Talk:I Ain't Been Shot, Mum!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Link to TFL Page

The link is also at the bottom of the page, as the "Oficial Site", and it has survived previous changes that removed the link at the top.

For the reader it would be the same to find the link within the text or in the bottom section.

Could we agree it may stay there? or do we just keep adding and removing? for how long could this keep going on without anybody trying to reach agreement?

Jack1968ES 15:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like 3R Jack1968ES 19:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability Again

Being that notability is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice", and not being synonymous with "fame" or "importance", and given that it seems lots of editors agree that this article is not "notable", could you all help a newbie editor like me into understanding the issue?

Basically I ask for answering my questions below, that beyond helping this article to stay within Wikipedia would allow me to understand better the scope of this encyclopedia.

Also, since there's a mediation going on, could we reach a gentlemen agreement to not put the notability tag again until the issue has been solved?

My little understanding of Wikipedia polices seems to call for a calm down period to think about it, and if no agreement can be reached we could always ask for a dispute resolution of some sort.

In the meantime, if the notability tag keeps appearing it may happen the article gets deleted and, if the article persist, I would have lost the opportunity to enrich it by myself and by many others and I would have to start again.

If, on the other hand, the article is finally decided to be "not notable", then it will get deleted anyway and it will no longer be part of Wikipedia. You will probably loose nothing at the all, but for the information staying a little longer.

Any toughts on this?

Jack1968ES 07:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Notability

I'm new to this, so probably I'm wrong, but I see that notability of this article probably comes from the rule set being included in the List of miniature wargames article, and that should deserve an internal explanation, like many other rule sets in that list.

Also, I'm trying to fix it up to comply with the notability guideline by comparing with other similar articles (FoW, GW, AT-43, etc) but I can't find the guideline represented in those articles, so I would really appreciate if a senior editor could help me point out the differences, so I could try to fix this page.

That said... I will remove the notability warning and I would expect the discussion taking place in this pages.

Thanks 80.24.57.84 07:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't compare the article to others, compare it to the wikipedia guidelines. The central rule of notability for Wikipedia is:
A notable topic has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject.
As a guideline I suspect that notability has its exceptions, and perhaps the existence of more than 50 internal links from the List of miniature wargames to individual articles on those games is more than 50+ violations to the guideline... maybe it is a sign of a commonly accepted exception? maybe not? anyway to choose besides our own opinion on the subject? 80.24.57.84 13:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, looking at the definition of notability I found a couple of interesting things: First, notability is not subjective, meaning it doesn't depend on you or me thinking the subject is important and/or useless; Second, at first glance it seems like the four reviews linked in the article could provide Substantial, Multiple (this is tricky, since the number needed may vary greatly), Non-trivial, Published works and Independence criteria as defined in the policy. I'm not completely sure about Reliable. What do you think? Thanks again 80.24.57.84 14:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
In other words, is the subject encyclopedic? This article seems a clear subject of questionable notability. Larry Dunn 04:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, but I should point out that I was not comparing the article with others, I was trying to find out how the notability guideline was applied to other similar articles so I could modify this to comply with the guideline (In fact, I was trying to learn, since I don't know).
That being said, what you wrote gives no light on the issue for me, perhaps if the next time you add the notability tag you could give me some hints about how this article could be changed to comply with the notability, or you could express your opinion saying this subject will never be notable, then I would learn something more.
Thanks again, removing your notability tag, and waiting for your next talk. 80.24.57.84 08:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Another thing that comes to my mind... why the first time the notability warning was on top of the page and the second time it was at the bottom? there's any guideline on that? 80.24.57.84 09:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I have been involved in this "lame editing war" since I became aware of it earlier in the week. While allowing anyone to edit a topic is a nice feature it can also be a flaw. When I see something that is questionable I try to discuss the issue, as we are doing here, or offer a counter point. I would prefer to do this instead of arbitrarily deleting content, links and references. My view is not always the agreed unpon view and I can accept this. But some people choose to inflict their views, right or wrong, by deleting whatever it is that they don't like. Many forums refer to that kind of person as an "info-Nazi". I do not own Wikipedia, I am only a guest here. It is rude to enter someone's home and start an argument, especially over a lame issue that in a decade both sides may look back on and find amusing. I could say more, but I will save that for future discussions. Pwillows 09:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Notability and Unity

Let's say we agree Miniature Wargaming is notable, then we decide that would be useful to include a list of Miniature Wargames, and probably more useful indeed to include a small description of each item, so we could provide some information to the reader on how the different challenges have been solved by different rule sets and the like.

So far, the only article subject to notability will be Miniature Wargaming

Now, let's say we decide to split the original article in two, since it has become too big to handle, so we move the Miniature Wargames section to its own article and put a link in the original one. Now, the notability of Miniature Wargames may be questioned.

Moreso, a growing list of Miniature Wargames lead to individual articles on each ruleset to make the list a more shorter article. Then, notability of the result would be probably unacceptable.

My point is, should be there a policy on how notability is inherit when an article is split up somehow or for whatever reason? 80.24.57.84 17:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability (outside view)

I have little knowledge of miniature wargames at all. So if someone can convince me this is notable, they'd have a good case. What I'd like to know is why someone is questioning it in the first place. If you want to question notability of an article you need something to back up the claim. Anyway, I don't think anyone will disagree with me when I say Warhammer is a notable miniature wargame. It has sold millions of copies, it's released by a company with over 30 years of experience, and if I remember correctly there's even world championships for this game. All good reasons to assume it's notable. Now, from a quick glance it appears this game is only sold online and not through shops, by a relatively new company and I have no clue about how many people play it, but it doesn't appear to be all that many. Can anyone prove me wrong? - Mgm|(talk) 09:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

But as I understood reading the notability guideline, it's not about being popular,famous and/or even important... it's just about people talking about it.
So it could be claimed that the existence of at least four independent reviews talking about a not so widespread game in a minor market could be enough to show notability.
I would also add that if this was a short description within the List of miniature wargames it wouldn't need a notability argument, but to keep the original page clean it has been take out, like many others, so... it's notability really required? (this is a rethoric question since I believe notability as applied to miniature wargames, could be proved) -Jack1968ES 10:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, even if it's mentioned in a list we'd need some indication of notability (although how to indicate it is something open for discussion), because there's also people out there, use articles and lists as a way to advertise their game. - Mgm|(talk) 16:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • As the editor who originally posted a notability tag on this article when it was in its infancy, I can say that notability by WP standards has now been established, in my opinion. When I first posted the tag, the article was much, much shorter than it is now. Independent sources for reviews have now been added, considerably more content is now in place, and the article has been improved greatly. I have now removed the notability tag, as I feel it is no longer applicable. I am not a member of the war-gamer community, so I cannot and will not coment on the game's notability within the industry, and I do not wish to be drawn into a debate about the same. I just want to make my position known as an outside editor who took action on this article early on. I would advise those involved in the dispute to take a deep breath, step away from the keyboard for a brief time, and then talk this out in a meaningful way. Realkyhick 19:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Greetings Realkyhick! Many thanks for your comments. I'm one of the people who's done a bit of the editing on this page, and have generally tried to keep from reacting before thinking about it (whether I've succeeded could be open to debate). It's refreshing to hear that the original "notability tagger" feels that the standards have been met. Craw-daddy 22:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help. When I first tagged the article, it was about four lines long in my browser, and didn't really say much at all. I was on newpage patrol, and my first reaction was to give it a speedy delete. But even though notability wasn't asserted yet, the article looked like it had potential, so I just posted a {{notability}} and waited. I'm trying to be not quite so quick on the speedy-delete trigger as I used to be, but when you see all of the out-and-out crap that comes through, sometimes you get into a rhythm of hitting the proverbial gong. I puled back and waited here and I'm glad I did, despite the war of wills that seems to have arisen since. It happens - I'm a newspaper writer, and the same sort of thing happens in a newsroom frequently.
As we say "down South," holler if you need me. Realkyhick 22:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

In any case, we should try to address the issues noted by Mgm... Jack1968ES 07:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pros and Cons

I've been pointed that Pros and Cons, as written, are not encyclopedic and add little to the NPOV of the article, so I will remove them and, with time and hope, try to merge them with the main text in a more factual way.

Jack1968ES 10:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Bias and Notability.....

This article seems very biased in favor of the rules set being discussed. I also must echo some of the sentiments expressed here that I simply do not see IABSM as notable. I have followed it since it's release, and aside from a small, but vocal fanbase (the same ones who had been making a lot of noise about the Wikipedia dust-up), its following is nowhere near more established and "notable" rules sets, it just get's a lot of exposure because the authors and fans push it consistently (at places like The Miniatures Page).

By including IABSM as notable, you pretty much open a large can of worms to nearly all published WWII rules sets that have a website and a Yahoo Group with a few hundred people signed up, and in this day and age of PDF distribution (how IABSM is primarily distributed), that's a whole lot of potential "notables"....

Just my .02