Talk:Micro armour

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Toys (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Toys, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of toys 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.


I just finished a quick wikification pass on this article, but some real issues remain. The main things I did was to remove the See Also section (this shouldn't be a list of all the articles linked in the article), remove the External Links (WP:NOTDIRECTORY, standardized the topic as micro armour per the page title, removed references to non-notable games (on the basis of whether they have a wikipedia article) and removed it from some categories that are scale specific that it doesn't fit into.

I am concerned that the article still reads primarily like an ad for the games and companies mentioned. I'm also concerned that the references are almost entirely self published. In particular, I've never thought as a particularly reliable source.

I'm also concerned that since Micro Armour is a trademarked term, it isn't the best title for an article discussing miniature armor. Eastshire (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply Re: "Wikification"[edit]

Eastshire, I really don't agree with your edits, and I think unless there is more debate with others and discussion about this, I'm going to have to revert this back. A big reason is because I checked with numerous people involved in the micro armor scene for years, and most everyone said it was fine and informative, besides one person who said there needed to be more in depth analysis. Unfortunately you removed a lot of material which ends up going in the opposite direction from this.

The basic fact of the matter is, this hobby began with certain people and companies. The companies are the backbone of the hobby, and without them its impossible to to talk about he hobby or do anything with it. This is the case with all the other gaming entries.. they all talk heavily about the company, products, and so on. You also contradicted yourself by saying the article reads like an advertisement, and then removed small published games that were listed. Also claiming gameboardgeek isn't a good source makes this whole endeavor impossible since they are used by most of the other micro armor and miniature figure gaming articles, and are indeed considered *A* source. They review EVERY game, and many games that have no mention other than on eBay when they are for sale end up discussed on gameboardgeek.

This hobby began with small, self published games, and still is mostly based on it. That is why it is important to keep them here. In fact, I would like to have ALL of the hundreds of games that use micro/mini armor included, but i don't have the names of all of them yet. Wikipedia is an information source and it is perfectly natural to give as much information as possible. If we remove small time published games and rules, that means we have to eliminate all the early games, and we have to eliminate everything that wasn't made for Flames of War or Axis & Allies miniatures, or Game Workshop, which reduced Wikipedia to simply advertising for huge corporations and not a general hobby.

The reason I named the entry "micro armour", but talk about "micro armor" and other names is purely because "micro armour" is the name that comes up most on google search. People who are looking for this topic need to be able to find it immediately. However, once they are here, it has to be made clear that the other terms are just as valid. "micro Armour" (and no, not the word "micro Armor" which is the US spelling of the term) may be trademarked, but it is a trademark that has become common as a word people use, and wikipedia even has an entry about such terms. The trademarked term, just like with words like "xerox", "donut", etc. has little bearing on the end user/hobbyist. However if you prefer, I will change the name of this entry to "micro and mini armor", and simply have the term "micro armour" redirect to it. It is also quite clear that there has been drift over the years from 1:300 scale all the way up to 1:72 scale even though it's still basically the same topic, so it doesn't make sense to not emphasize this. This is an article intended for the public's point of view, not the point of view of the companies (while make all sorts of words and categories intended to force the hobbyist into using a specific size or specific label, while the gamer is better off having as much flexibility and generalization as possible while at the same time still being aware of distinct rulesets).

I already wen "through the ringer" with other Wikipedians going over this entry and purging external links. the external links that are left are not direct links but rather are reference/note links and this makes it quite clear that this means it isn't an endorsement, but informational. It isn't fair to insist references be added and then when the references, straight from the source, are found, claim those references are invalid. Information is information. I already had people insist references be added, and external links be moved. So I added them and moved the external links to the notes, and this was fine with the people who "wikified" the article already. Keep in mind that links to external sites are PLACE HOLDERS, just like some uploaded images are, and the best way to replace them is not to simply delete them but have an article made for that game, when people have time. If you let this article stay for a while, people should, over time, rectify this situation.. but they will still need to have the original web sites and the gameboardgeek sites referenced on those pages. It isn't fair, for example, to insist no such references be used, yet at the same time, claim people do "original research". either the info comes from the source, because the hobby relies on companies with products, or you have to rely on original research. What is it going to be? Or are you suggesting you simply don't like the topic and don't believe it should even be on Wikipedia? (such as self published games.. well, lets face it, RPGs and wargaming are still considered pretty geeky and marginalized issues.. if we got rid of all fandom/marginal topics on Wikipedia, there would be only info about big corporate and mainstream things left, and then of course all wikipedia info would be redundant.)

As for the "See Also" section, the thing is, this is a broad subject that people need to learn as much about as quickly as possible in order to understand and appreciate, because it is a complete genre, yet wikipedia up till now didn't talk about it at all - so until the article is expanded the "See Also" is also a sort of place holder - its stuff people can build upon. Only people with some knowledge, interest, or time to research this issue will bother to add info. If you strip the article down to nothing and make it just and advertisement for a few popular games, whats the point?

Anyway I hope this explains what I was trying to convey here. I look very much forward to people expanding the entry - even totally rewriting it while covering *all the same basic info and more*, but I don't think whittling it down to a stub again makes much sense.Radical Mallard (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I am very much in favor of this article being on wikipedia as I am very much into miniature wargaming. That being said, the article is now again a mess since you reverted my edits (by the way reverting generally should only be done in the case of vandalism).
Wikipedia is still not a directory even though you think it will help people find information to improve the article. The external links you supply are not acceptable sources for the article in the first place as they are self-published sources. Having them in the article detracts from the quality of the article. If you feel they are resouces that will help the article grow, the talk page is the correct place for them.
A list of games, particularly a list of non-notable games does not help explain the topic. You need to remember that Wikipedia is not meant to store all information. It is meant to be an encyclopedia of notable information.
I am going to again spend another hour or so to wikify the article. I will take a lighter touch this time, but remember that I am trying to help the article. Eastshire (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, on the See Also, all of those were already linked in the main article. Putting them as new links in See Also isn't helpful. As a general rule, you should never have more than 3 see also links. Eastshire (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible Sources[edit]

These are the sites Radical Mallard has provided as possible sources Eastshire (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing the advertising tone[edit]

What makes this article currently read like an advertisement is that a significant section of it is merely a list of games and publishers. If these games have a significant impact on micro armour, we need to explain how each game significantly effected micro armour. If it's just a micro armour game that did not actually have a significant effect of the category of games, then it really doesn't have a place in the article. I also think that any game that is in and of itself not notable (i.e. doesn't have a Wikipedia article) are unlikely to have had enough effect on micro armour to warrant mention. Eastshire (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment moved here from article[edit]

I would like remember the book of rules "Microtank Warfare" of Mr. Keith Robinson, covering the II WW and some conflicts in the Middle East. The book is very good and have rules for infantry, tanks, guns, aircraft and anti-aircraft weapons. It also includes tables of penetration capability of each type of gun. I realize that it must be published again. Of course, I still have my book.Ayrthon.vieira (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)