 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
For a long time I assumed this game was done by Stephen Baker the original author of Milton Bradley's "hero quest." Is this actually a different person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:5210:A900:2578:7831:914D:B839 ( talk) 02:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with the removal of the box contents section that occurred on 8 March 2006. How is that section considered 'non-encyclopedic' and thus removed?
I see the directly related article for the sister game Hero Quest. A major portion of the box listing is clearly defined. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeroQuest_%28board_game%29
Even the topic for Monopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_%28game%29 has very detailed description of each of the pieces of the boardgame.
Given that the article is about a boardgame, box contents is imo a crucial part of the data relating to a boardgame.
-- jliu 02:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. What information does a tedious list of box contents give to the reader of the article? Citing HeroQuest as an example of what happens if you list the box contents is a perfect example of why this is a bad idea: all that article is a list of what was in the box for the game and the expansions. It tells me nothing about what the game actually is. Cheers -- Pak21 03:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with you, the box contents section does not tell anyone what the game actually is. But it describes everything about what the box contains. HeroQuest is not a good example of what I'm trying to say. If you read the article for Monopoly, there is a sketchily-detailed section under Equipment that is essentially a paragraphed listing of the contents of a Monopoly set. There are additional (one-line) descriptions of most of the set pieces, but the section under "Equipment" does not tell anyone what the game Monopoly is either. In the case of HeroQuest, I'm proposing to add additional information for each of the expansion packs, as opposed to just remove all the box contents for it. Or perhaps we should add more details of each of the pieces of the SpaceCrusade boardgame set (make the article more like Monopoly). But I feel removing of the contents of SpaceCrusade seems to be step in the wrong direction. I didn't check, but if we look under chess, I'm sure there will be a section detailing each of the pieces and how they work there as well. -- jliu 09:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- But honestly, who cares what the box contains? I don't really think that comparisions with either Monopoly or Chess are actually that valid: those are games which are known by a much wider section of people than Space Crusade. In any case, I would argue the content there is encyclopedic as it explains what the pieces do, rather than being purely a list. To take some examples, I see no listing of pieces in (say) Settlers of Catan, Tigris and Euphrates, Puerto Rico, Carcassonne or in something like Magic: The Gathering, or even in Space Hulk. I'll give you that Power Grid does list the box contents, but those games that do are very much in the minority. Realistically, the box listing was removed three months ago and nobody else seems to think this is a problem, so I'm very happy with them not being here. Cheers -- Pak21 10:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- those are games which are known by a much wider section of people than Space Crusade - I fail to see why this would make any difference. In traditional encyclopedia where paper is scarce and popular topics deserved more room, this might have been a valid argument. Realistically, the box listing was removed three months ago and nobody else seems to think this is a problem, so I'm very happy with them not being here, I didn't write that section, someone else did, and I hope whoever wrote it thought it was important because I certainly think it's important. I can't just go to a unpopular article that hasn't seen edit for 3 months and chop out a section because it didn't fall in with my subjective definition of what wikipedia should be. But honestly, who cares what the box contains? - obviously some people do. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this talk. I had a good read of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, thanks for linking it to me btw, but I fail to see the listing of box contents to fall anywhere near any of the clearly defined "NOT"'s. Since it is not well-defined, then I feel the removal becomes a purely subjective matter. One editer feels it does not belong here, while another feels it does. Anyway, I'm not sure how well you know this particular boardgame, I wouldn't call myself a collector, but I know a few, and since this game is out of production, and the only way to get it is via second-hand copies on EBay or garage sales in the few countries that it was produced for. In both situations, the list of box contents is extremely valuable to people reading the article. I'm perfectly happy to add more details to the listing to bring it up to par with the section for Monopoly (game), if that's what you think it needs. I don't want to even try to convince everyone that you all need to know what's in the box. I'm saying what's in the box is important to people (that's why it was written). And I think it should be added back to the article. -- jliu 03:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- "But honestly, who cares what the box contains? - obviously some people do. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this talk.". No. Obviously you do: there is little, if any, evidence that anybody else does. Look through the articles for Deutscher Spiele Preis winners and Spiel des Jahres winners and tell me how many of those list the box contents. If the Wikipedia consensus was that box contents are encyclopedic, they'd be on those articles. They (in the vast majority of cases) aren't, so I would at this point ask you to provide some evidence beyond your personal opinion that the box contents are encyclopedic. -- Pak21 10:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oh I found more links. Talk:HeroQuest (board game) - I counted 2, may be 3 people that think it was important. Waza when he first created the article back in November 22 1994 probably thought it's important (I certainly hope he does, may be he doesn't. We can ask him). I think it's important. The fact that the article stood for about a year and a half's worth of edits (by a dozen editors) with the box contents intact before it was removed shows that no-one else thought it was unimportant to remove it until recently. Within 4 month of the removal we're having a dispute. As for other games, the lack of a box of contents (or a list of equipment) for other games I strongly feel is an omission - it doesn't equate to such a list being unnecessary or unimportant. In fact, for a long time the box of contents was all this article had. People don't know anything about what the boardgame is about aside from what's in the box. Me and other contributors added the various summaries for the sections only to end up with seeing the box of contents get removed. I'm an avid wikipedia reader and this article is the only article that I _ever_ edit, because it was in such poor quality and it's a subject I could contribute. I won't pretend I know and can dictate what qualifies as encyclopedic material and what doesn't - If you can show me either rules that says "box of content" isn't (this is my earlier point). Or if you can show me similar discussions or disputes where it's been decided and settled that box of contents should be removed, then I'll shut up and be quiet. The articles I brought up you have dismissed as either in error themselves (aka Hero Quest) or of a different category (Monopoly/Chess - again I do not agree with the different category explanation, if Monopoly can have a list of equipments, I can't see why SpaceCrusade can't have a box of contents). Of the articles that you have brought up, I see it as tragic omissions that needs to be updated (if I had known what the contents are, I would have gone add them in). If the quality, layout or the (lack of) details on the box of contents needs more work, that is a different issue and a removal isn't the right way to do this. BTW, I know we are not convincing each other, and I'm perfectly happy to let these comments sit here and let someone else resolve this. -- jliu 01:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- the game called "Advanced Space Crusade" (the one with the Tyranids) was definitely sold in North America. brain ( talk) 00:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Advanced Space Crusade is a fairly different game from the Space Crusade board game. Advanced space crusade focuses on corridor crawling and only Space Marines and the Tyranids. Space Crusade is never officially sold in America. -- jliu ( talk) 07:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
|
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
For a long time I assumed this game was done by Stephen Baker the original author of Milton Bradley's "hero quest." Is this actually a different person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:5210:A900:2578:7831:914D:B839 ( talk) 02:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with the removal of the box contents section that occurred on 8 March 2006. How is that section considered 'non-encyclopedic' and thus removed?
I see the directly related article for the sister game Hero Quest. A major portion of the box listing is clearly defined. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeroQuest_%28board_game%29
Even the topic for Monopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_%28game%29 has very detailed description of each of the pieces of the boardgame.
Given that the article is about a boardgame, box contents is imo a crucial part of the data relating to a boardgame.
-- jliu 02:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. What information does a tedious list of box contents give to the reader of the article? Citing HeroQuest as an example of what happens if you list the box contents is a perfect example of why this is a bad idea: all that article is a list of what was in the box for the game and the expansions. It tells me nothing about what the game actually is. Cheers -- Pak21 03:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with you, the box contents section does not tell anyone what the game actually is. But it describes everything about what the box contains. HeroQuest is not a good example of what I'm trying to say. If you read the article for Monopoly, there is a sketchily-detailed section under Equipment that is essentially a paragraphed listing of the contents of a Monopoly set. There are additional (one-line) descriptions of most of the set pieces, but the section under "Equipment" does not tell anyone what the game Monopoly is either. In the case of HeroQuest, I'm proposing to add additional information for each of the expansion packs, as opposed to just remove all the box contents for it. Or perhaps we should add more details of each of the pieces of the SpaceCrusade boardgame set (make the article more like Monopoly). But I feel removing of the contents of SpaceCrusade seems to be step in the wrong direction. I didn't check, but if we look under chess, I'm sure there will be a section detailing each of the pieces and how they work there as well. -- jliu 09:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- But honestly, who cares what the box contains? I don't really think that comparisions with either Monopoly or Chess are actually that valid: those are games which are known by a much wider section of people than Space Crusade. In any case, I would argue the content there is encyclopedic as it explains what the pieces do, rather than being purely a list. To take some examples, I see no listing of pieces in (say) Settlers of Catan, Tigris and Euphrates, Puerto Rico, Carcassonne or in something like Magic: The Gathering, or even in Space Hulk. I'll give you that Power Grid does list the box contents, but those games that do are very much in the minority. Realistically, the box listing was removed three months ago and nobody else seems to think this is a problem, so I'm very happy with them not being here. Cheers -- Pak21 10:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- those are games which are known by a much wider section of people than Space Crusade - I fail to see why this would make any difference. In traditional encyclopedia where paper is scarce and popular topics deserved more room, this might have been a valid argument. Realistically, the box listing was removed three months ago and nobody else seems to think this is a problem, so I'm very happy with them not being here, I didn't write that section, someone else did, and I hope whoever wrote it thought it was important because I certainly think it's important. I can't just go to a unpopular article that hasn't seen edit for 3 months and chop out a section because it didn't fall in with my subjective definition of what wikipedia should be. But honestly, who cares what the box contains? - obviously some people do. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this talk. I had a good read of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, thanks for linking it to me btw, but I fail to see the listing of box contents to fall anywhere near any of the clearly defined "NOT"'s. Since it is not well-defined, then I feel the removal becomes a purely subjective matter. One editer feels it does not belong here, while another feels it does. Anyway, I'm not sure how well you know this particular boardgame, I wouldn't call myself a collector, but I know a few, and since this game is out of production, and the only way to get it is via second-hand copies on EBay or garage sales in the few countries that it was produced for. In both situations, the list of box contents is extremely valuable to people reading the article. I'm perfectly happy to add more details to the listing to bring it up to par with the section for Monopoly (game), if that's what you think it needs. I don't want to even try to convince everyone that you all need to know what's in the box. I'm saying what's in the box is important to people (that's why it was written). And I think it should be added back to the article. -- jliu 03:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- "But honestly, who cares what the box contains? - obviously some people do. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this talk.". No. Obviously you do: there is little, if any, evidence that anybody else does. Look through the articles for Deutscher Spiele Preis winners and Spiel des Jahres winners and tell me how many of those list the box contents. If the Wikipedia consensus was that box contents are encyclopedic, they'd be on those articles. They (in the vast majority of cases) aren't, so I would at this point ask you to provide some evidence beyond your personal opinion that the box contents are encyclopedic. -- Pak21 10:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oh I found more links. Talk:HeroQuest (board game) - I counted 2, may be 3 people that think it was important. Waza when he first created the article back in November 22 1994 probably thought it's important (I certainly hope he does, may be he doesn't. We can ask him). I think it's important. The fact that the article stood for about a year and a half's worth of edits (by a dozen editors) with the box contents intact before it was removed shows that no-one else thought it was unimportant to remove it until recently. Within 4 month of the removal we're having a dispute. As for other games, the lack of a box of contents (or a list of equipment) for other games I strongly feel is an omission - it doesn't equate to such a list being unnecessary or unimportant. In fact, for a long time the box of contents was all this article had. People don't know anything about what the boardgame is about aside from what's in the box. Me and other contributors added the various summaries for the sections only to end up with seeing the box of contents get removed. I'm an avid wikipedia reader and this article is the only article that I _ever_ edit, because it was in such poor quality and it's a subject I could contribute. I won't pretend I know and can dictate what qualifies as encyclopedic material and what doesn't - If you can show me either rules that says "box of content" isn't (this is my earlier point). Or if you can show me similar discussions or disputes where it's been decided and settled that box of contents should be removed, then I'll shut up and be quiet. The articles I brought up you have dismissed as either in error themselves (aka Hero Quest) or of a different category (Monopoly/Chess - again I do not agree with the different category explanation, if Monopoly can have a list of equipments, I can't see why SpaceCrusade can't have a box of contents). Of the articles that you have brought up, I see it as tragic omissions that needs to be updated (if I had known what the contents are, I would have gone add them in). If the quality, layout or the (lack of) details on the box of contents needs more work, that is a different issue and a removal isn't the right way to do this. BTW, I know we are not convincing each other, and I'm perfectly happy to let these comments sit here and let someone else resolve this. -- jliu 01:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- the game called "Advanced Space Crusade" (the one with the Tyranids) was definitely sold in North America. brain ( talk) 00:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Advanced Space Crusade is a fairly different game from the Space Crusade board game. Advanced space crusade focuses on corridor crawling and only Space Marines and the Tyranids. Space Crusade is never officially sold in America. -- jliu ( talk) 07:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)