"Board Title" Topic

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!

This?

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

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.

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 ;-).

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.

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).

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.

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

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.

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

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.