| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ogre (board game) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | Ogre (2017 video game) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 17 March 2020 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Ogre (board game). The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
 | Ogre (board game) was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Delisted good article | |||||||||||||
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Similarity to 1983's "Battlezone" for BBC Micro
editThe concept of Ogre seems very similar to MC Lothlorien's 1983 title Battlezone for the BBC Micro. The game is functionally similar to Ogre; players aim to prevent a single enemy tank (also called an Ogre) reaching the bottom of a 15x22 board using a combined force consisting of command posts, GEVs, heavy and missile tanks, infantry and howitzers. The Lothlorien game is exceedingly rare, which would make its inclusion on Wikipedia somewhat difficult.
I'll drop by and leave some source links - and have the presence of mind to sign in - at some point in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.77.239 (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Category:Fictional tanks
edit@Newimpartial: Regarding your edit, I meant that categories should reflect characteristics of the article's subject—in this case, the subject is a (real) board game and not a fictional tank. I recognize that the tank is a central component of the game, so perhaps Category:Tanks in fiction would be appropriate. Do you have any concerns with recategorizing the article in that manner? -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Newimpartial: Ping. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah. I never really worked out whether Category:Tanks in fiction is a great fit, since the game is rather off-centre for the category (and the Ogre is a fictional tank par excellence rather than a tank in fiction in the usual sense). However, after reflecting on WP:CATDEF, I can't really defend the fictional tank categorization, so I have come to accept the inevitable. Newimpartial (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for weighing in. I know the line between fictional [X] and [X] in fiction can be grey at times—typically, the former is a set category and the latter a topic category. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
GA Reassessment Notes
editI opened the GA reassessment page, but also will insert some of the notes here that depict the quality of this article subsequently with the revisions being observed and the expansion of various sections, which have somewhat enhanced the articles. However, numerous suggestions remain desired:
1. General deficiencies in prose for GA:
Numerous especially short paragraphs typically comprising a single sentence are nevertheless present, including 'Publication History', with the first sections including acceptable detail but the later ones remaining especially superficial, with profoundly little information. Those are required to be enhanced in my opinion for GA status.
2. Lack of structure and focus:
From my perspective, the article is flawed in structure, with sections and subsections of widely oscillating quality and length which remain an issue. The 'Other reviews and commentary' seem unnecessary given its relatively short and shallow content, and should in my opinion be combined with the 'Reception'. Despite several expansions of the 'Spin-offs' sections, try to add more information and references for the subsections of 'Video games' (e.g., a compendious summary on the game's differences with the original and reception), 'Role- playing games' and 'Books'. The 'Board games' and 'Miniatures and miniature wargaming' seems to have appropriate information but prose could be improved by enhancing detail and possibly either combining those in a paragraph or adding more details about each.
3. Numerous subsections possibly unnecessary:
Several aspects of the article remain largely unchanged, such as the 'Game description'. Despite the content being commendable in depth and detail, the division of the section into six subsections have resulted in some being scarce in detail and overtly short in length for a GA (e.g., 'Setting'). I believe that some of those could be combined (particularly 'Components' and 'Setting'.
As of the article's current form, it still could not satisfy criteria 1, 2 and possibly 6. Therefore, significant improvements are still required in my opinion in the following week to ensure the article could still attain GA status. Once again thanks for your help and apologies for the negative coverage- VickKiang (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Steve Jackson Games
editSince SJG published more versions than MC should we add them to the infobox? —¿philoserf? (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- More versions, and by a lot I'm sure. I assume the infobox can take more than one publisher, so why not. And thanks again for reassessing this article as B-class, it would be nice to see it get back to GA one day. :) BOZ (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)