Talk:List of Avalon Hill games

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Games, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.GamesWikipedia:WikiProject GamesTemplate:WikiProject GamesGames articles

Board and table games Low‑importance

	Games portal This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Juhani (Star Wars) (3 participants)
Starwing Paradox (2 participants)
Pit (Kid Icarus) (12 participants)
Dancing Stage Max (3 participants)
Vette (Star Wars) (5 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

TOC[edit]

Percy, you do realize that it was working fine before, don't you? The real requirement with the multiple TOCs is that each one have different headers. As long as only one set of them has no suffix, the page will work fine. Of course, you could just be worried that giving one no suffix is POV-pushing.... --Rindis 16:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing: why screw up all three lists? I liked having the top one with no suffix. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find the TOC changes Percy made make the article more navigatable, which is good. I do not find that the old method was working fine, considering that there was no indication that there was a Computer & video games or Hasbro Avalon Hill section.
—Asatruer 03:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the table of contents. What I don't like is the uglification of the first table by adding (AH) after all the letters. It could've been left without them: only the following tables need some sort of modification. And, in fact, I left them off when I created this article spin-off. I don't know why anyone thinks we need them (technically, we don't). — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Games?[edit]

Someone added VG to the "Original AH" list. I'm not sure what VG's relationship was with AH, does anyone know? Should we have a separate VG list on this page? --Stbalbach 13:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Games was a wholly owned subsidiary of Avalon Hill. Personally, I'd rather separate them out, but you can see the discussion here (from about 1/2 to 2/3rds of the way down the conversation). --Rindis 16:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh I see, I missed that conversation even though I was in the middle of it. I used to own many VG games and never knew it was Avalon Hill, so I am one of the "surprised" people to see it listed here. Personally I think VG should be broken out into a separate list, but on this same page, as a third list. I think most readers would want to see games listed by Publisher name, and not have to figure out the machinations of corporate ownership. We should probably also re-direct Victory Games to Avalon Hill and add a sub-section to that article with whatever info is known. -- Stbalbach 15:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I need to see if I can find some references, and write something up. The short version is that when SPI went under, TSR got the games and AH got the designers (who formed the staff of VG). --Rindis 16:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the Victory Games games should be listed separately. Val42 22:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's 3 to 1 in favor, so I was bold and did it. --Rindis 00:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Added a bunch more. Got up to page 20 on a "victory games" Google search. No one seems to have a complete list. -- Stbalbach 04:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links to pages not about Avalon Hill games[edit]

A lot of these links seem to go to pages that have nothing to do with Avalon Hill at all. For example, check out Attack Sub or Gangsters. Many of them lead to pages about movies/TV Shows(Attack Sub) or games not produced by Avalon Hill(Gangsters). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.213.108 (talk • contribs)

Clearly, the list needs some disambiguation work. — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. ( yes 13 years later) came here looking for a game called kriegspiel by Avalon Hill and the link led to a page about something related in name only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:21A0:31B0:0:0:0:31 (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List to tables[edit]

Because I try to be awesome, I wrote a converter to turn lists into tables. I used this list here as a little experiment. I think it looks better as tables, plus it adds some functionality. If y'all disagree, just revert my edit. If you like it, let me know and I'll convert the rest of the page. Cheers! — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know why, but I find the former method easier to read, let's say more clear... anyway if you like your tables' system you can edit the article with it (but if the other wiki-dudes agree with it, of course). Cheers! Kintaro (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this article is watched very much, is it? You're the only one who's responded. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 11:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since it looks like no one else is going to respond, do I have your agreement to change the list to tables, or would you prefer going back to the list style? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]