Talk:Full Thrust

Status

updated to include the revisions in FB1 and 2.

What exactly is the issue with the sources on this page? It's been cited, but I'm not certain what exactly is being questioned? Roryhinnen 17:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The references are too few (they should be given for paragraphs, not sections) and improperly located, see WP:CITE and WP:V.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Just getting used to Wikipedia. I assume then the issue is the first section, some of the "popular ruleset" statements and such. Roryhinnen 21:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Full-proof strategy is to reference each sentence at the end. Example: Operation Wilno.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hiya, the actual problem is that the thing is being cited as a reference for itself. That is not a valid source. This is one of the most important rules of wikipedia. It's in this article: Wikipedia:Verifiability

Here's the part that deals with this. Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

Citing the rules in an article about the rules is not a third party source.

This sounds pretty sucky because it means we can only write about things that other people have already written about. But the opposite side of the coin is, would you open a published encyclo and expect to see an article on Full Thrust?Jewish-wargamer 21:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The game is notable and yes, it should be covered by encyclopedia. While preferably sources like reviews, articles, books and so on should be used, note from Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_in_articles_about_themselves that FT publications can be used to describe it - in reasonable bounds.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hiya, actually, a self-published source would be something like a website or a so-called "vanity book," not the subject of the article itself. So if you did a website about something, that's self-published. You could cite it as long as it meets the criteria.

I have to disagree about this topic being something we would expect to see in an encyclopedia, though. I've never seen any specific hobby product in any of the many encyclopedias I've looked at. However, hopefully there are some usable sources out there for this article so it's not deleted. Let's find them! Jewish-wargamer 20:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

But have you ever seen any encyclopedia as large as this one? :) WP:PAPER should always be kept in mind...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And I'm glad of it!  :-> But that said, the idea of encyclopedic is pretty much reflected in what sorts of things might be in a paper encyclo. Actually that page you directed me to has a very relevant provision on it, this one:

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought

Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not heretofore published.

The substance of articles like these are all original thought -- the analyses of the rules are completely, entirely, created by the authors of the articles themselves. It's virtually impossible to find sources for these things, because people do not really write articles or books about them. It's because they are hobby products, and therefore not really encyclopedic. It's my hobby, I love it, and I'd love to see more articles, not fewer, but according to Wiki policy, we should probably have a lot fewer articles than we now have. They are almost all the dreaded original research. Jewish-wargamer 21:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be reliable sources like reivews one could dig for most of that...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I say, let's do it! Jewish-wargamer 20:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

As with some other articles, I find myself wondering exactly what references or sources are desired in this case. Aside from the statement about being one of the "most popular" games (which might require a source for verification), essentially the rest of the article is a description of the game rules. Where is the analysis of the rules? I don't see any. There's no opinions offered about the rules themselves, how good/bad, exciting, novel they are, etc. So again I ask (barring the initial claim of popularity) what sources are required/desired? (I know nothing about this game, but the way.) Craw-daddy 22:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the rules have to be referenced (a rulebook and page numbers would be sufficient), per WP:V, on the assumption that otherwise there is no guarantee somebody is not making them up.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

References and notability

I inserted the {{primarysources}} tag into this article since it really needs third party references to demonstrate its notability. While I'm sure that those references exist, I don't know where they are and thought that those more familiar with the game would be better at locating them. I would imagine that at some point in the future another editor is going to push hard for a clear demonstration of notability, as this article has none to show this right now. At that point a response of "no it doesn't" to the statement "need independent sources" isn't going to satisfy them. I'm not planning to be that editor who pushes for this, but I thought you should be warned that right now this article fails the requirements for third party sources to satisfy WP:N. Cheers --Craw-daddy | T | 07:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you're reading, but it says nowhere on WP:N that an article HAS TO HAVE third party sources to be notable. It says "multiple sources are generally prefered" – that doesn't say it's required. As a major contributor to this article, I believe the best reliable sources for such an obscure game as "Full Thrust" is the rule books themselves. I've played the game numerous times, and even though it's not nearly as popular as other mini games like Warhammer 40K - it deserves mention on Wikipedia - even if the best info only comes from the books. If other info can be sourced then fine, but it hardly deserves a warning tag. Cyberia23 05:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

From WP:N: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The phrase "independent of the subject" is the important part here. The only references are to the rulebooks, which are fine when you discuss the rules, but for notability they don't satisfy that requirement. What is desired is to find reviews that talk about the game, awards won, etc, etc to show notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 07:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

15 years later, the page is a bit better, citin a Pyramid review, and some award, but I am afraid it is still borderline when it comes to WP:GNG. We need need to find more rewards and such. Did anyone write, in a reliable source, about the importance of this game? Can we find more reliable reviews (ones that have some editorial control, and are not just user generated)? I've added some reviews to the Polish version of this article, but they are of mediocre reliability at best, IMHO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

PS. I've added the same revews here to the review section. Still needs more. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

NSL Nazis?

Where actually do you have the information from, that the NSL falls under a "national-socialist core government"? According to Tufffley himself:

"One important note concerning the NSL: according to our background, they are NOT "Nazis in Space", so no swastika markings! Think in terms of noble Austro-Hungarian and Prussian aristocracy - use WWI/modern German crosses if you wish, though we prefer stylised eagle symbols." from http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3565/ft-painting-faq.html#New%20Swabian%20League%20(NSL) (retrieved 11.11.07) 85.127.177.237 01:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Needs some context

I'd like to see a section that contrasts FT2.5 with other popular starship games, most notably Battlefleet Gothic. The games emphasize very different aspects of play. BFG, for example, places emphasis on the ships crew quality and leadership, while FT2.5 focuses on ship design. BFG feels very "naval" in its orientation, while FT2.5's vector movement system leads to a unique maneuver pattern all its own. On the other hand, both systems employ a balance of capital ships and small attack craft, with both used to provide power projection. 131.96.91.19 (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)