Talk:Tactical wargame

	Games portal 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.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Partial merger

I would like to suggest a partial merger with the article Turn-based tactics. SharkD 02:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible. At the very least it should probably get more than a two-line intro to the subject. Any particular content you're looking to move or copy over?

The actual thing that's going on here is that it was originally written with a much more limited scope than the title implies. Since then, it's been accreting content from other subjects within the scope of the title, leading it to slowly turn into a lopsided, unfocused monstrosity.

The original subject is more like "WWII & modern land tactical wargames", not a fun title. ...And on top of that it focused on board wargames, though even the initial drafts also talked about computer games. (And it doesn't even touch miniatures games yet, which is pretty much all tactical in nature....)

What probably needs to be done here to this article is to try and structure it to account for the full scope of tactical wargames (which would practically be a sister article of "Turn-based tactics" - as while this is all 'turn-based', if you need to specify such, you are probably talking about a CVG subject), and then split the original core of this one into a sub-article. --Rindis 16:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Turn-based tactics are a component of tactical wargaming, not the other way around.139.48.81.98 19:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split lists from article

I suggest splitting the lists into their own article. SharkD Talk 13:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]