Talk:Ogre (board game)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Why is the title of this page written as if it were an acronym? It isn't, you know. 22:08, 3 March 2004 The Epopt

It looks like that's been fixed. rewinn 02:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

But the REAL reason I came to talk: I remember the 1st version of the game had GEVs whose 2nd move was 4 hexes, so a fleet of GEVs could easily defeat a OGRE by move/shoot/flee. The 2nd version cut down the 2nd move a bit so the tactic was not nearly as effective. A smart rev although annoying to we GEV fans! rewinn 02:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

GA on Hold

• The second lead paragraph needs be sourced, how do we know the game was republished in 2000?

Found one source for this, looking for another.

• In the game description, it says the game uses a Mark III ogre, what does that mean, is Mark it's name or what?

I tried to clear this up a little bit. I think it's called a Mark III Ogre in the same fashion that the Sherman tank was given the designation of M4. In other words, it's slightly arbitrary and, in the case of the Sherman, was decided by some bureaucratic mechanism of the US military. In the case of the game, I'm guessing (as I don't know Steve Jackson) that it was simply a "cool sounding name" for the heavy tank the attacker controls.

It's a good question; I wikilinked the first occurrence to Mark (designation) so that future readers won't have to ask. -- Gnoitall (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• The second paragraph of the game description needs to be sourced for verification.

Added one source, and looking for another.

• The last two paragraphs of the game description: it should be considered of moving it to somewhere like a Game reception section, or it can remain there, but what those two famous people thought of the game doesn't fit too much with it's description.

Moved to a section I called "Critical Reception".

• In the spinoff section, the paragraph about the G.E.V spinoff needs to be sourced.

Found one source, and looking for another one.

Overall

• The article is written well, but there are parts that need to be sourced. Once these problems are addresses, please notify me on my talkpage.--TrUCo-X 19:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Just noting my progress so far. Still not completed. --Craw-daddy | T | 21:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, just notify when all of its complete.TrUCo-X 14:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm all done now. Hope it's all up to specs.  :) --Craw-daddy | T | 21:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for appropriately modifying my edit. The article looks great. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass:Good Job on replying to the queries. It is a good board game article.TrUCo-X 21:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

G.E.V. stands for...?

I played this game way back in the '80s and I knew what G.E.V. stood for. My memory tells me that it stood for something like "Gravity Assisted Vehicle", but I know that "E" doesn't stand for "Assisted". Does anyone know what it stands for? Google didn't help. Anyway, it'd make a good addition to the article. Amazing that no one has questioned the acronym before. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 18:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

See the game description. G.E.V. = Ground effect vehicle. Cheers! --Craw-daddy | T | 18:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Ogreiii.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ogreiii.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 18 October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Ogrefencers.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ogrefencers.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 18 October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Notes on The Ogre

There is a disagreement about whether to include the following external link:

• Notes on the Ogre

Craw-daddy thinks "No need for this additional external link as it's reachable from the main SJG Ogre page".[1]

My opinion is that, while not adding external links that are reachable from the main page is a good general rule, some pages are so important to the topic that they are worth an additional link. In my opinion, this is one such case.

The opinion of other editors would be most helpful in reaching consensus on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The document is largely of historical interest as it was written four game versions ago. Hcobb (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)