Talk:White Dwarf (magazine)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Editorial list - This is currently incorrect Guy Haley is still the editor of White Dwarf (as he has been since issue 302). Owen Rees simply edits the last 28 or so pages (average total page count is 130 pages) for the UK only section, which consists of mail order pages, store listings and events diaries. The first 100 pages is the 'central' content that appears in all the international editions and this is edited by Guy.

"Waste Drain?" White Dwarf is excellent now! How dare you!

You've gotta admit, a large part of it is advertising miniatures now... ··gracefool |☺ 08:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well someone removed it, so i'm happy now. The magazine is Brilliant.

Methinks the POV article was made during a new codex (last issue had 138 pages and 4 miniature ads) Johhny-turbo 00:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Im sorry, but White Dwarf since issue 316 is utter CRAP :( And looking through various forums like warseer, it shows that its customers arent happy recently either.

Perhaps a Controvecy area is needed to add to the WD wiki?

[edit] original WD

The introduction incorrectly asserts that the original White Dwarf focussed on wargaming and RPGs. This is incorrect. The original focussed on RPGS almost exclusively. The article implies that it was also exclusively linked to D&D and AD&D. In fact, the first 20 issues had a great deal on Traveller as well. The magazine also focussed on Cthulhu, Superheroes (was it really called that?) and I'm sure some Bishido and Aftermath articles as well.

Somehow, you need to get a writer that has the copies rather than work backwards from the current magazine which is vastly different to the original (Issues 1 - 100) Candy 09:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Golden Heroes. That was the name of GW's superhero RPG. One of the best RPGs ever made, in fact. Oh, for the glory days of yesteryear... :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.165.234.2 (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Section 3 Criticisms

There are a number of problems with "Section 3: Criticisms"

The first is in line one: "White Dwarf magazine has, like the hobby itself, attracted a share of criticism." The clause that reads "like the hobby itself" is irrelevant.

The second is in line two: "...to close their own internet forum, issuing a slightly contradictory statement that ..." This is unnecessary and unencylopedic writing. Both of these statements read like a case of "weasel wording."

Finally, this section does not cite its sources for its criticism. Can these points be verified? If not, they don't belong here.

I believe the first two problems can be solved by deletion. Citations need to be found for the rest of the section, otherwise the whole section could be considered questionable.

What are other people's opinions on it? Cailil 20:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)