Talk:Doomtrooper

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 March 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

	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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doom Trooper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060424072744/http://www.thewinternet.com:80/doomtrooper/ to http://www.thewinternet.com/doomtrooper/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect article name

"Doom Trooper CCG" does NOT exist. It's "Doomtrooper CCG". You can check ANY of the External links in the article to verify this, you can Google ANY image of the box, booster, rulebook. So rather finish the change of the article name, which is wrong, than undoing changes in the article, which are right.

Official Website - https://web.archive.org/web/20060424072744/http://www.thewinternet.com/doomtrooper/ Doom Trooper at BoardGameGeek - https://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1859/doomtrooper — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.102.42.206 (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody can rename or "Move" this to a new title. If you don't know how, somebody else can do it.What title would be correct? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did, someone reverted it every time. I gave you guys all the info, sources, tried to fix it for you. I'm not going to waste my time to get through this stupid rigid system and change an obviously wrong title. 3 months later, it's still wrong. If you want it wrong, keep it wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.102.42.206 (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Video game should be seperate article

The Doom Troopers video game has nothing to do with the Doom Trooper card game. The similar name is only because they're based on the same franchise. Like how there is a Star Wars: X-Wing video game, but also a Star Wars: X-Wing board game. They should be seperate articles. 80.98.184.139 (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but nothing suggests that either deserve an article on their own with the limited amount of references they have. Combined they have staying power. Plenty of articles on separate subjects exist under one franchise focused article. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I won't believe for a second that the reason these two games are in one article is NOT because they have similar names. Dark Eden got its own article, with basically no references, even though it's a Mutant Chronicles CCG just like Doom Trooper. The tabletop game Warzone got its own article. The Mutant Chronicles spin-off games are all listed in the main article. If they have no references why not just have them as subsections in the main Mutant Chronicles article? 80.98.184.139 (talk) 05:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Believe what you want to believe, but that doesn't change reality. Just because you found an exception to the rule doesn't mean it won't be changed in the future. Plenty of things go overlooked until they aren't. We don't use existing bad templating as a reason to continue it. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you do use bad templating. Mutant Chronicles RPG had many spinoffs. You decided that one of the Mutant Chronicles spinoss isn't important enough to get its own article, so you dedided for some reason that it shouldn't be in the Mutant Chronicles article, but in the article of a different spinoff that has a similar name. Who puts two items together based on names similarity? How is this good templating? Putting spin-offs that don't get their own article in the main article is the rule, not the exception. You don't put a Dark Soul subsection in the Dark Souls (video game) article. You put it in the Mutant Chronicles article. They don't even have the same name, they just have similar names. How is it bad templating to put the spin-offs that aren't important enough in the main article? Why would you group them by name similarity in articles? This is the exception. This is the bad templating. This makes no sense. 80.98.184.139 (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had nothing to do with the Mutant Chronicles. I created the Dark Eden page if that's what you're talking about. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "combined they still have staying power" is not a Wikipedia policy. Notability is determined individually and related yet separate subjects cannot be combined to be notable. That said, the video game does pass the Mobygames test, so that at least is definitely notable enough and requires a separate article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noted! Leitmotiv (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Released in 1994 or 1995?

Source are contradictory. I am leaning to 1994 based on the copyright date in the 1st ed rulebook here http://www.doomtrooper.de/1st-ed-rules.htm although it may be the case that this was released at the very end of 1994, or printed in 1994 and distributed from early 1995...

I've also added information that Paradise Lost from 1997 was the last printed set. Ragnarok, as far as I can tell, was never released, nor was the 2nd edition, but I am having trouble finding RS on that. One fansite implies those were unofficial fan expansions (it also has a bit different years for release of some of the expansion than what is cited on some fan forums etc. but those are even less reliable, citing dead pages, sigh)... @Guinness323 @BOZ - perhaps you can find more or can check some sources cited and others on the year this was published (1994 or 1995) and on the last sets, such as:

"Game news & updates". The Duelist. No. 17. Wizards of the Coast. June 1997. p. 77. Varney, Allen (January 1998).
"Inside the industry: Previews". The Duelist. No. 21. Wizards of the Coast. p. 87.
Miller, John Jackson (2003), Scrye Collectible Card Game Checklist & Price Guide, Second Edition, pp. 143–150.

Sv wiki has a tiny and unreferenced article that claims the game begun in 1994 and ended in 1999 (which seems two years past the last known expansion, unless they count some fan expansions?).

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an RS on it's own, but BGG does say 1994, so I'm also leaning that way: [1] BOZ (talk) 05:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shadis #17.5 (Feb 1995, p.12) has a variant of the game, which, due to publication and printing deadlines, must have been written before the end of 1994. Duelist #3 (Fall 1994, p.46) predicts that this game would be released in November 1994. Given these two sources, I'm happy with a change from 1995 to 1994 Guinness323 (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]