which ones you like or don't like, if they're in the list, they should have pictures, whether they "feel" like advertisement or not. Frankly I'd be more inlined to leave Full Thrust in than WAB. Furthermore, why did you remove Aces at Dawn and at the same time kept For the Masses? It seems like you're selecting which images "Feel" like adverts and which ones don't based on on some unspecified criteria.
Additionally, you might do a quick search on rpgnow for "Chainmail", available for 4.95 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tablegamer (talkcontribs) 00:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC).
I would prefer to see images of all the game covers included myself. Regardless of "feel". Tablegamer
I removed Aces at Dawn because I had gotten to that part of the list. I hadn't removed For the Masses, LOTR or Full Thrust because I hadn't worked my way down the list that far. Sorry, I'm slow. I mentioned this on this talk page on 24 April. If you want them back, please feel free to add them back. I believe I've been outvoted on the issue of graphics, and I'm not going to remove them again.
I picked on Aces at Dawn, For the Masses, LOTR, WAB & Full Thrust for the following reasons:
  1. All of them are currently available rulesets.
  2. All of them are relatively recent.
  3. All of those graphics can actually be found on the websites for the publishers of those rulesets.
I didn't pick on Chainmail because as a ruleset it actually plays a rather pivotal role in the development of gaming, the inspiration for D&D. Tractis is also pretty well recognized as being rather pivotal. The image for Blitzkrieg Commander is pretty generic. Again, I brought this up on the 24th, so I'm sorry it was a surprise for you.
So, to sum up, if you want them, put them back in, I won't bother them. I've been outvoted on the issue of the graphics, and I'm glad to accept that. Roryhinnen 21:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Jim, I didn't realize Tablegamer was you. Again, I'm sorry that my deletion took you by surprise, but I wasn't targeting you. I really wanted to delete most of them, and I got too eager. Please note, however, that I mentioned this on your user talk page on the 22nd of April. (User_talk:Tablegamer) Roryhinnen 21:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:COI. By my interpretation here, if you're the creator of these games Tablegamer there's probably no problem just adding them to the list but adding images might be pushing the bounds of WP:COI. Craw-daddy 13:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, I'm bowing out of the conversation now, as even talking about it is apparently a conflict of interest, so rather than make a COI issue out of it, I will let other people decide.
sorry to bother you all, I'm still a wikin00bi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tablegamer (talkcontribs) 16:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Chivalry and Sorcery as a wargame. C&S 1st edition included a set figure wargames rules in the first edition, and in one of the expansions in the second. It also had "paper and pencil" battle resolution systems. However both of these are out of print, but they are wargames and I've gamed with them62.25.109.197 16:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC) Didn't sign in Hurcheon 16:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

List Organization[edit]

What about organization? Period is one idea, current vs. non-supported is another. I'm thinking genre, myself. What about this as a quick list (I'm sure I'm missing something:

  • Historical (games that are purely historical)
  • Modern (games that are concerned with current combat)
  • Fantasy (games that are fatastical)
  • Science Fiction (games that are 'futuristic' - I might include some fantasy elements here, like Iron Stars or Space: 1889)

Maybe that could be the broad seperators, and then do some sorting within those parameters (WWI, WWI, Naval, Ancients, etc., might all be subcategories of Historical).

This might be a big project, and contentious. Roryhinnen 16:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The four general genres sound like a good place to start, although "Modern" and "historical" could be lumped together for now. --Grimhelm 20:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Although, Science Fiction and Fantasy could also be lumped into a single heading with the same logic - both are concerning themselves with with scenarios that do not exist in nature. ;-)
So what if we start with the two distinctions, and then further subdivide those:
  • Historical
  • Ancient - I figure up until the dark ages roughly
  • Old - up to renaissance
  • Not so old - Up to the 20th century
  • Recent - 20th century to modern
  • Fantastic (this is going to get slippery, hold on)
  • High Fantasy (Magic, elves, cloaks and wizards - Warhammer sort of stuff)
  • Fantasy (Victorian Science Fiction, soft science fiction - Aeronef & 40k)
  • Hard Science fiction (Star Fleet battles (if that don't start a fight, I don't know my wargame geeks), Attack Vector, et. al)
Roryhinnen 21:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it would be good to consider creating a separate list. I know, for example, with regard to role-playing games there are two lists, name a List of role-playing games by name and a List of role-playing games by genre. Of course, this means that if someone wants to add a new game, then they should add it to both. This isn't an ideal situation. In a perfect world we'd have some system that would involve adding a game to one list, together with some keys/template/marker that would then automatically add the game to the other list (say, the "genre" list). I don't know of any sort of system like that here on Wikipedia. Anyhow, I certainly agree that sorting the list by genre can end up being a giant mess, and contentious to some people. Craw-daddy 21:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I sure wouldn't want to split up the list. I mean, it's all text, if you'd rather see it alphabetic, then copy, paste and run it through sort. Viola! Roryhinnen 21:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
instead of "split up", I should have said "generate an alternate".Roryhinnen 22:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you're misinterpreting what I mean... I think that the two lists of role-playing games are essentially the same, it's just that one of them is organized alphabetically, and the other is organized by genre. I'm suggesting that a similar thing could be done with regards to miniature games. It's just that doing so has the drawback of now dealing with two lists (so updating one would require updating another, at least to keep them synchronized). Don't know if that's what we'd want to start doing here. Craw-daddy 22:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I got you. It just seems a bit wasted effort. Ordering the list by genre is actually adding some extra information to the list (which is why we're going to end up arguing about it). Ordering the list alphabetically (or having a second list that is organized alphabetically) doesn't contribute any more information to the process in my opinion, it's just a mechanical listing of the information. Plus we've got two lists to maintain, as you pointed out. It just doesn't seem really useful to me. Roryhinnen 22:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
If you go with organizing by historical genre, the list of board wargames might be a good model to start your high-level deliberations. --Rindis 23:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Love it! Any time I can use someone else's labor! I vote we adopt it wholesale (but then, I'm lazy). Roryhinnen 23:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, some pieces you'll want to throw out (the scale splits that are in the bigger topics - not generally that kind of range of scales in miniatures). Feel free to ask why certain things are the way they are, not all of it is immediately obvious, and not all of it is perfect anyway. Also, if you want to start giving the type of publishing info it is, see the Talk page to see how that's supposed to work. ^_^ --Rindis 23:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

How about this for a summary of the list of board wargames.

  • Ancients
  • Early Middle Ages
  • Middle Ages
  • Early Modern
  • American Civil War
  • Industrial
  • WWI
  • WWII
  • Modern
  • Other Historical/Alternate History
  • Science Fiction
  • Fantasy

I would also suggest we co-opt the naming format they've accepted there, and I quote:

The basic format I'm using is: bullet, title, parentheses, publisher name, comma, date, close parentheses.
The title should be italicized (as it is a title), and linked (even red-linked) to the article for the game. Blue links should be checked to make sure they aren't going to an article by the same name for something else, and disambiguated if necessary. Whether to include a subtitle is optional, but I'm tending towards it, as it is a good disambiguation measure. If a series has an article, but the individual games do not, go ahead and link games in that series to the series article.
The publisher name should be linked under the same conditions as a title. The date should be linked to the year in games page for that year. Most of these are not significant enough to be mentioned in the main year articles, but should someday be populated into the 'year in game' articles, so we link there.

Any comments? I think this would add a lot of value to the list of Minature Wargames. Roryhinnen 17:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Good start to tidying up the list, but perhaps before more is done, we should consider breaking up the list by category. As is, we're losing a bit of the info that could otherwise be used to sort the list by genre. Then we can work on updating it to have designer/date info. Craw-daddy 17:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, and then I realized that I can always go back to the old list and use that when setting up the divisions. But, if someone wants to jump in and set up that stuff, glad to have it done. Should we have the article in a "work-in-progress" state, with part of it seperated alphabetically and part of it set up in divisions? Roryhinnen 19:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I've done exactly that. I added a new category for Brikwars (Abstract), since that seemed appropriate. If you have a better idea, go for it. I've only re-organized the listings that I've previously edited. Let me know if you're not happy.

Oh, and the entries that I'm suggesting we remove I've left in alphabetic - Those are:

  • Alvearian Crusades
  • American Battlelines
  • Combat: WWII
  • Combat: American Civil WarRoryhinnen 20:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

One further thought that I just had... should we really remove information about the era/period/etc that a game is covering? If this is intended to be encyclopedic shouldn't we actually leave that in there? I mean if someone wanted to know that game XXX covered WWII or WWI or whatever, they'd have that information here in the list, rather than having to look it up themselves. Just an idea... I certainly support adding the designer/year (first?) published, but maybe we should keep the othe infor there too. Craw-daddy 20:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, just noticed the categories that you've added. So for those that fall under American Civil War (for example) or some other narrowly defined category, then we obviously don't need to keep period info, but, say for the Other Historical category it would likely be good to keep it. Craw-daddy 20:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

For games that have had several editions (like Warhammer, Flames of War, etc) are we putting in the date of the first edition, or of the latest edition? Or all editions?  :P I was using the date of the first edition for a couple of games that I came across in the list. Craw-daddy 09:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at Talk:List of board wargames, I pondered some of the same questions there. I eventually decided to go with first printing date per publisher. Basically, I wanted to list all the different publishers some games had gone through, and I gave the year when each company first printed it as historical info. At the same time, major changes per edition are more common in miniatures games, so that isn't necessarily the correct answer here. --Rindis 15:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Would superhero miniature games go under 'Fantasy' or 'Science Fiction'? I'm not sure which I'd choose. Craw-daddy 12:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

o.0 Now there's something I haven't had to worry about... There's really miniatures games (as opposed to RPGs) for superheroes? Oh, right, HeroClix. Hmm, and there's probably only that and a couple other, so you can't really give it it's own category.... One thought is to have 'Fiction' as a category that contains SF & F, and things that don't fit either can go directly under that. (Kind of how the historical eras are mostly set up.) At the same time Abstract can probably go into 'Fiction' (since there's only one here), and Alternate History can be a sub-section of Fiction too, while "Other Historical" (which there aren't any here - I have that in the board wargame list because of a SPI title that goes from ancients to the 15th century... argh) can go in a "Historical" super-category. I think I'll go reorganize the board wargame list along such lines.... --Rindis 15:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I put them under Fantasy. That might not be the best decision, but I figured it was a reasonable starting place.
As for "Abstract", we have a couple of games in there right now. I have a question about Piquet, myself, it's a large wargame system, and covers nearly all eras. You buy the main game and then the appropriate supplement. I'm almost tempted to list the supplements but not Piquet itself, or perhaps put Piquet in Abstract since that book really describes, in the abstract, the rules.Roryhinnen 19:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


Hiya, this article lacks any reference to why it is important to have a list of miniature wargames in wikipedia. Why does it exist? BTW, there are also no references. Thanks! Jewish-wargamer 20:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean this to sound mean or unfriendly but what sort of references would you be looking for? (I've had this same question about other lists and similar things.) I mean, should we provide a BoardGameGeek reference for every game on this list? Or what else would be appropriate?

Would you please sign your comments? Thanks! Anyway, that is a problem, isn't it? If there are no sources for this, is it notable? Is it original research? Yeah, think so. Anyway, no need to worry about sounding mean or unfriendly, you sounded neither! Jewish-wargamer 21:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that... Why would compiling a list constitute "original research"? Craw-daddy 21:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you have a misapprehension on OR. (Easy to do, I was confused for quite a while.) Quoting from WP:OR:

An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:

  • It introduces a theory or method of solution;
  • It introduces original ideas;
  • It defines new terms;
  • It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
  • It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
  • It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
  • It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

This list does not introduce a theory, introduce original ideas, define new terms, introduce an argument, build a particular case, or introduce neologisms. That leaves "presuming new definitions", which I thought I'd call out since it could be argued that this list is imposing new definitions of genres in it's organizational approach. However, it is working pretty well within established boundaries that have been established in wargaming and in Wikipedia itself.

That leaves notability, which can be a bit trickier. My thoughts: Wargaming (and miniatures wargames as a separate realm) is notable. Certain individual wargames (e.g., Warhammer) are notable in their own right. The fact that there are similar games beyond the obviously-notable ones is notable. An examination of these (to show the relationships with the obviously notable ones, if nothing else), is worthy of note. This list helps provide a basic understanding of the scope and general themes involved in miniatures games.

(And that's just on the most formal basis. Personally, I think if it's been professionally published, it's automatically notable.)

References are generally required to support any statement could reasonably be challenged on a factual basis. I don't think there is much point to challenging the printing dates or broad subject matter of any copyrighted work. --Rindis 22:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

So by what you're saying, the notability and source markers can be removed. I might think that a bit more explanation could be added to the start of the article about the context, but this is easy enough to do. Craw-daddy 22:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The way I understand it, yes. Let's be polite and see if J-w has any good counter-arguments first. ~_^ (Oh, another good reference, especially for unrepentant inclusionists like me: WP:PAPER) --Rindis 22:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm so glad you're an inclusionist, and you're here. I wouldn't know how else to respond to such a tag. Roryhinnen 23:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
See, there's the thing in your quotation: This list does violate OR. Here's why:
It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
And here is the wiki policy that specifically deals with that, as to lists:
Making a valid article out of a list of stuff is rather difficult when it comes to products or similar -- as well it should be, if you think about it.
Now, I'm sure not saying that we can't provide sources as to the criteria for inclusion of items in this list. But if we can't, then, well, maybe this list does not belong in an encyclopedia in the first place.
On the topic of notability is another problem -- I noticed that the tag was removed. Here's the core of notability for wikipedia:
A topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Have we confirmed that as a fact? Jewish-wargamer 20:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

For "multiple reliable secondary sources" do you refer to the topic of "miniature wargaming"? Or to each of the games that appears on the list? And I'm failing to see how this list "builds a particular case favored by the editor". Could you please explain how that statement applies in this case? Craw-daddy 20:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Welp, take a gander at the link that I posted above ... it explains the criteria for how to build a sourced list.
Fact is, though, that even if it's properly built, it might not be notable. Something is notable only if multiple ... sources have covered it significantly. Hey I am a wargamer too, but we have to remember what wikipedia aims to be -- a real-live encyclopedia.
Also, by its very nature this list "synthesizes ... established facts ... in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor (or editors), because obviously not every miniature wargame ever made is one here -- only the ones the contributors felt moved to add. Jewish-wargamer 20:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll certainly agree that not every miniature wargame ever made is on this list, but I'm still failing to understand what "case" I'm thereby establishing that I'm presumed to be favoring. How exactly, for example, am I violating NPOV? Lack of inclusion on the list, as far as I'm concerned, is merely indication that I don't know of the existence of the wargame, not that I'm actively (or passively) discouraging their inclusion. If this is the sole criteria that you're using, then I'd wager that 99.9% of the lists on Wikipedia would then be subject to removal.

And, again, what is the "something" (as in "something is notable") that you're referring to? Is it wargaming in general? Or each of the wargames that is on the list? Craw-daddy 20:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC) (P.S. Yet again, I find myself becoming discouraged from contributing to Wikipedia, as the rules seem somewhat arbitrarily enforced and so widely open to interpretation...)

Well, remember that Wikipedia:otherstuffexists is not a policy of Wikipedia.  :-> Don't be discouraged -- try to fit yourself within the requirements of contribution. The most important thing to keep in mind is that, just because we like stuff doesn't mean it can (or even should!) go onto wikipedia. To reiterate -- the list has to have some sort of external criteria (from accepted secondary sources) explaining why things get added to the list. Look at the list of AKC dogs as an example, in the link I cited above. It also has to be notable, meaning that the topic itself (in this case, a list of wargames) has to be the topic of multiple quality secondary sources. If this makes us scratch our heads, then I think we are going in the right direction when it comes to evaluating the notability of the article. Jewish-wargamer 20:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, don't see the OR. What is the particular case being built? That these items are miniatures wargames? Considering that these are generally advertised/marketed/sold as such, I don't see that being honestly contested.
Notability is, as always a little trickier. (And with your quote, goes hand in hand with references.) First off, just where/why/how do you consider it non-notable? I don't think you're arguing that miniatures wargaming as whole is non-notable, but I'm not sure. So, I assume that you merely think that a reasonably exhaustive list of miniatures wargames is non-notable.
As I've mentioned before, there are wargames that decidedly notable. Therefore, a list of those should get around one of the basic problems (as it would then be a list of notable items, easily demonstrated as being related to each other). However, that starts running into W:POV problems. How do you define the dividing line (see the talk on Game designer, which has a notable section...)? On the other hand, the utility of the list is to show the scope of the subject in ways that the main article on the subject cannot. It is also a more complete guide than the category can be (as that cannot mention games who do not have articles, for whatever reason), and can show extra details.
Referencing "multiple reliable secondary sources" Board Game Geek, every retail game store catalog...? In general the types of things not easily referenced. ~_^ --Rindis 20:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm using original research to indicate that no objective criteria for verifiability have been stated. Look at the link I provided above concerning verifiability for lists, and you'll see why there is an issue with this article in terms of sources. I'm adding the unreferenced tag back in because this article does not meet the standard for lists cited in the link I provided. This article is in fact not sourced -- so please don't remove the tag again until that situation changes.
On notabiity, I don't think a website like boardgamegeek (which I love) is what is meant bt multiple reliable secondary sources." If the kind of secondary sources you are talking about are not easily referenced, maybe that should tell us something! Peace. Jewish-wargamer 16:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that you're properly applying Wikipedia policy. Miniature wargames, as a subject are notable. There are many, many reliable secondary sources about that subject. This list is an informational list (see WP:LIST) about that notable subject. I'm removing the tag, because there's really no justification for it.
As far as original research goes, there may be some. I am not familiar with every single item. However, secondary sources are not required. Primary source material would be fine for this purpose. If a game self identifies as a miniature wargame, that is sufficient. I'll leave the sources tag, since it's accurate, however.Chunky Rice 20:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's take a closer look at this. Here's the wikipedia reference to reliable sources --
There is no firm definition of "reliable," although most of us have a good intuition about the meaning of the word. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by university presses; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals published by known publishing houses. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analysing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable, but see Wikipedia:Verifiability for exceptions.
I think we'd be very hard-pressed to find many reliable sources on the information on this list, or criteria for including certain games. That's the issue here -- look at the AKC list to see how this was done correctly for the list of dogs -- that's a great example.
I'm a miniature wargamer too, so to me personally mini wargaming is important. But let's nort lose sight of the distinction between what we like, and what is encycolpedic. to come back to the AKC -- I'd expect to see a list of pedigree dogs in an encyclopedia. I would not expect to see a list of miniature wargames there. Yes, there's tons of stuff on wikipedia that should be pureged based on the same criteria -- but that's no cause to throw up our hands and let it all in. It's work we all have to do, to make it a better resource.
Here are some additional useful places to visit to see where I'm coming from: WP:NOT#DI, WP:NOT#IINFO. Cheers, Jewish-wargamer 17:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm very active on WP:NOT and I can tell you that none of those policies apply here. Are you actually trying to assert that miniature wargames are not notable? Because, for various reasons already stated in this discussion, I find that laughable. There are scads of reliable secondary sources about miniature wargaming.Chunky Rice 02:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I was going to ask what you explain further what you mean by "reliable secondary sources" above and beyond what I've provided so far, but then I decided I won't bother. I'm tired of trying to "play the game" and figuring out what is desired when I think that I'm satisfying the criteria stated. There's been several statements saying that "this and that" criteria aren't satisfied/good enough/etc, but nothing that tells me what would be sufficient beyond what I've given (which, again, I think are good enough). If BoardGameGeek isn't a "reliable secondary source" (which, according to Wikipedia's own article, is home to 110000 members (many of whom wouldn't hesitate to correct errors on the site) and has info on over 25000 games), or The Miniatures Page (with some 50000 members, again many of whom wouldn't hesitate to tell you how wrong you on most anything), then I'm not sure what is. And I don't think this is original research either, but, again, I'm tired of trying to figure out some manner of convincing others that it's not. I'm outta here! I wish I could say it's been fun... Craw-daddy 22:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be taking this personally, but remember, it's not! Working with other users is central to what wikipedia is all about, and I'm here trying to work with you on this. I've provided links several times to show what the criteria are -- I've just provided another quote to show what a reliable source is. I don't know what the miniatures pages is, but I do know boardgamegeek and while I love it as a hobbyist, it's clearly not a reliable source per the above definition. I think sometimes we get cross when we don't get what we want on wikipedia, when we should step back and cool off and just think about what should be on wikipedia, as an encyclopedia. If you were buying an encyclopedia for yourself, and you opened a page and saw a three page long list of all of the sayings of The Fonz, would you take the encyclopedia seriously?  :-> Obviously, there are Fonzie fans out there who want to put that into wikipedia, and would cite a Fonzie webpage to claim that's why it belongs ... but does it? Jewish-wargamer 17:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
A page of nothing but quotes? No. That belongs in Wikiquote. A page on The Fonz? Apparently so. Wikipedia is not paper and is not bound by excessive limitations on subject matter, as all other encyclopedias have been, due to limitations in space. The Miniatures Page is a central forum for the hobby, much like Board Game Geek, and ConSimWorld. Part of the problem is that you are insisting on several things that everyone else in this discussion disagrees with. This is an extremely limited sample, and you might be right, and everyone else wrong. However, you have repeatedly made assertions as to notability, acceptability of sources, and importance at odds with the opinion of the others in the discussion. For instance, you write off BGG as not being reliable. Well, it's not perfect, but I'd argue that it is, by and large reliable. --Rindis 20:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Notability/Importance tag for article[edit]

This is a dispute about whether or not a notability/importance tag is appropriate for this article.20:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

  • My understanding of Wikipedia policy and guidelines for notability regarding lists is that if the subject of the list (in this case, Miniature wargaming) is notable, that is sufficient to show notability of the derivative list. Jewish-wargamer feels that the list itself needs to show independent notability. See discussion above. The tag has been placed and removed several times. I would like to put this issue to rest one way or the other. -Chunky Rice 20:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think my feelings are likely clear. I agree with your general assessment, Chunky Rice. Miniature wargaming is clearly a notable topic. This is a list about a notable topic, and hence I think it satisfies the WP criteria for existence as an independent list. My main question, for which I've never obtained a satisfactory answer from Jewish-wargamer is, if it's not notable (i.e. important), what further evidence do you feel is necessary to establish its notability? What exactly is your interpretation where this list falls down? Can you specifically point to something in the WP guidelines because I'm failing to see it, Chunky Rice is failing to see it, Rindis is failing to see it, etc...? Craw-daddy 21:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


  • I agree with the above. This is a legitimate content fork of the main article, which is notable. Tyrenius 03:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I also agree with the gist of the above comments, this article is notable. Mathmo Talk 03:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that the subject is notable, and hence the derivative article. I also don't think references and sources are necessary; as long as the publisher date and details are there, a link should provide any extra information. In my experience, beyond that is outside what is demanded of a list. --Grimhelm 12:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Per discussion on your page, chunky rice, I have reinserted the tag. Before you delete the tag again, please read through it carefully. Does this article in fact have any information on the importance of the subject matter? No, and I have provided sources from wikipedia which discuss how that's done. This article never presents any such information at all. Jewish-wargamer 18:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Third Opinion on the Notability of this List Article[edit]

There’s been a running debate over the past months as to whether List of miniature wargames should carry a notability tag. Understandably, the editors who are most active adding material to it consider it to be notable, and object to the tag. In my opinion, however, it does not meet the notability requirement established for lists in Wikipedia. I'm going to forgo further revisions for the time being and seek a Third Opinion -- please, from someone outside the group of people who edit on wargaming topics.

My reasoning on the notability tag:

First, in Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Lead_and_selection_criteria, we have the following:

Lists should begin with a lead section that presents unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources.

This list fact offers no such criteria for membership, and quotes no reputable source regarding definitions.

Also see WP:NOT. Two areas here seem most relevant, first being WP:NOT#DIR. The initial point appears to be most relevant here – Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. The second is WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information – the question is, is a list of wargames encyclopedic? In my opinion, it is not, and the fact that reliable sources have not been cited in order to establish membership criteria does strongly suggest that no such reliable sources exist. A topic such as that seems less than encyclopedic, suggesting that the notability tag is appropriate.

Also note that the great majority of the wargames in this list are not covered by Wikipedia articles. As such, the list does not even function as an article index.

For the sake of contrast, an example of a list that appears to fulfill all the requirements for list inclusion is List of dog breeds by country. Jewish-wargamer 20:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This request is inappropriate, as this dispute is not a two-person dispute. An RfC has already been performed and the unanimous consensus went against Jewish-wargamer. This is just forum shopping. -Chunky Rice 20:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This is not an accurate summation of the dispute -- a review of the history of the list will show that the edit war going on is between Chunky Rice and myself. It should also be noted that the RfC did little but create what is arguably a false consensus -- of all those giving comments, only two are not editors adding material to the list: myself and one other user. A third, distinterested opinion is really what's needed here. Jewish-wargamer 20:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I have done the majority (though not all) of the removals, but even a cursory glance at this talk page reveals a much wider dispute than the two of us. Regardless, I welcome more input into this dispute. -Chunky Rice 20:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
So, what do you call the editor who had not previously added content to the list who participated in the RfC? Wasn't he a disinterested third party? And if you're going to include yourself in a list of people who haven't edited this article, don't forget to include me. The only involvement I've had with this page is regarding the tags. -Chunky Rice 20:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Consider a common list type: "Graduates of Schlepprock University". Clearly the list should not include every graduate of SU, rather only the notable ones.
Rather than establish notability for each item on the list, I tend to use a stand it. All topics for wikipedia articles must be notable. The end goal (even if unachievable) is for wikipedia to have articles on every notable subject. Thus, if a list item does not have a wikipedia article, I cut it. If it has an article (even if it's a stub), I leave it. Creating stubs is easy enough that there is no real reason to not have a stub if the item is notable.
Mdbrownmsw 20:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This dispute is about the notability of the list itself, not individual entries of the list. Regardless, individual items on a list do not need to be notable by themselves, only as a group. Tkae, for example, List of GURPS books. Through several AfDs, it's been decided by a broad consensus that, while each book is not independently notable, one list encompassing all of them is. -Chunky Rice 20:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree that the fact that most of the items on the list don't even have wikipedia articles does argue strongly against inclusion of those items. Jewish-wargamer 19:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Sigh... At the risk of beating a horse, this article is a content fork of an article like Miniature wargaming, a notable topic. Clearly this list *could* be included in that article, but this being a rather long list, it merits an article (i.e. list) of its own. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I am not aware of any policy that states that all lists which cover items that have general wikipedia articles are ipso facto notable. Where is that policy stated? As far as I know, the list still has to be notable in and of itself.
All of this could be avoided if either of you were to site a reliable source that tells how a notable wargame is to be determined. It could then be put into the article and that would be that. If there isn't such a source, doesn't the list then flatly defy one of the three holy pillars of Wikipedia? Jewish-wargamer 19:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles. Wikipedia:Article size also has some bearing here. From Wikipedia: Lists (stand-alone lists)#Lead and selection criteria we find "Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. The one exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles: an example of this is List of minor characters in Dilbert." (emphasis added is mine) I interpret this to mean that not every element of a list need be notable (i.e. have its own independent Wikipedia article). In some cases they might (as is clearly the case here). --Craw-daddy | T | 20:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S. And, yes, you could say that I'm mixing policies somewhat, by saying it's a content fork, but I'm also quoting the stand-alone list guidelines, but to me this perfectly fits into the quoted part of WP:N below, namely, each miniature game itself need not be notable to be included in the list (i.e. "article"). --Craw-daddy | T | 22:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw this on 3O. I'm not going to offer a full opinion; however, I would like to urge you to take a closer look at WP:N.

"Clearly the list should not include every graduate of SU, rather only the notable ones." - User:Mdbrownmsw
"Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines." - WP:N

I see this mistake quite often. Perhaps this will help in your dispute, perhaps not. Cheers! - Che Nuevara 18:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder.  :) --Craw-daddy | T | 18:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Both the general notability guidelines and the specific ones for lists require that reliable sources be provided. Lists also require that a reliable source be cited in determining which items are to be included in the list. What reliable source are you citing to support the inclusion of items on this list? Jewish-wargamer 19:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Reliable sourcing would be welcome here. However, that has no relevance to fundamental notability of the list. -Chunky Rice 20:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion[edit]

Even though there are already quite a few more than two voices here. :) I agree with Chunky Rice's statement that "Reliable sourcing would be welcome here. However, that has no relevance to fundamental notability of the list." The notability of the list depends on the notability of the topic of miniature wargaming, and that seems amply established at the parent article Miniature wargaming. In the discussion at Talk:List_of_miniature_wargames#Request_for_Comment:_Notability.2FImportance_tag_for_article , five editors held that the notability tag is inappropriate for this article, versus the one editor who believed otherwise. The involvement of the editors in the article does not render them unable to offer an opinion on this, and Chunky Rice evidently had no a priori involvement before weighing in. I also agree that the notability tag is unneeded here, though perhaps the "refimprove" tag would not be. It does not seem impossible to source these or a great many of them—all that needs to be established here is whether or not these are miniature wargames. For example, Age of Battles has an easily located website. Is there some reason not to simply add the references so that the sourcing concerns disappear? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

In principle, no, but is this then going to raise questions of "spam" if we link directly to the manufacturer's website? Many of these games are in the lists on The Miniatures Page external links of the current article in question (i.e. this list, not The Miniatures Page article). Some people might object to this site as being a "glorified blog" or "not reliable" (though I would tend to disagree). More input as to these issues would be welcome as well. Thanks. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's a good question. :) Resolve one problem, create another. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Even though you've just dipped your toe into this, you immediately got firsthand experience on just how hard it is to verify the material on this list. A commercial website for a game is not a suitable source for that game. The reason for this is that there are few if any reliable sources available to verify the inclusion of any of these items in the list.
What I mean is, people always seem to coast by the key point in this discussion -- the methodology for inclusion of items in this list is not sourced or even really given, as it must be for a valid list on wikipedia.
Arguing that "there's an article for miniature wargaming, so the list is ipso facto notable" is missing the point. An article on "nations of the world" ma exist, but then having a list of nations in the world without giving your methodology for including references in your list does not comply with the wiki rules for lists. You'd have to have some sort of cite to show what is the basis for your inclusion of those items in the list. Of course, with nations of the world, there are many ways one could do it -- and there are plenty of sources one can cite to establish that the method of inclusion is the proper one. Is there such a source here? No. This does lead to the strong implication that this list is fancruft, not encyclopedic.
As an aside, I disagree that people who regularly contribute to an article are a suitable sample of wikipedia users when it comes to determining whether that article is notable, for fairly obvious reasons! Jewish-wargamer 21:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I see how sourcing issues lend themselves to notability concerns for the list, per se. I am not a wargamer, miniature or otherwise, but I presume there are likely to be secondary sources offering definitions of the term. A quick look at Amazon, for instance, tells me that there are many books and magazines on the subject. It shouldn't be impossible (or presumably that difficult for fans of the genre) to haul one or several out to define the criteria for the list. :) Failure to comply with the guidelines for stand alone lists does not necessarily create a notability issue, although it may be something that should be addressed. Lack of sourcing for items might warrant a {{refimprove}} tag, for instance. As far as commercial websites not being suitable sources for these games, that's true if we're trying to establish notability. The RFC and other 3O responses above set forth a pretty strong consensus for inherent notability. Verifying the existence of the game and the appropriateness of the label may be an acceptable use of primary sourcing, which policy states may "make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge". As WP:CORP sets out, "once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content". WP:EL indicates that we should consider "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources". I imagine the question of primary sources in this context would be something for wider discussion, perhaps to be opened at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess perhaps I am missing the point? Or am I? The list itself begins "Miniature wargames are a form of wargaming designed to incorporate miniatures or figurines into play,..." The article on Miniature wargaming states "is a form of wargaming designed to incorporate miniatures or figurines into play. The miniatures are used to represent troops or vehicles (such as tanks, chariots, aircraft, ships, etc.). The games may reflect historical situations and armies, or may be futuristic or fantasy-based." And later it has "Miniature wargaming is a recreational hobby where players simulate a battle, which is played out using small figurines to represent the land, sea and/or air units involved. Many miniatures games are played on a floor or tabletop,..." So if we take this as a definition (of sorts) as to what items belong on this list, what is the problem? As Moonriddengirl points out, primary souurces can be used to "make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge."
Take, for example, the game .45 Adventures on this list. On the very front cover of this rulebook it states "Tabletop miniatures game" and on the back cover we find this statement ".45 Adventures: Crimefighting Action in the Pulp Era is a tabletop miniatures game that simulates all the two-fisted action of the era of pulp magazines." So I think there's no original research involved here to conclude that this rulebook belongs on this list. See the cover for Flames of War, subtitled "The World War II Miniatures Game". Flashpoint Vietnam, page 7, states "Flashpoint Vietnam is a system enabling players to recreate historical engagements in the Vietnam War of the 1960s and 1970s with 1:100th scale soldiers, vehicles and aircraft." You can see the cover for Hardtack in the article, where it states "Wargaming with miniatures". There's no synthesis of material required to conclude that these games fit the definition given above for miniature (war)game rules. Obviously the few examples I mention above are by no means inclusive of the large number of items on the list, but this is how this information can be verified using primary sources.
Verifiability is independent of notability. As far as I can understand, there's no restrictions about using primary sources for verifying information, provided that they "can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." So I ask again, what is the issue at hand here? Is it that you desire more online references that you can check from the comfort of your easy chair? That isn't a requirement of WP:V. From what I can see, there's a criteria for establishing what can be included in this list. Yes, perhaps it can be more explicit and/or sourced better, and suggestions are more than welcome. --Craw-daddy | T | 00:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dont Give Up The Ship Cover.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Dont Give Up The Ship Cover.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Warhammerab.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Warhammerab.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hardtack cover.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Hardtack cover.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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:OneRulebook.jpg[edit]

The image Image:OneRulebook.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Missing games[edit]

And that's just from a quick perusal of my collection. (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)