Talk:Miniature wargaming/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Games Workshop

Is this article perhaps a little to biased in favour of Games Workshop? It makes no mention of the critiscisms of Games Workshop miniatures, specifically their relatively high prices compared to other miniatures.

Here, here! I second that! Moreso, of all the games out there, LOTR has more than one pic. That, to me, is a bit unfair. Why not something like Warmachine? Colonel Marksman 17:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Or that GW will tar and feather the Wiki for using pics of their IP?

More references to Games Workshop have crept into the article, links to articles, and so on. I wouldn't be surprised if it were the company doing it, and it does lead to some odd situations, such as relatively obscure naval games like Man of War and the LotR naval game getting substantial coverage in the article. I'd suggest that material be trimmed out. Larry Dunn 19:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Citations are citations, and referenced material is better than unreferenced material. The article has the potential to achieve Good Article status, and I feel it certainly deserves to be brought to that level. What we need are more footnote sourcing and more pictures (I find that good pictures of miniature wargames are surprisingly hard to come across on Wikipedia - and I don't mean just rulebooks). I came across one interesting picture (right) of BlitzkriegCommander - a game with which I have admittedly not been acquainted at the gaming table (and whose own article leaves a lot to be desired) - which could be added to the article.

Another thing that should be done pertains to the sections on wargame organisations, wargamers and designers. Many of the entries there are lacking in citation and redlinks abound - I would suggest that someone who is more familiar with these areas could fix them.

On the topic of obscure naval games, yes, I added that entire section on naval wargaming earlier this month, when the new article was written and became a DYK. The two games you note are used as examples of games that were spin-offs of land based games, pre-gunpowder style navalia proelia, and how their scales relate to the former. Also, why would Games Workshop want to mention a game that is out-of-print, and another game whose rules are freely available and they don't support? That would make no sense - they would not stand to profit from it. It should be noted that I would find it most surprising if I turned out to be a company; but then, you may have merely neglected to check the article history (specifically when I reorganised the article earlier this month). :-) --Grimhelm 20:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I would ask you to not move other peoples' comments on discussion pages. I put my comment here for a reason, to show that I am not the first person to suggest that GW, or its advocates, are giving undue weight to that company in this article.

These citations don't really meet the criteria for sources that wikipedia calls for. The fact they they are background material offered for marketing purposes by a company does bear a great deal of weight against them as fact sources. They work better, I'd argue, as links than as cites. Here's the policy that explains why: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples. In particular, here's the text that's most closely relevant:

Websites and publications of trading companies, organizations and charities are a marketing communication channel and should be treated with caution. These media can be considered as primary data about the organization's view of itself and may have clear bias related to commercial interests. Effort should be made to corroborate the reference with an independent source in order to maintain a neutral point of view.

I checked your user page and I see that you are a regular GW gamer. Needless to say, nothing wrong with that, but when your edits insert GW products/websites into the article, you may want to step back and consider the wiki guideline for conflicts of interest: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. For instance, the Man O War/All at Sea reference. It's great that you added a section on naval wargaming, but consider that one third of the naval wargaming warticle is devoted to Games Workshop -- an out of print ruleset, and an adaptation to a GW land-based system. I'd suggest that this puts undue weight on GW's place in naval wargaming, which is really pretty negligible.

What I mean is, if you like a product, and you find yourself inserting references to it and links to the products website often, you might want to consider whether there is a conflict of interest of the type cautioned against by wiki policy. Notice that I have not edited those sections I'm referring to. What I think is needed here is self-restraint on this. Larry Dunn 19:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved it because I wanted to advance the article on the road to GA, but if you feel the discussion is better here, it makes little difference to me.

I don't see any problem with the footnotes as they are. Only three footnotes cite the GW site; each to offer a reference to an uncontroversial statement about conversions, and show their use in several games. Obviously, it doesn't represent any specific marketing views of the company. What it shows is something general to miniature wargames, and when I added them I considered them neutral. The possibility of them being used as links is unlikely. I expect that the casual reader looking for more information will look to the External links section, not a long list of sources and references. And the EL section has a few appropriate links to information on the hobby in general, as it should be, and not to any GW site.

While I do play GW, I also have an interest in historical miniatures; personally, I feel we should have more pictures of the latter, as they better represent the hobby as a whole (especially from its origins). I included mention of the two GW naval games because I feel they compliment the description of Don't Give Up the Ship! in describing the varied nature of naval games. While not particularly notable or well known on their own, they show the range of naval wargaming. It is fair to say that the three games described are entirely different games, and represent three distinct areas in this article. One thing that is lacking is a mention of modern-naval games - something I will rectify shortly.

Lastly, I should commend your support of self-restraint and also agree with Craw-daddy's comments below. I think that the material in the article at the moment can be left, and future additions and sourcing can be used to balance it out as we expand and improve the article. --Grimhelm 21:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The overall nature of the Games Workshop 'bias' seems consistent with the likely interests of Wikipedia users. That is, overall attention is focused on the wider-known elements of the hobby that more people are familiar with, with some minor sprinkling of more specialized interests. In the same way, wargaming coverage as a whole is better on the miniatures side than the boardgaming side - I doubt it's a conspiracy by a miniatures company, however.

P.S. Keep up the good work Grimhelm! --Rindis 21:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree that Wikipedia users have a Games Workshop bias, and even if they did, that sort of user bias is not supposed to lead to one element of an article's topic having undue weight. Larry Dunn 19:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Supposed to? No. But in practice, people talk/write about things they have some interest in. A systematic examination of the topics covered in Wikipedia as a whole gives a pretty good idea of the interests of its user base. If a person's primary knowledge of miniatures gaming is purely Warhammer 40K, what do you expect his edits that touch on miniatures gaming to be about? Do you really think there are as many Wikipedia users that play non-GW miniatures games as Wikipedia users who play 40K (never mind the rest of their lineup)?

I will also own up to some misinterpretation. I was thinking in terms of Wikipedia's miniatures coverage as a whole, not just this particular article.

In any case, this article is in far better shape than it was just a few months ago. (It had been good, but had started dissolving into the muck that an article without a guiding hand behind it starts turning into.) Also, while I would prefer to see more non-GW stuff, 'pedia does have a self-inflicted bias towards whatever will generate easier-to-find references. These days it is easier to get references about about the miniatures industry as seen through the lens of GW than through pretty much anything else, so.... --Rindis 22:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'd generally agree with the above comments by Grimhelm and Rindis. The additions are sourced, so why not leave them in? If there's a perceived bias, more information could be added about other companies' products to compare/contrast them (with suitable references so it's not original research). I'm basically thinking that "more info = better overall article". Craw-daddy 12:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me give an example, something not wargaming so we can see it a little more objectively.

If you looked up the wiki article on car engines, and there was a section on engine maintenance, and there were lots of links to pages on the Valvoline website, what would you think? Grimhelm mentioned that I didn't check to see who inserted those GW cites, but in the end does it really matter? When you see a bunch of references leading back to a company's website, right away the material becomes suspect, because it appears that someone in the market may have taken over that section of the article. Larry Dunn 19:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, at the risk of repeating myself, I don't think that the solution to deal with a perceived bias is to delete all (or most) of the information in that section. More should be added, comparing and contrasting rulesets to show what is available, what's significant/groundbreaking/etc. about them. Right now I view it as a work in progress, not the finished product (after all, isn't that the model of Wikipedia?). Craw-daddy 22:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm..

"Figurines" and "miniatures" are just fancy name for "toys," aren't they? I have added "...little toys..." to the article. if you feel offended by that statement, i appologise.

The question is not whether they are or are not, but whether it adds anything to the article. It looks unnecessary, overly general, and somewhat non-NPOV to me. BTW, you can sign postings here with four tildes. Dht 15:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Some General Thoughts.

I've been wargaming with miniatures for decades, I even know some of the famous wargamers mentioned, but i don't have an extensive library to back up what I'm saying. Consider this as a personal, but hopefully well-informed, view with a strong British perspective.

1: While the Prussian Free Kreigspeil was certainly a precursor, the connection to the use of miniatures is pretty thin. Mostly, they used maps, and wooden blocks to represent the formed units.

2: The military have used scale models as training aids, even pulling them across a indoor range on wires to practice keeping guided missile sights on the target. While there have been crossovers with hobby wargaming, of all sorts, there's never been a strong connection.

3: As a hobby, it's usual to attribute the start of it all to Little Wars by H.G. Wells. Fred T. Jane's naval wargame was earlier, but partly aimed at professional naval officers. It's one of the reasons why Jane's Fighting Ships was published.

4: I don't know what happened between Little Wars and the emergence of Donald Featherstone, except for a couple of real wars. I speculate that the Cold War made the idea of wargaming more acceptable, and some of the same improvements in the technology of scale models as affected model railroads made a big difference.

Wells used 54mm figures, the sort made by the Britains company, but c. 1960 the Airfix company in Britain was making plastic assembly kits of aircraft (in the traditional 1:72 scale) and railway vehicles and buildings in the 1:76 scale. The railway models were labelled as "HO/OO", and I think that's been confusing wargamers ever since. When you work it out, a 1:87 figure is a plausible adult at 20mm tall, while 25mm is right for 1:72 and 1:76. Airfix also produced sets of plastic soldier figures, initially at about 1:87 scale, and then shifting to 1:76.

This is the environment that Donald Featherstone was writing in. There were the niche-market manufacturers producing the cast lead figures, but you could buy boxes of Airfix figures almost anywhere.

5: There were a few magazines within the hobby, but there were two magazines in the 1970's which helped the hobby grow, because they got general distribution. Military Modelling was a place where wargaming manufacturers could advertise, and I think it encouraged people to make good models. And there was a spin-off magazine on wargaming called Battle, which ran a long history of the Hyboria campaign run by Tony Bath.

Then, about 20 years ago, there appeared first Miniature Wargames and then Wargames Illustrated. For a few years there was Practical Wargamer. Duncan MacFarlane was the founding editor of Miniature Wargames, and started Wargames Illustrated after a change of ownership led to his replacement.

6: And then there is Games Workshop. It's almost exactly twenty years since they began their shift from role-playing games to miniatures games. I think the RPG influence, and the demand for a bigger figure to allow people to represent their player-character, had a lot to do with the scale jump.

7: "Toy soldiers"? I think you could put the Airfix soft-plastic figures in the borderlands: by 1970 they were respectable scale models, but mass-produced and sold for boys of all ages. I suppose the model railroad hobby have something of the same view of the "toy" label. The lead has gone from the alloys used for the cast metal figures, but can you really call them toys? And, just like a model railroad, making the models is only half the fun. Zhochaka 18:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Should we move the list of manufacturers?

I believe such a big list adds very little to the topic and could be better handled in a separate article, like that of rulesets. Any comments? 80.24.57.84 23:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. The list, while helpful to those pursuing additional information, is more like an appendix than a text-filled informative paragraph. I think there should be a brief bit about Miniatures Manufacturers, detailing the creation of miniatures (sculpting putty on wire frames, master mold making, spincaster machines for metal minis, etc), and then, like Rulesets, there should be a link to the manufacturers list.

In a similar fashion, I think that Terrain deserves its own sub-section. Perhaps a brief bit about the making of terrain (manufactures use of resin, plaster, vacu-formed plastic, scratch-building using wood and other materials, etc), again with a link to a list of Terrain Manufacturers. SeattleGamer 03:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

If I don't get any more responses I could try to create a new article and move the list there... I just hope Wiki Fury doesn't fall over me, lol Jack1968ES 09:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

What does it mean to be a Notable Wargammer

As said in my editing comment, I believe that having a popular website or promoting the subject is not enough to be a Notable Wargammer. Even if it did, the number of hits the site gets and what you can find there seem to be more on the advertising side than anything else.

Comments? Thanks Jack1968ES 16:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks getting a discussion started on this.

I think a lot of this may be a generational thing. Most of the people on the "Notable Wargamer" list are the pioneers of wargaming, and they should rightly be listed. However, I think the shortcoming of the current list (and I think others feel this way) is that current big names in the industry are not being recognized. For younger gamers like myself, names like Charles Grant, Donald Featherstone, etc., really carry no significance for us. But names like Bill Armintrout, Steve Jackson, and Alan and Michael Perry do.

In specific regards to many of us wanting to include Bill, Bill and his site are a major clearing house for information on miniature wargaming. On Yahoo, Google, etc., his site is usually one of the first on the list when you search for "miniature wargaming", which means his site may be the first exposure an outsider may have to our hobby. I would also respectfully disagree that his site mostly has an "advertising focus". Granted he does help out manufacturers by giving them a chance to advertise their products. However, the main draw for the community is the forums, where people share information, much like this wiki. I think that is something very valuable that elevates Bill to a position that he should be listed on this page. And the fact that links to his site are posted both on this page and the miniature figure page I think only reinforces his importance.

If you and the other editors feel that only pioneers of the hobby should be listed, then I think the section needs to be reformed. However, if it is to open to notables from all eras, then more names need to be included.

Joekano 17:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, just let me clarify that when I said "advertising side" I was talking about the reference, in the original entry for Bill that I deleted, to the number of hits in his site, not the site itself (which I have visited regularly during many years)

Probably if we could rewrite the entry in some other way, pointing to more valuable contributions, it would be more easily accepted by other editors (like me) or perhaps we could add a list of relevant people on the miniature wargamming segment (but that may be against WP:NOT, I'm too newbie here to fully understand the policy)

I feel that the inclusion or not on the list has more to do with uncontestable notability than century, a line has to be drawn somewhere and perhaps it's more easily solved by depending on other editors removing whoever they don't see fit. Of course, non contemporary people is more easily perceived as notable than contemporary ones.

Regarding myself, I saw an entry saying he owns a very successful and useful internet site, and for me that's not enough to be on the notable section. As I said before, perhaps rewriting the entry could do some good.

Jack1968ES 18:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the term "Notable Wargamers" is the issue Possibly something like "Important figures in the development of wargaming" or similar might be less ambiguous Woodwose 18:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's important to keep in mind what Wikipedia is supposed to be (and it's not supposed to be a directory), so we don't want to end up with a huge list of people.

Perhaps an agreement may be settle in the talk page about what is required to include someone in the list. We may also take a look at a similar discussion here.

Jack1968ES 18:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we coudn't either come up with a rewrite that would make everyone happy or retitle the section to make it clear what the criteria are for being listed. I wasn't the original author of that entry, so it might be good to get some of the original folks involved so that anything we come up with isn't quickly torn down by others, taking us back to square one.

- Thoughts anyone? Joekano 18:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to rewrite it youself if you like, anyway your work will be edited unmercily like Wikipedia says. I have no clue about what it may be said about Bill.

Also, taking a second look at Woodwose comment I realize what he was saying, the section has nothing to do with wargamers, but people that developed the subject. We may look at this title issue more closely.

Jack1968ES 18:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out it seems a little peculiar that TMP is actually linked to at the bottom of the article, indicationg its importance. By virtue of that alone, the site's creator should be included in the article, don't you think?

Guest/No LoginID 20:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really, a link at the bottom may be an interesting even useful site, but getting from interesting to notable is a long way to follow.

It would be different the other way around, meaning if Bill makes it to the Notable list, then we should provide a little explanation why or a separate article about him, to let people know why it is on the list. The logic (at least for me) is quite different in each case. You may find a related discussion here.

In any case, let's assume you are right; then we should also include the people involved in all other sites linked at the bottom of the page, do you agree?

Jack1968ES 19:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I took a stab at reworking the entry:

"William Armintrout – Creator of The Miniatures Page, a large on-line community of wargamers and manufactures that has become a global clearinghouse for hobby related information."

I tried to make in concise and precise, without too much hyperbole. Comments? Joekano 22:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks better, but if his only merit has been the creation of TMP I could foresee a lot of disagreement... could someone find a way to state if TMP is THE largest on-line community?

Anyway I'm not the owner of truth so you may try to include it and see how the rest of the people react to it, but I won't be surprised if it gets deleted again.

Just a hint, here it is said that Bill has been involved in the subject for years and that he is an author in the field of gaming. Any fact or reference that could help prove that assertion?

Going back to my original comment, being the creator of a wonderful, big and important meeting place for wargamers doesn't seem enough for me to include him in the list, but I'm just trying to help, not to impose my view.

Jack1968ES 22:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added an entry for TMP, I feel the organization may be more notable than the man behind it.

Jack1968ES 23:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good compromise Joekano 23:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jack. First of all, I think the title of "notable wargamers and wargames designers" is not correct. It should be "notable personalities of the hobby" as in the list also appears figure builders, writers of articles, etc... I would also add Larry Brom and Perry Brothers. If you want to see information on William Armintrout try looking here: http://theminiaturespage.com/twga/bill.mv#rpg

Right now it seems the edit war about Bill is over (which was my main concern when I started this talk section), so feel free to change in good faith what you think should be changed. Only try to talk about it if it becomes a do-undo. Jack1968ES 12:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The Miniatures Page - Wargaming organization or not?

Apparently, there's some disagreement over whether The Miniatures Page (TMP) is a wargaming organization. My simple question is, if it's not such an organization, what is it? It's not a knitting community (well, maybe there's a message board for those wargamers who knit their own figures).

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary (if it can be trusted) defines an organization as an "association or society" and (self-referentially) an "association" as "an organization of persons having a common interest."

Hmmm, what do you think? Am I in the minority that thinking TMP is a group (or collective, or, dare I say it, organization) of persons with a common interest? Craw-daddy 16:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a chat community. I like it (usually), and it might have a place on this page in another context, but it does not organize games or events -- it just provides a venue to chat about the hobby. Maybe a reference could be added to the page for online resources? Larry Dunn 16:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that you will find that TMP is similar in it's role to the early years of MWAN. Most gamers I know check it daily. I think that so long as it is mentioned and added to the external links it should be fine but the editor could easily be recognized with the other influential wargamers. John Adkins 18:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Larry, did you actually read what I said? The definition is "an <association> of persons having a common interest." That common interest being wargames. What more do you require? Are you disagreeing with the definition of the word "organization" as given by Merriam-Webster (which I thought was generally considered as a reputable source)? Craw-daddy 16:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Larry, did you actually read what I said?

Please be civil; there's no need to get excited about a topic as recreational as this. Yes, it's an association, a voluntary one. Let's look at what that is.

Here's what wikipedia has to say about voluntary associations: Voluntary association. HMGS is such an association, for instance. A website simply isn't one (although an association certainly may have a website), there's no need to be upset, it's not a diss of TMP. If there are other items listed as associations which are not, which function as message boards, then by all means remove them.

I already suggested that there might be a good place for TMP (and perhaps other groups listed currently in organizations which are not really). A new part of the article listing online wargaming discussion or something. Larry Dunn 19:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Larry, since your concern seems to more about how TMP and other online communities/news sites are listed on the page, do you want to take a first stab at building in a new section? Joekano 20:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I followed the link Voluntary association and doesn't seem contradictory with Organization, in fact it says individuals may group into one within a voluntary association, so the issue remains if TMP is an organization, and for the previous link it seems so.

It is a social arrangement which pursues collective goals, which controls its own performance, and which has a boundary separating it from its environment (from Organization).

In short it doesn't seem like a strong enough reason to remove TMP from the list.

I would like better not to begin removing or changing links and articles that has been around for a while based on what we're talking here, since at first I should believe that WPS (as an example, nothing against it in particular) is in the list for some reason and has been there for some reason I don't see, so I would be better to get an explanation of that reason/critera better than just saying remove it.

Jack1968ES 21:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I too would prefer not to reorganize the article, but I felt an attempt at compromise was better than having this go to mediation. Joekano 23:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Craw-daddy, an organization does not always organize games or events. Why don't we state our own concept of organization and see if we may reach agreement?

Jack1968ES 17:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It may be helpful if we try to find out what criteria has been used to include other groups in the list (and it's not comparing to say "why they and not me", it's comparing to say "what is different that makes me stay out of the set" and understand it), like I said... the Warhammer Players Society?

What is different between WPS and TMP to deserve the inclusion of the first and not the last?

Jack1968ES 17:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe there is a difference between WPS and TMP. Additional, LarryDunn himself refers to TMP as a "community", which to me is an "association or society". The fact that is it a virtual community is immaterial. I think it belongs, though perhaps we should define it as a community in the description rather than as a magazine. Joekano 19:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that WPS is not an organization -- I had not looked that carefully at the site, but on second consideration, it does just seem to be a chat group, so not really an organization per se.

The suggestion's been made that we should just agree that a website is an organization, like take a vote on it or something. Consensus is definitely one of the pillars of wikipedia, but by the same token we have to take other things into consideration as well -- if most wikipedians in an editing cycle considered a frog to be a salamander, that would not make it so. Also, there's a sudden flurry of interest in my edits based on a vendetta that's been lanuched by a small wargaming company, and while I'm not accusing anyone in particular of that in this thread, consensus would mean a lot more to me in other circumstances.

I've already suggested several times that an area could be created on this page for web communities which could easily include TMP (as well as WPS and yahoo groups and so on. Why not consider that? Easily done, and a better place for sites like TMP than alongside clearly different entities like BHGS.

Two final notes -- 1) remember, this is an opportunity to make good faith edits, not an attempt to trip up other editors with "you already said this, so that supports my argument" type comments. It's not a "war" to be "won" and there's no "enemy" to be "outsmarted." 2) Please do not chop up my comments when responding to them. Thanks. Larry Dunn 18:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the page does not say "wargaming communities." It's helpful to have an area on the article that lists out actual organizations, which run events, collect money to further the hobby, have literature available, etc., so new gamers can get this kind of information. Larry Dunn 19:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I am open to compromise, but I would also like to point out that TMP meets the criteria you are mentioning here:

"which run events" -TMP has hosted online painting and scenario design contests, complete with prizes. They also allow other organizations to advertise physical gaming events.

"collect money to further the hobby" - TMP has paying members, of which you yourself are one. This money is used to keep the site running, providing information to gamers news and old, and also a place for smaller companies to reach a 13,000+ audience.

"have literature available" -TMP runs a series of "On the Workbench" articles, providing paiting and modelling tips to gamers. Additional, the members informally provide a wealth information in the forums. You yourself have both sought and provided information in such a context.

"so new gamers can get this kind of information" - TMP is one of the first sites listed on Yahoo, Google and MSN when you type "Miniature Wargaming". With over 3 million visits a month, I think it is providing gamers with information they want and need. When you want information on a particular set of ruls or miniatures, can you honestly tell us you contact HMGS or one of the other organizations on the list? Or do you ask other members of TMP? Joekano 23:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

In its widest context TMP is a community, yes, but it also has paying 'members', which would appear to set them apart from the rest (those who turn up and post). Phil Gray UK 22:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the majority of people involved in this discussion feel that TMP should be listed as an organization. If the minority still feel strongly against this, I suggest they request mediation rather than have this return to a undo-redo battle. Thanks everyone for your participation! Joekano 17:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Putting my comment in the end to avoid chopping other comments without intend. Talking about this section of this talk regarding this issue of TMP, it doesn't seem to be part of any vendetta and most of the comments I've read are quite civilized (just remember that when someone reverts your edit in an edit war it means that you already have reverted another one before, generally speaking). In fact, the first proposing adding TMP was me trying to solve the issue around Bill.

The original argument to remove TMP was that it was not an organization, and I put it again in the list since I believe that was not true based on what has been said here. Regarding adding another section with a long list to it, I truly believe this article has too many lists already, and as I have said in another section of this talk page, I think the list of miniature manufacturers should be moved out, so I won't second the inclusion of another general list.

Now, probably the real issue is the notability of TMP, why we don't discuss that?

Jack1968ES 19:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Jack, I'm afriad I respectfully disagree on this point. I actually don't believe it is an issue of notability at this stage, as I believe the notability of TMP has been estabilished and even Larry Dunn has admitted that TMP has a place on this page. What we keep running in cirles about is how it should be listed. As I've stated earlier, those making objections to TMP being an organization should try a rewrite rather than just deleting the work of others. We can then look at this effort and see if we all agree with this page organization. If we like it, fine, if not, at least we have given the others a chance to express their ideas. Joekano 01:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If the definition of an organisation involves it pursuing collective goals and controling its own performance then TMP is not an organisation. It operates totally under the direction of Bill Armintrout with little or no input from anyone else. DMHodge

Not really... having an established formal head with final word on many subject doesn't mean the people involved is not collectively pursuing some goals... I believe most people will agree that Corporations are Organizations, and they have boards of directors, presidents and the like.

Even not profit organizations like charity funds have an internal structure that usually ends up in a few people with a lot of power.

In general, if the head of an organization shows a clear difference with the goals pursued by its members, the head will be replaced or the member will flee.

Jack1968ES 07:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see both sides of it being called an organization. Maybe the category listing of organizations is wrong, because TMP definitely should be provided, as it is a more comprehensive resource than any of the organizations listed. I added Bill back into the notable persons, as he is solely responsible for what has been one of the best miniatures-related resource in at least the last 10 years. For that reason, he is notable. I have also added TMP into the external links, as, according to WP:EL, it is essentially a site both "with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews" and a "web directory category, when deemed appropriate by those contributing to the article, with preference to open directories." I don't see that any of the "avoided" items apply. Yellowking 21:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Changing one of the title entries

I'm speaking about: Notable miniature wargamers and miniature wargame designers. I think it's more appropiate to change it to: Notable personalities of the Miniature wargames hobby because there are also sculptors listed and the original title is misleading and just targets very few individuals and forgets other that have an impact in our hobby. I can not see how someone can be notable just for playing wargames as the title suggests. Perry Brothers or Mark Copplestone have done a lot for the hobby by sculpting hundreds of miniatures that had a lot of relevance for the wargamers, but that do not make them "wargamers". --Mike Higgins 12:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree the title is misleading, and it fact it's probably a too broad list to be included here. I've also found an article on Miniature figure (gaming) which is probably a better place for sculptors and even the list of manufacturers (see related entry in this talk page)

Jack1968ES 15:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think putting the sculptors on the Miniature figure (gaming) page is a good idea. We can also link that article i this section. For manufacturers, perhaps we can list figure producers on that page, game producers here, and if a company does both, list them on each page. I also like the retitlng of the section. Joekano 16:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

My original idea was to add an article List of miniature manufacturers similar to List of miniature wargames and provide a link to it from both, this page and the Miniature figure (gaming).

Regarding terrain, could it be considered a "miniature" and put it on the same list? Jack1968ES 16:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that adding an article for a List of miniature (and terrain) manufacturers sounds like a resaonable one. If no one does it before then, I might have a crack at it this weekend when I have some more time. My initial thought is to essentially move all the material from the "mini and terrain manufacturers section" in this article into a new one, and then adding a link to the new page from the Miniature wargaming page (similar to the List of wargame publishers. I don't really plan on editing the content, and the warning for "cleanup" of that section should also remain. Craw-daddy 10:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

links to other sites

I am attempting to set up a link to the recently started wargamer wiki, but have been told that this is against wikipedia policy, strangely this rule about links doesn't not seem to apply to other sites already on the page. The wikipedia claims to be free to edit, but this seems to be untrue since some on this site seem to be interpreting this to mean that they are free to edit and everybody else needs their permission. Praetor12 12:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about your particular case, but there are a set of guidelines about what can or can't be done, and I suppose if someone changes an entry you have added, he/she should have given you a hint about the reasons. Jack1968ES 15:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

His reason was wikipedia was not for links, fair enough but I was trying to link the wikipedia to a wiki dealing with ideas about wargaming (not for the purpose of selling anything), also what links are appropriate anyway (since my link wasn't any different from the other links which are okay. Praetor12 15:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm probably not the best one to give you an answer, since I joined Wikipedia a week or so ago, but you may try looking at this policy or even contacting the editor that removed your link to ask for help. Based on my own short experience I will suggest you (as the one adding the link) should try to convince the other party the link is in line with the policy, and not just ask why he/she removed it.

Hope that helps (there's also a help page here). Jack1968ES 18:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

At the bottom of the page is a external link for "list of fansites" for the LOTR games. That seems to be an odd link, not really applicable to wargaming in general. In short, I'm questioning it's notability. Roryhinnen 17:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. In trimming the links, that is not really notable for wargaming in general - there are articles where it could be applicable, but certainly not here (unless it is being used as a source, which it isn't). --Grimhelm 18:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Yellowking 20:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

NOVAG

I dont' know the club, but a little inspection didn't show anything notable enough to include it in the list. If I'm wrong just put it again, but please give some rationale in this page.

Remeber Wikipedia is not a directory (WP:NOT) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jack1968ES (talk • contribs) 18:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Miniature and terrain manufacturers

OK, so I created a page called List of miniature and terrain manufacturers. I basically copied the info from the Miniature wargaming page into that one. What do you all think of this? If you're satisfied, please feel free to update this Miniature wargaming page to link to that one (and delete the list here). Craw-daddy 09:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Now I've gone ahead and done this, i.e. removed the list of mini and terrain manufacturers from this page. I added internal links to that newly created page (as well as the wargame publishers list too). Craw-daddy 11:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)