Talk:18XX
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Untitled[edit]
I am new to contributing to Wikipedia, so please help me do it right the first time so you don't have to keep cleaning it up.
- :-) We'll do our best
Can you clarify what you mean by second-instance links? I looked at the manual of style page and searching for that term didn't show anything, and I couldn't see anything relevant to delinking most of the author and publisher names. If that is to be done, shouldn't it be done consistently?
- I think this rule-of-thumb has been moved recently; it took me a while to find it. From WP:CONTEXT:
- Avoid duplicate links on a page. Redundant links clutter up the page and make future maintenance harder. However, link the first occurrence of a term, and always link when directing to a page for more information, e.g. "Relevant background can be found in Fourier series". It is not uncommon to repeat a link that had last appeared much earlier in the article, but there's hardly ever a reason to link the same term twice in the same section.
Also, I put (game designer) after the names because that was how the original page had it, and it seems that names are too ambiguous. Is the intention that you only disambiguate the names once there is a conflict?
- That's my understanding of things, yes.
Also, there are two different 18NL games -- I put 18NL (WJ) to distinguish the one by Wolfram Janich from the one by Helmut Ohley (referenced on his designer page and I will create a separate page for it if I can find sufficient information about it). Likewise, I had HO in the 1862 game to distinguish Helmut Ohley's game from another of the same name (even though it isn't widely published, it is well known in the hobby). Did you have a specific reason to remove those?
JTamplin 00:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- As I wasn't aware there was a conflict, I didn't realise there was a reason for the parentheses. I'm not quite sure, as I can't find a relevant entry in the MOS, but the trend here seems to be not to use acronyms in the parenthesised sections (so Cat (role-playing game) not Cat (RPG)) so I'd recommend the following names for the main articles
- 18NL (Wolfram Janich board game)
- 18NL (Helmut Ohley board game)
- 1862 (Helmut Ohley board game)
- 1862 (Battles and Leaders) (assuming this is the game you mean)
- Certainly WP:NAME suggests using (e.g.) "Orwell novel" "Asimov short story" in parens. It's different for widely-understood acronyms like UK and US, though - see WP:NCA#Acronyms as disambiguators
- Hope that helps Percy Snoodle 12:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I am David Hecht (my full name is David Gordon Dahlgren Hecht, hence I am also David G.D. Hecht). I am adding to this thread because it seeems like the right place for these comments: if I have erred again, please let me know.
I certainly didn't mean to cause a problem in my "mass linking" as you refer to it, but you should note that it's less effective for the reader to have only one instance of each designer or publisher's name linked, since most readers won't think to look to another part of the list to find such a link: after all, they'd have to know who designed or published what in order to. Indeed that is why I started...I noticed that some designers and publishers were linked and not others, and eventually got to the point (apparently pointlessly) where I went to the trouble of linking them all.
If mass linking is a problem, I suggest you consider some alternative way of presenting the data that cross-references the data, and thus will allow a reader to see a link to a designer or publisher from any of the products of that designer or publisher. A simple table would do, and might be easier in the long term, since new 18xx games are constantly being published.
FWIW I've relinked my own 1826 using a redirector, since you also went to the trouble iof adding my middle initials back in, wich of course had the effect of breaking the link there. If this is a problem than--again--please suggest an alternative solution. If you want to discuss any of this outside Wikipedia, my email is barzai -at- earthlink -dot- net.
Very respectfully,
David G.D. Hecht
Designer of 1826, 18EU, 18VA, 18Scan, 18FL, and various other as-yet unpublished 18xx games.
69.143.43.90 22:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Section Headings[edit]
Please use section headings on talk pages to keep things organized by topic. You do it the way I did this one. Feel free to copy and edit it. - Stellmach 14:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Opening Description[edit]
I'd note that in addition to being non-random (save for the determination of start order for the initial auction) 18xx games are except for 1853 complete information games. Tdewey 05:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Not so. A number of them have hidden or random information, 2038 is most obvious, but there are others chrisboote 11:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- 1829 Mainline is another example, because of the randomly ordered release of shares for purchase. Viktor Haag (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Common Features[edit]
Point 2 is correct for most games but incorrect for those games, such as 1889, where private powers are exercisable by the player not a corporation. Tdewey 05:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Point 3 omits the initial auction round that is the part of most games and the 1853 bidding round. Tdewey 05:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Generally I think this section is a mess and needs to be re-organized. I'd suggest creating an ' example of play ' section discussing the initial auction round, the initial stock round and operating round and subsequent stock rounds and operating rounds. Then go into common features and differences. Tdewey 05:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
List of Games[edit]
I would note the idea of the 18xx mcguffin somewhere in the opening sections and try and come up with a one-sentence description of the mcguffin in this section. For example 1832: Set in South-eastern United States. Added mergers and incorporated devices from 1850/1870. Tdewey 05:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Dead link[edit]
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
--JeffGBot (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Dead link 2[edit]
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
--JeffGBot (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Dead link 3[edit]
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
--JeffGBot (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Dead link 4[edit]
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!