Talk:Titan (board game)

Untitled

Titan was first puplished by Gorgonstar and then later republished by Avalon Hill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.179.147.18 (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Who Wants to Work on this Page?

Titan is a uniqua and wonderful game and deserving of a great Wiki page. One enthusiastic editor has provided a lot of interesting content; however a lot of it is original research. I'm trying to get more references and facts and tone down the 'fan' sound of the article--Any help would be greatly appreciated. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a Titan fan, but some comments: The BGG review, no matter how good, is probably not going to stand up as a reliable source. (Pity, that.) If you have have access to any Generals of the early '80s there should be some Titan articles, which will be a primary source, but at least it's reliable. Should also check The Space Gamer.

Also, BGG indicates a European edition that should be mentioned. Personally, I'd love to see anything that we can get ahold of for the development of the game, and of course the major changes between editions. --Rindis (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. You're right--BGG is user submitted reviews, and as big a site as BGG is in the board game world, I doubt they screen the reviews carefully enough for this to pass muster. I'll do some digging later this week and see if I can find some better sources. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, BGG does have on-line archives of Generals with loads of Titan designer's notes info. I put in a sample edit to start--There's obviously a lot of work to be done here, adding in this sourced material and phasing out the unsourced, POV stuff. Jump in if you've got the time--Otherwise I'll slowly edit as time allows. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Right now, your General references are just a bunch of unlabeled pointers to the same file. I would recommend you figure out just which issues all of those came from and use the 'cite journal' template to set up all the relevant info, which will look much better. (It includes a field for pointing at on-line copies of articles.) Also, if any of those refs are to the same article, you can put 'name="foo"' in one of the ref tags, and instead of repeating the info elsewhere, just have a tag in the form of 'ref name="foo"/'. I might be slightly off, so fiddle around with it. --Rindis (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right--Most of the references are to the same file, which is accurate--It's a designer's notes file which is the best source for legitimate strategy insertions--And I've been too busy to figure out how to put them all under the same footnote. I'll take your advice and tweak those when I get the chance! And jump in whenever you can! Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much for your help on the references! Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"Contents" section needs a clean up

The Contents section is over-explanatory and gawky, with redundancies and odd capitalization. It should also, probably, be put into more generic gaming hobby terms.

Examples:

"4 Playing Dice (Standard Die size for most board games)" can just be "4 dice", or "4 standard dice", or at most "4 six-sided dice".

"6 Battlelands Sheets (11 areas and 1 rule sheet (8 1/2" x 11"))" can just be "6 "Battlelands" sheets".

"8 Character sheets (Each character sheet holds 49 pieces that are 1"L x 1"W x 2mmH)" can just be "8 character sheets (each contains 49 1" game markers)"

We really don't need to know the 3rd dimension of a 1" game chit.

Etc.

Thanks! 71.112.38.38 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC).