Help support TMP

"Board Title" Topic

11 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the TMP Talk Message Board

Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board

Action Log

18 Nov 2020 5:54 a.m. PST
by Editor in Chief Bill

  • Crossposted to TMP Talk board

Areas of Interest


Featured Hobby News Article

Featured Ruleset

Featured Showcase Article

GallopingJack Checks Out The Terrain Mat

Mal Wright Fezian goes to sea with the Terrain Mat.

Featured Workbench Article

Basing with Two-Part Epoxy

One way to avoid the 'pitcher's mound' effect.

Current Poll

Featured Book Review

573 hits since 18 Nov 2020
©1994-2020 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Chad4718 Nov 2020 2:07 a.m. PST

Has anyone else noticed that the subject description for this board has been modified? It has clearly been modified (and badly) to facilitate the propensity for lengthy and argumentative discussions unrelated to wargaming. Obviously certain members can exert unwanted influence!

42flanker18 Nov 2020 2:21 a.m. PST


"The Napoleonics Message Boards allows members to share their thoughts in the Napoleonics period"

La Belle Ruffian18 Nov 2020 3:59 a.m. PST

No 42 Flanker, this sub-board is now 'For discussion of anything related to Napoleonics miniature wargaming, including history, including history' [sic]

More clarity in naming boards wouldn't hurt and wargaming-related history theses absolutely should be here. It's just that a lot aren't and no attempt is made to justify it.

Allan F Mountford18 Nov 2020 4:08 a.m. PST

I hadn't noticed Chad, so thanks for pointing it out. I am not sure that attempting to separate Napoleonic wargaming from its associated Napoleonic history would be successful.
Whilst writing, I notice that the word 'wargaming' prompts a spell check ;-).

La Belle Ruffian18 Nov 2020 4:15 a.m. PST

There's a quote from Urquhart that seems appropriate at this point.

Anyway, I'm not sure why raising the issue seems to have induced a knee-jerk response with no communication. Remove the wargaming-related requirement and have at it, if that's what the editor wants, it's his site.

It just seems bizarre that a visitor to the site, in search of literature, artwork, films, podcasts, etc. on the Napoleonic era should ignore the Media board and trawl through the wargaming-related one.

La Belle Ruffian18 Nov 2020 4:19 a.m. PST

Allan, I would agree somewhat, but for the fact that a media board has been created by the editor, so obviously thinks there is some merit to the idea.

Personally, I think the following thread OP's provide differing value to Napoleonic wargaming (YMMV though):

A) I'm painting unit X, can anyone recommend some useful sources as there seems to be done dispute over the uniform.

B) I'm not convinced by the way command and control works in ruleset Y, based on my reading of the following memoirs… Anyone feel differently?

C) (unexplained link to website article in which someone states their opinion that Napoleon was amazing/a monster, usually a couple of days after the last contentious thread and timed for people coming out of the doghouse).

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian18 Nov 2020 5:52 a.m. PST

In terms of TMP history, we previously had a Napoleonic Discussion board and the Napoleonic History board.

Those boards were merged into one years ago, but the board description had not been updated until recently.

Currently, all of the main wargaming boards (i.e., Ancients Discussion, Medieval Discussion, etc.) allow discussion of both wargaming and history.

pbishop12 In the TMP Dawghouse18 Nov 2020 9:33 a.m. PST

Not my hill to die on. If the article is of interest, I don't care where it is

La Belle Ruffian18 Nov 2020 12:44 p.m. PST

Thank you for the explanation Bill, although I haven't been suggesting there is no room for history on a board about historical wargaming, as points A and B above make clear. There is a Media board though, which a good number of Discussion board threads would appear to be a better fit for.

If a side effect were to be fewer controversial threads on Discussion which don't advance wargaming one jot and see posters I enjoy reading leave, then so much the better. Other periods might manage without a Media board, but they also seem to have less of a poor reputation.

One observation is that Discussion (with wargaming tagged on) and Media appear too vague. Napoleonic Wargaming (in General?) and The Napoleonic Era (in Media?) or Napoleonic Media are a bit more distinct.

Personal logo javelin98 Supporting Member of TMP19 Nov 2020 9:34 a.m. PST

I think the Napoleonics Board should be described as the "Dawghouse Waiting Area".

MiniPigs19 Nov 2020 10:54 a.m. PST

Not my hill to die on. If the article is of interest, I don't care where it is

It appears the true objection is not the category but rather the subject matter. One can only surmise whether objections from certain quarters would be so logically argued if there were as many topics about either Wellington's or George III's contributions to humanity.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.