Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

... a tabletop game gets AfD'ed ...

Template spamming

User:TnS has been adding a huge number of external links to MobyGames via a template that also links to the article about the site. The link I discovered was to an totally worthless page. Garbage like this should never be linked as it plainlu violates WP:EL and common sense. While no doubt some of the MobyGames pages merit links, it is improper to just add a link to any article just because a site like MobyGames or BoardGameGeek happen to have a page dedicated to a particular game. The external link needs to meet the merit external link guideline WP:EL. That concept is pretty straightforward but I wanted to post a message here so we try and head off any mass inappropriate addions in the future, especially involving a template. 2005 10:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Rules or History first?

Some board game articles have their Rules section before History (Chess, Mancala), and others are the other way around (Backgammon, Go). Should this be standardized? I prefer having rules first, because knowing the rules can aid an understanding of the game's history and development (see Chess#Origins of the modern game (1450—1850)) more than knowing the game's history helps one understand the rules. — Elembis 17:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I would think that it's going to depend on the game. In the case of backgammon, the games that it developed from are significantly different, and it's enough to know that it's a dice-driven race before getting into the history. In the case of go, the overarching concepts of the rules are simple enough that no familiarity with them is needed to go into the history first. —ptk✰fgs 18:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

In general, if a brief blurb on the history in the lead section, then it's enough to skip to the rules and go into the historical details later. All those you cited are, however, classic games of their genre or geographical region (eg. Mancala is the best example of the mancala game genre, which is primarily played in Africa, while Backgammon is the best example of a dice-driven classical race game of European descent, while Go is the classic game of position played in the Far East, and Chess is an Indian game which serves as a classic war game). The reason why one might be before the other is perhaps the ubiquity of the rules (chess) leading a treatment of the rules as being more important (eg. the rules of Chess is more important than the fact that the 8x8 board had evolved from an Indian race game that was a distant relative of Pachisi, the simple sowing game mechanic common to all mancala games), while others have history as being the more important factor (eg. the anecdote about Zeno having a disastrous roll in a game of tables, the fact that Go was the game for the upper classes, etc). Having said that, the most important of the two deserves to be first - due to the fact that commercial games are also covered, it's invariably rules-first. kelvSYC 19:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Naming convention

I've noticed that many games like Niagara (board game) and Carcassonne (board game) end with "(board game)". Source of the nile (game) just has "(game)". I wanted to know if there is a naming convention before I rename it to Source of the Nile (board game). Val42 18:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no project-specific convention, and the guidance at WP:TITLE, WP:PRECISION and WP:DAB doesn't go into that level of detail. However, my experience has been that "Foo (game)" will often be assumed to be a computer game, so it's best to go with "Foo (board game)". Percy Snoodle 19:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Category help

I'm thinking that a category like "TimJim games" would be useful. I wanted to know what the general thoughts were -- is it ok to make a category based on publisher (unlike theme, like 18xx), and also, how do you make a new category? --Keybounce 05:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Board game categories by publisher are fine, but remember each of the games in that category would need to meet wikipedia's notability guidelines. If the publisher's games are in general less-notable ones, you'd be better off creating "List of TimJim games" and populating it as a minor topics list in the style of List of Doctor Who aliens. To create a category, add an article to the category as you normally would, then click the red category link at the bottom of the page to start the category's article in the usual way. Percy Snoodle 10:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use template

Back in December I proposed a merger for three fair use templates, Template:Game-cover, Template:Boardgamecover, and Template:RPG-artwork. I made an effort to publicise the merge on the villiage pump and various places that deal with fair use templates. After a lot of support on tfd and a lack of opposition elsewhere I attempted the merge on January 15. Post-merge I've had two objections, one of which said that I "should have brought up the merge with the various projects that manage those covers" (which I thought I was doing when I informed WikiProject Fair use). The merge has been reverted by the person who said I should have brought up the merge in more places. So here we go... IF ANYONE FROM THIS PROJECT CARES ABOUT THIS MERGE PLEASE VISIT Template_talk:Game-cover#Merge AND JOIN IN DISCUSSION THERE. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Up for improvement: Struggle for Rome

I've started an article on the latest Catan game, Struggle for Rome - I've added as much detail as one could possibly stomach, however, there's a lot to be desired:

  • The lead section is not good enough - it is a game "published under license from Catan GmbH", without saying that the English language licensor is Mayfair Games. (As a matter of fact, this is true for virtually all new Teuber offerings, Catan or not, so earlier articles may have to be changed)
  • I've also noticed that while Struggle for Rome is acknowledged to be the second game in Catan Histories, the Settlers of the Stone Age article should have a blurb saying that the only mention of it being the first game in the series is on the Struggle for Rome box and instructions.
  • The Struggle for Rome instruction states that the Kampf au Rom name was taken from one (possibly two) unrelated board games, and that the name was used with permission from those games' publishers. If they meet notability criteria, there may need to be a disambig or other resolution device there...

If anyone could help improve it, then it would be appreciated. kelvSYC 03:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Warhammer Task Force

The articles on Wikipedia concerning Warhammer and 40K are in relatively sad shape. Can we start a task force on Warhammer and 40K? N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9 T a l k 14:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


I come with pictures

I have taken good pictures of the following games- HeroQuest, Battle Masters, Axis and Allies, LotR Risk, and several others. Unfortunately our antivirus software prevents uploading. Could have someone's email address so I could send the pictures? Thanks N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9 T a l k 14:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

References for BrettspielWelt article

I asked this in the BrettspielWelt talk page, but this might be a good place, as well. There was an article on the website in the Feb 2004 Games Magazine. I've long since discarded mine, so I'm not sure what it says, but does anyone here have it? It would be nice to be able to add that referece to the article.Chunky Rice 23:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox images

I'd like to suggest that it becomes project policy to put images of First Edition box art of commercially available games in the info-box, wherever possible as is common practice with books. It would seem to me encyclopedic and pictures of the latest editions could appear to be advertising. With traditional games (backgammon, chess), then the earliest historical examples of boards or game pieces would probably be confusing to the average reader - so the very generic examples are good. --Davémon 19:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure this is practical enough, or has a strong enough reason, to make it a guideline. Here are three reasons that apply here but wouldn't be nearly as relevant to images of books or software titles. (1) Many of the most noted games had their first edition released only in German; there are a few whose first edition was only in French, or only in Dutch. Since this is en.wikipedia content we're discussing, it would be confusing for most readers to see a picture of a "Durch die Wuste" box on a "Through the Desert" article, or a picture of an "Einfach Genial" box on an "Ingenious" article. (2) Some widely-noted games had a limited-run, low-budget first edition whose box art was little more than block letters, but they later got picked up by bigger manufacturers. In that case, an image of a newer mainstream edition would be much more representative of what people actually see in game stores, in magazines, and on third-party websites like BoardGameGeek and BrettspielWelt. (3) Some noted games have been retitled (beyond simple translation), and in some cases the later name has been more widely noted than the first edition. An extreme case: "Adel Verpflichtect" (not spelled correctly) is identifiable (let alone spellable) only by the most fanatic of English-speaking gamers, while "Hoity Toity" (a newer US edition of the same game) probably gets a lot more Google hits despite being a worse name. Barno 20:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Does this sound like a variant of Hearts to you?

Look at this game: Scabby Annie. Is it notable? Perhaps Scabby Annie should be briefly merged (or simply redirected) to Hearts? What do you think? Guroadrunner 13:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of it and my Google skills haven't turned up a good source. If someone can turn one up, then merge. Otherwise, I think it should probably just be a delete/redirect.Chunky Rice 16:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy it, this is textbook WP:NFT. —ptk✰fgs 04:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Muggins

Anyone have any improvements for Muggins (domino game) ? Guroadrunner 05:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Miniature Wargaming

I was looking at the Miniature wargaming article and it has a cleanup tag. I'm probably not the best one to clean it up, but I would like to know how do I find out if the tag refers to the whole article or a particular section. Also where I could find guidelines about how to write it in a more encyclopedic format.

I'm asking this here since the talk page says it's part of this project.

Thanks Jack1968ES 13:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If a cleanup tag is in a section, it generally refers only to that section; if it's at the top of the article, it generally refers to the whole article. Guidelines can be found at the Manual of Style. Percy Snoodle 13:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. If I have more questions after reading I would probably coming back here. Jack1968ES 13:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Level of chance: Does it make sense?

What does a measure of "random chance" mean in sidebars for games? Is it even logically coherent without some kind of definition of units for chance and for skill?
If Scrabble expert A is just slightly better than expert B, player A will win a hair over 50% of the time. Does that mean the game is almost 100% chance? Conversely, any tournament expert will crush an occasional recreational player just about every time. Does that mean the game is 100% skill?
These labels are simply incoherent, like asking "Is Lake Tahoe deeper than it is famous"? There are no defined terms, and it's a ridiculous comparison to attempt anyway.
These labels are simply pulled out of someone's ass. We should do away with them.

J. Goard 09:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Ditto "skills used". Percy Snoodle 10:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I think there are NPOV ways to answer "random chance". Bad examples are "low", "high"; good examples are "dice", "card shuffling". This should be a place to succinctly identify the random components of a game, not to make assertions about the level of influence those components have on the outcome. [Continues below]
Perhaps a field for "random elements" rather than "random chance", then? "Random chance" is likely to get assigned a POV value like "low" or "high". Percy Snoodle 13:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I think either "Random elements" or "Random components" would work well. Let's try not to break existing transclusions, though; there are quite a few. —ptk✰fgs 13:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
"Skills required" is also a helpful item, as long as it is answered carefully. Different games require different things: some counting, some trading, some bluffing, and so forth.
I think the problem with these two items is generally in the quality of the right column, not the name on the left. —ptk✰fgs 13:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to include external links to websites that have online implementations of games? I would think it is, and doesn't seem to conflict with WP:EL as far as I can tell. Just wanted to double check here. Craw-daddy 19:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Having a link to one tends to attract links to others, and generally the later ones are of lesser and lesser quality. In the case of games traditionally associated with gambling, linking to any one site generally leads to a huge dump of online casino spam. In the case of games still under copyright, we should be sure that we're not linking to a work which infringes on the original.
In cases where there is a single, high-quality online implementation associated with a game (such as an official one for a licensed property), I think it might be appropriate, but I can't think of any examples offhand. A link to the Open Directory Project's category for a game will generally suffice and will lead readers to a place where there are many links to online implementations.
As WP:EL notes, Wikipedia is not a web directory, so we should carefully weigh the potential for pollution against the benefit of a link to an external site. —ptk✰fgs 20:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I would tend to agree, though it might be reasonable to mention in the body of the article that there are online versions as well as the physical version. For something like BrettspielWelt, you could include an internal link to that Wikipedia article, which in turn has an appropriate link to it's own site.Chunky Rice 20:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I'll try to read up on the links you mention. I'm most familiar with SpielByWeb (as a user, not as someone affiliated with it in any other way), but from what I understand all of their implementations are sanctioned by the game designers/publishers. They are also nonprofit, only able to accept (entirely voluntary) donations that cover their costs for running the website (i.e. website hosting expenses, etc). These games, being of the German-type, are certainly not gambling games. Based on my usage, I'd qualify them as "high-quality" myself. I suppose that it might then be appropriate to create articles for some of these websites, if they don't already exist. Thanks again. Craw-daddy 20:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


Awards Listings

Is anyone verifying that a game has actually won the awards that are being listed for it? According to the article for Power Grid, it was on the Games Magazine's Games 100 list for 2005. However, if you follow the link, the game is not on the list. Am I missing something? Or has this award been misquoted for Power Grid? Wjcolion 19:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Games 100 consists of both category winners and nominees. That page appears to list only the winners. I no longer have that print magazine to verify, but it appears to be accurate claim that Power Grid was indeed in the Games 100.[1]Chunky Rice 19:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The Games 100 doesn't have nominees. All the games are given the same award, and then some category winners get a kind of "best in show" for that category.--Mike Selinker 19:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • My apologies. However you want to phrase it, I was just trying to explain the disparity between the list of 100 and the abbreviate list on the Games Magazine site, which is that the site just has the "best in show" winners as you put it, and not the rest of the list.Chunky Rice 19:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Xiangqi FAR

Xiangqi has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 15:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving Template:Future game

I've started a discussion about moving Template:Future game to Template:Future video game. If you're interested, please have your say at Template talk:Future game#Requested move. Percy Snoodle 11:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Chaos Marauders

Any suggestions or help anyone can give on my Chaos Marauders page - thanks. --Davémon 19:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Fightball

The Fightball article has been given a notability tag. As one of the game's designers, I can't really mess with the article (I haven't touched it in two years). Does someone else want to try to bring this one up to standards?--Mike Selinker 19:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. Are you aware of any good secondary sources or awards to use for material? I see a review at About.com, which has editorial oversight, so that's something, but not too much else. Chunky Rice 19:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe this: [2] . You can also look at www.fightball.com. I don't remember the game winning any awards, but it sold a bunch of copies, and it's still in print. I think it's as notable as Deadwood (game) or Bitin' Off Hedz or most of the other Cheapass Games with articles, though less notable than Button Men or Kill Doctor Lucky. But whatever works.--Mike Selinker 14:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Gave it a good once over, adding the two reviews, taking off the notability tag and doing some general clean-up. Still probably needs work, but I think it's a good start.Chunky Rice 18:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I felt a little uncomfortable bringing this up, so thanks for taking care of it.--Mike Selinker 19:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The conflict of interest guidelines say that you should avoid editing the article, but discussing potential improvements in talkspace is actually the recommended course of action, so I don't think there's anything wrong with it. I'll go ahead and copy this discussion to the article talkpage, in the interest of full disclosure.Chunky Rice 19:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Risk-in-popular-culture article is at AfD

Components section

Why is there a warning about copyright infringement? I'm not aware of any risk here. I'm going to remove it unless there are objections.Chunky Rice 19:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm not a copyright lawyer, but I've read about plenty of successful legal actions (as well as bogus ones like the copyright parts of SCO vs. IBM) that make clear that text repeating the main ideas (or rather, the expression of ideas) in too much detail can be a derivative work which infringes upon the copyright holder's rights. A very brief description of game components in an encyclopedia falls under copyright law's "fair use" clause in the USA, but a comprehensive detailed retelling may violate the law. Please be aware that the big corporate owners and distributors of copyrighted content are trying to revise laws both in the USA and in other nations, specifically trying to weaken "fair use" provisions and tighten their ability to control distribution and protect their revenue streams. I would recommend that you not remove that warning unless you get clearance from the Wikimedia Foundation, or at least from a consensus at the Village Pump. There's a page Wikipedia:Copyrights and some pages that are linked from that page. Barno 19:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, I won't remove it, but I think that not doing something becase of an incorrect interpretation of copyright law is a bad reason. Two writings describing the same thing are not violations of one another.Chunky Rice 20:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The more I think about this, the more it bugs me. I mean, it's just wrong. There's no grounds for copyright violation simply from listing components. I'll grant you that there are many reasons why we shouldn't, but that just isn't one of them. How do you get clearance from the Wikimedia foundation, and why would they care about a random line in a Wikiproject description? This isn't a policy change or anything.Chunky Rice 20:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Let's say you were describing a simple Napoleonics game. If you said there were certain types of units, and described how some types were strong on offense, some were strong on defense, and leader units improved morale so their subordinate units wouldn't disband or surrender, that would be encyclopedic. (I imagine the descriptions that you would write, as a member of this project, would be at this level of detail.) If you gave the combat factors of every unit, and described every rule in the rulebook with your own rephrasing, that would be the equivalent of copying their property, and would give the reader enough to make his own copy of the game. In some courts that would be found to violate the publisher's copyright, regardless of whether WP's policies forbade it. By the way, I don't necessarily agree with this interpretation either, but it has stood up in some of the relevant court cases. Separately, for most games there are no attributable sources (independent, not the rulebook itself) that provide that level of detail about the game components, making it original research. Proposing to remove guidelines that support the WP:NOR core policy might be considered a "policy change", so our project's guidelines should support including only material that is properly attributable to reliable sources. Barno 21:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Like every other article, boardgames articles should adhere to the WP:COPYRIGHT policy. But it should be enough to say that without adding sketchy speculation as to what may or may not include a violation. The ability to recreate a game from information given is certainly not a copyright issue. It might be a patent issue, except that boardgames are not, by and large, patentable.
  • Also, that's not what the original research policy statement says. You can use primary sources (like a rulebook) as a source and it's not considered original research. I'll leave the statement where it is, but in my opinion, it's both inaccurate and detrimental.Chunky Rice 21:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • From No original research: "Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." We also have the general rule that content needs to have been discussed in multiple independent sources; one rulebook is neither multiple nor independent. Those points aren't about copyright directly, but they argue against the routine use of rulebooks as the main source for a section. On the other hand is this from Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "Why use reliable sources?" ... "To give credit to the source, to avoid the appearance of plagiarism or copyright violations. See Wikipedia:Copyrights." The copyright guideline doesn't currently say anything more specific. Wikipedia:Non-free content says that quoting extensively from a copyrighted work, at too much length for Fair Use under US copyright law, is not compliant with the GFDL and Wikipedia's stated goal; but it also makes clear that "Inclusion of brief attributed quotations of copyrighted text, used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea is acceptable under 'fair use'. Text must be used verbatim: any alterations must be clearly marked." I think we should revise, not remove, the BTG guideline in question. Here's a start toward a new version, in a section that might be renamed "Rules and Components"; please offer suggestions for improving it: Extensive quoting or paraphrasing a game's copyrighted rulebook, such as laying out every rule or every game component (except in the simplest of games such as Go), is unacceptable under Wikipedia's Non-free content guideline. A short and basic description of the rules is acceptable, but must cite the game's rulebook where quoted or if the summary is derived directly from the rulebook. Where available, descriptions of the rules should be sourced from independent secondary sources rather than from the rulebook. User-posted reviews, even on websites that include fact-checked content in other sections, generally do not meet the reliable sources guideline. Barno 23:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It's better. The part I object to is the same one I have from the beginning: that you can name every component and explain every rule without violating copyright. It's only if you actually copy the language used in the rulebook that copyright is an issue.Chunky Rice 23:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
So, let me get this straight: It is not allowed on Wikipedia to summarize the rules directly from the rulebook (a primary source), but it is allowed on Wikipedia to summarize someone else's summary of the rulebook (a secondary source)? It is also acceptable to quote from multiple "primary sources" that are not actual historical events but are "primary witnesses" to historical events. In either case, Wikipedia becomes not a secondary source but a tertiary source. Val42 03:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

boardgame article at AfD

The article Noah's Ark, A Journey Through Faith Board Game has been nominated for deletion at the April 19 page of WP:AFD. The game is new, so there doesn't appear to be published material about the game yet. Judging from the creator's comment, there's probably nothing to add to that discussion, but if you've seen it mentioned in reliable sources, you might wish to note the fact at that AfD discussion. Barno 20:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The Price Is Right games

I am currently putting some finishing touches on The Price Is Right (US game show) article to submit for FA consideration, but the section on home games needs some help. This is not my area of expertise, nor do I have any idea what sort of reliable sources I should be using. I also feel that, even though it is a section of the article, that it should follow some of the standards by the board game community. If I could get a few eyes over there for some help it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! —Twigboy 17:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright/Fair use question for pictures of games

If I take a picture of a game in progress/set up and release it under the GFDL, is that okay under Wikipedia's copyright rules? I note that this is the rationale for the picture in the Settlers of Catan infobox. What if the cover is included in the photograph?

If it's not sufficient that I took the photo, then it should still be useable under fair use, as long as it's used to identify and critique/discuss the game, correct? -Chunky Rice 17:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  • As I understand it, if you shot the photo (of a set-up game, not solely the box cover) and release it under GFDL (and tag it as such), then it's directly useable for the purposes you mentioned, and "fair use" doesn't come into play. Please avoid "fair use" images (or text) because the primary goal of Wikipedia is to produce a freely redistributable encyclopedia. "Fair use" in copyright law varies widely among English-speaking countries, and is at the core of some current controversies such as whether the DMCA law and DRM technologies allow music distributors to deny citizens their "fair use" rights under USA law. Barno 00:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Great. I'll get started. Based on your take on fair use images on Wikipedia, you think that it would be appropriate to replace fair use box-shots with GFDL set-up game shots? -Chunky Rice 01:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. The box cover shots don't add much if anything to the article; a set-up game can be more helpful. GFDL pics are always preferred over fair-use ones. Thanks for working on a part of the project that I'm not equipped for. Barno 13:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Sorcerer's Cave Boardgame at AfD / Notability

A recently created article on the boardgame The Sorcerer's Cave is up for AfD. The main premise of the AfD is a lack of notability. The game is from 1978 and despite it's popularity and subsequent influence, there aren't many reliable, non-trivial sources on the internet. If anyone can help provide notability references, it will hopefully survive AfD and the article will be improved. Davémon 16:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I sent a BGG message to the designer to inquire if he had any articles about the game that he saved. I don't know if he checks that inbox, though. -Chunky Rice 17:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort, but it seems that Wikipedia isn't ready for an article regarding The Sorcerer's Cave, as it has been deleted. Other than perhaps complaining about systemic bias in wikipedia, and bemoaning the lack of serious academic or journalistic enquiry into games and past-times, I doubt there is much to be done to reinstate the article for now. Hopefully the AfD discussion itself will be of use to anyone looking to propose notability guidelines for board-games. --Davémon 11:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The AfD for the Sorcerers Cave has now been re-opened (apparently because of an error last time). If anyone has anything they'd like to add to the debate before it is closed again please do so at theThe Sorcerer's Cave AfD. --Davémon 16:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Reviews noticeboard

In my unending quest to find reviews for existing articles on games, I have found quite a few reviews for games that do not currently have articles (either never started as far as I can tell, or deleted or redirected at some point). Rather than simply let those pass away into nothingness, I’ve been thinking about starting a reviews noticeboard for this project. In other words, list each game by name with a link to any review that I find. Once multiple reviews are found, someone can start the article and remove it from the noticeboard. Does this sound like a good idea, and do you have any suggestions for that? BOZ (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Of course it's a good idea :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
OK great.  :) I'm thinking of doing it in a format something like this, where we have a redlink to the game, date of publication, publisher(s), BGG link, and then link to the review(s):
How is that? It will undoubtedly wind up being a very long list, but I'm sure that's OK. BOZ (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The more I think about it, the more I want to build a table for this. BOZ (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm a little leery of the BGG links given that the site isn't a reliable source. DonIago (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm not intending it as a source, just a "oh, that's what it is" reference so I don't have to actually write a description. :) BOZ (talk) 05:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, I had a go at turning this into a table. What do you think? It's going to take a lot more work to change it once I start filling it in. :) Anything missing that I should include? Maybe other language Wikipedia links? BOZ (talk) 06:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Tables are pretty. Also hard to edit :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Right, exactly. :D Do you think I should just stick with text then, for ease of use? That's ease for myself and anyone else who decides to partake in this. Mind you, I'm perfectly fine with that. BOZ (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Games
Game Year Publisher(s) BGG link Links to reviews Other languages
AC/DC (game) 1975 Ampersand Press [15] Games[16]
Contrat 500 1979 Jeux Robert Laffont [17] Jeux & Stratégie[18]
Dragon Hordes 1998 Corsair Publishing [19] Pyramid[20]
Elixir (card game) 1997 Asmodee [21] Backstab[22] French
Express Chess 1996 Blackbox [23] Pyramid[24]
Grunwald 1410 1992 Dragon [25] Magia i Miecz[26]
Mystery on the Nile (board game) 1996 Eurogames [27] Backstab[28] (as "Le Secret Du Nil")
Nile (game) 1967 J.W. Spear & Sons [29] Games & Puzzles[30]
Robin Hood (game) 1994 Sfera [31] Magia i Miecz[32] Polish
Shogun (1976 board game) 1976 Club Nathan [33] Jeux & Stratégie[34]
Speculate (game) 1972 Waddingtons [35] Games & Puzzles[36]
Whosit? 1976 Parker Brothers [37] Games[38]

While the text version is undoubtedly easier to edit - and I may be the main one adding entries - I think more importantly than looking good, the table is just a much easier presentation to read so I would rather go with that. I added a line for other languages, is it better with or without that? BOZ (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, in the absence of further input, I went ahead and started User:BOZ/BTG reviews noticeboard, and will begin adding new entries to it in my spare time. :) I broke it up into board games, card games, and wargames, and may do more to help organize it over time. I will make a separate page for RPGs since that will be a bit crazy as well. BOZ (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Hey all, I just want to share that I have made tremendous progress on this project. :) After looking at over a dozen magazine sources, I currently have only three left to go through (unless I find more). While this work has resulted in me creating an absolutely enormous list of games with one review each, the work I've done here (and the work I did in the months leading up to it) has also resulted in me starting or restoring quite a few articles on games after finding more reviews for them, including Eurorails, Lexicon (card game), London Cabbie, Ratrace (game), Sleuth (game), Stocks & Bonds, Tri-nim, and Lionheart (board game) among others! I expect to be able to finish this before the end of the year, and then add the noticeboard page to this WikiProject hopefully for all to be able to see and use. BOZ (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
You rock :) I wish I had the time to add Polish rebel and other reviews. In either case, do feel free to ping me anytime to ask if I can find Polish reviews for any game on your worklist. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Metagaming (role-playing games)

An article which may be of interest to members of this project—Metagaming (role-playing games)—has been proposed for merging with Metagame. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Should board game titles be italicized?

I've opened a discussion at the MoS page for titles: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles of works#Should board game titles be italicized?. Input very much welcome! Elli (talk | contribs) 23:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Advice wanted: Articles for deletion/Mahjong Competition Rules‎‎

Please take a look at the Articles for deletion/Mahjong Competition Rules‎‎ discussion and at the article itself, Mahjong Competition Rules‎‎. This article is very long and detailed -- perhaps too long for Wikipedia? The idea has been raised to move it from Wikipedia to Wikibooks. What does the Wikipedia gamer community think? How does this article fit with the other mahjong-related articles? Your advice would benefit this discussion.

Thanks, --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Articles pending in Draft

There are a bunch of tabletop game articles pending in draft space, if you see anything worth working on I say see what you can do. :)

Here is a selection!:

BOZ (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I am a bit behind the current hotness; from the titles I see I recall Lorcana being pretty talked about and being Disney's, I am 99.9% sure there's coverage too make it pass GNG. I will volunteer to rescue this from the draft, it may take me a few days/weeks (time/etc). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
In September 2022 I did a quick web search for Lorcana material. This is what I bookmarked:
Preview cards for Disney Lorcana, the Mouse’s answer to Magic, Pokémon at Polygon
Disney Claims the Depth of Its New TCG, Lorcana, Is 'Unprecedented' at CBR
Disney Lorcana gives a first look at its cards for D23 at GamesRadar+
New Disney Lorcana card game is coming for Pokemon and Magic: The Gathering at GamesRadar+
DISNEY LORCANA Trading Card Game Is a New Way to Play with Your Favorite Characters at Nerdist
First Disney Lorcana Trading Cards Unveiled at D23 at GameRant
Most of these likely repeat details from the initial announcement (and some may not satisfy our sourcing standards) but may have interesting tidbits within. I haven't searched for new material yet. Mindmatrix 14:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
@Mindmatrix There is lots of coverage, I think, and the game is not released yet. Highlights: controversy covered by Kotaku / Polygon, IGN and others. Other stuff that doesn't look like rehashed press releases (at least, not too much): Polygon on game rules/[39] Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Skull was fixed and published by User:BuySomeApples, thanks! Crossed out from above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, I love to see progress. :) BOZ (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
No prob bob! BuySomeApples (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Update on Force of Will

I'm thinking adding some basic explain about gameplay format, current available and upcoming Cluster and Expansion and basic types of cards for Force of Will TCG. Feel free to suggest any new ideas or feedback. DexFaqOrigin (talk) 09:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@DexFaqOrigin It would be a good start to link the article in question. Force of Will? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Yeah that's the one. I'm think it's time for a huge update on that like it's maybe 3-cluster late and many things have changed. DexFaqOrigin (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Vital board games

See Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5#Board_(tabletop)_game_changes. Please note that Vital project is not very well attended (neither are we here). What I am saying is that this is not a call for votes but an invitation to suggest and discuss which board games (or board game concepts, or tabletop games and concepts in general) should be in that list. I sugget removing a bunch of ancient/historical/forgotten games and adding some more recent ones. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I think there should be more attention given to the historical games! One of the frequent critiques of Wikipedia is that it's presentist, and choosing to not do research on older games is kind of a way of erasing them from our modern consciousness. I think board game culture benefits when we think of it as having an international and ancient past. On the other hand, maybe there isn't enough scholarly research to expand pages for individual pre-modern games (but Nine Men's Morris! It's a classic!). That said, I don't know how important it is for a page to be considered "vital" (does it actually encourage people to edit it?). Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
You're right. Trouble is, very few people seem to be interested or have access to the sources. The situation for card games is better - we have a good selection of historical games and I've been adding and expanding the history sections of many others. It's surprising how old some are! I've recently found the earliest rules for modern Doppelkopf dating to 1899 and have pushed its full history back to 1811. The German Doppelkopf Association only knew of rules going back to 1941. But we now need to organise card games in the vital article list - that's way out of date. Bermicourt (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/Popular pages

Check back in few days to see this link turn blue and be cool like Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games/Popular pages, hopefully. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Flesh and Blood (card game)

Hi, wanted to let you know that I have pointed the main contributor to Flesh and Blood (card game) in the direction of this WikiProject. I had tagged the article with "primary source" and "overly detailed"; editor reasonably wanted to know what I meant, so I have responded on his Talk page but also told him that I'm not very experienced with game-related articles so he might do better to ask for your advice in order to improve the article. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tacyarg Hmmm. Yeah, I see what you mean. It's likely notable but the structure is meh. Reception section is in the list format (not best practice), ditto for the second half of history. Too much reliance on press releases makes it look promotional. Organized Play section violates WP:EL and is arguably too detailed. If anyone wants more review, please ping me here or elsewhere. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
@Piotrus: @Tacyarg: I have boldly removed the excessively detailed tables that IMO are undue and indiscriminate. Please discuss if anyone disagree. Thanks VickKiang (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
The editor has reverted my edits (and that of other editors), describing in their edit summary that Reverting back to pre-vandalized version of article. User deleted 99% of article content, citing subjective reasoning, with no discussion on talk page or suggestions for improvement before wholesale deleting content. (emphasise mine). Calling a good-faith edit "vandalism" seems sub-ideal- this needs some dispute resolution, but I don't have the energy to find an optimal pathway forward. VickKiang (talk) 02:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
This article is, frankly, in a horrendous state. I fear that the primary contributor is too invested in the material. At worst, the account borders on advertising. The creator of the article also appears to take offense to the changes. Despite requests from multiple other editors, neither the creator nor the main contributor seem willing to cooperate in reducing the overall tone, size, or sources used in the article. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 21:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Meeple

I've created a new article. High-importance or Top? Feel free to expand if you find something. The topic of whether meeples can be non-humanoid is interesting but not many reliable sources exist. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Professional Magic: The Gathering

The following articles: Magic: The Gathering Players Tour, Grand Prix (Magic: The Gathering), Magic: The Gathering World Championship and List of Magic: The Gathering Pro Tour events are in somewhat problematic states. While one is a list, the tags on the some of the articles are accurate. They, for the most part, rely heavily on primary sources. While that is likely fine for being objective on winners, prizes and such, some of them are stretching their worth.

Some of the content cannot be verified. You could probably find sources, but they are likely to be from Wizards.

There are some independent sources, like this one. But I hardly feel as though that would be enough. I think the subjects are notable enough, but then you read the Grand Prix article and find the history section has only one source, which is from Wizards.

The Worlds article is just extremely long with dozens of external links. It also suffers from other problems. Aside from the obvious errors, I think cutting the tables on the decks and particular cards would be a good start. Instead of having several tables and bullet points and information that isn't particularly important, we should just just have a table that goes year by year, stating the winner and winner's deck color.

I almost want to suggest merging most of these into a Competitive Magic: The Gathering article, but that's likely not necessary. I'll focus on just removing content that isn't sourced. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 14:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Trying to source them would be good. Merge or deletion should only be considered if one cannot rescue them, which from what I read you think you may be able to do - good luck! For now, tagging such articles as has been done seems reasonable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
I think they can be saved. But I also think the tables and descriptions on the Worlds article need to be cut down heavily. My sandbox has more or less what I think would make the most sense, but I'm not sure. But I also think that listing and linking to every single card used is a little much. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Side note for anyone who cares, but Black Lotus (Magic: The Gathering card) needs an article, I am pretty sure it would meet WP:GNG. Right now it is a redirect to less famous Power Nine. I might work on it myself if nobody else jumps in first. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
I saw your comment and was considering it. The material on Black Lotus compared to the other cards is night and day. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Refideas edit notice

Hello! :) I would like to make a notice here that as of this week, if an editor clicks "edit" on any article that uses the Refideas template on its talk page, they will see an editnotice above the editing window indicating that there are sources on the talk page that are not currently in use in the article. This would be especially useful for anyone with an active interest in improving that article, and it would also be useful in helping gauge the notability of an article. :) BOZ (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Travel guide for board games

Now started at voy:Board games. Feel free to help :)

One thing we need is a "banner", an image that meets the following criteria:

  • Banners have a 7:1 width to height ratio.
  • Banners need to be at least 1800 pixels wide to accommodate wide screens (images do not scale up to fit the size of the screen). The recommended dimensions are 2100 x 300 pixels.

Any suggestions? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Campaign Trail: The Game of Presidential Elections

User:KangarooGymnast contends that a browser game of the same name as this GDW board game is "clearly based on the board game"[40] because it has the same title and focuses on presidential elections, even though the source that they provided does not mention the board game at all that I could see. Can anyone else verify that the designers of the browser game did base their game on the board game? BOZ (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I have mentioned this matter at the entry's talk page. You're more than welcome to contribute there. KangarooGymnast (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
I commented there, sadly I feel this OR. On related note, there is a newer, presumably much better game (I've played the new one, not the old one) that shares the name/concept: BGG entry (2019). It may be notable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Family Games: The 100 Best

It looks like its sister volume Hobby Games: The 100 Best was already added to the 100 games articles from that book, but I made a list of the games featured in the Family Games volume as listed below, using this archived copy: [41].

A few of these already are making use of the book in the article already, but most are not. If you wanted to work on any of those articles, you now have one more source you can incorporate if it's not already there. :)

At this time, several do not yet have their own articles, namely 10 Days in the USA[42], Bausack[43], Buffy the Vampire Slayer[44], Condottiere[45], Dogfight[46], Easter Island[47], Faery's Tale Deluxe[48], For Sale[49], Frank's Zoo[50], Go Away Monster![51], Gulo Gulo[52], Halli Galli[53], Mystery Rummy: Murders in the Rue Morgue[54], The Omega Virus[55], Pieces of Eight[56], Strat-O-Matic Baseball[57], Thebes[58], Trade Winds[59]. If you think you could make something out of any of those, you now have at least one source to start with. :) BOZ (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Pyramid reviews and archives

See related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Role-playing_games#Pyramid_reviews_and_archives. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Malifaux

Notice

The article Malifaux has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced to any reliable third-party sources in its 11.07-year history, failing to offer any evidence of meeting the notability guideline.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Box breaking in collectible card games

Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask. Lately there has been a trend on "box breaking", where a group of people will spend some amount of money to contribute towards a box of collectible cards, which is later distributed amongst the contributors in some random manner. Is this encompassed in an existing article in this project or WP:Casino? Appreciate any input. This may be a worthy subject for an article as a unique form of gambling ([60]). Reconrabbit 11:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Reminds me of an old (well, older than what you linked) method of distributing rewards after MTG drafts (likely used in other CCG drafts too): https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-general/328947-what-is-a-rare-draft-in-terms-of-prizes Whether something like tjhis is notable or not, debends on sourcing (see WP:GNG). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
The method seems pretty pervasive to me. I'll try and find some sources that aren't just stores doing it. There are dozens of these places, both in-person (you get to watch someone else open your booster packs and give you only some of the cards!) and online (watch your pack openings get broadcast worldwide!). Couple of news stories about the practice too: ESPN LA Times (Edit: Draft:Breaking (trading cards) exists now.) Reconrabbit 12:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Help with Formatting "Awards and Honours"

I've been editing Ticket to Ride (board game), and I need advice on how to proceed with the "Awards and Honours" section within this article. I was thinking of making it into a table, but I'm afraid of the table taking up too much space. I could leave it as it is, but I feel that it looks too disorganized to do that. I've been using Wingspan (board game) as a reference, but this article has a lot less awards, so the length of the section wouldn't really be an issue. What would be the best approach for this section? TwistedInThreads (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The name of this WikiProject

We are called "Board and table games". But what is a Table game? That's a disambig that really just says this term is used for board games as well as Casino game. The proper parent term is tabletop games. And I note here is no WikiProject dedicated to card games (@Bermicourt). Should we rename this project to 1) WikiProject Board and card games, 2) WikiProject Tabletop games or 3) WikiProject Board, card and casino games? Considering the typology seen at tabletop, I think 2) (WP Tabletop games) would be best to represent what we actually are concerned about (afaik...). See also Category:Tabletop games. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm just an IP user, but I support changing the name to "WP Tabletop games" 72.216.186.113 (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Board/card games

Related to the above, I wonder about proper way to categorize "card board" games. Classic example: Uno (card game). Right now it is not under any category tree related to board games, as it is under Category:Card games that is sister to Category:Board games under Category:Tabletop games.

This is also related to issues with some category names related to mechanics. There are many issues, such as that the article Deck-building game and Category:Deck-building card games are not anywhere under Category:Card games by mechanism, etc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

John McLeod had the same issues when building his website pagat.com, which is pretty much the leading database on card games. He references "David Parlett: The Oxford Guide to Card Games (Oxford University Press 1990) pages 61 to 64" on the difficulty of classifying them since games are ever-evolving. But in the end he classified them according to 1. mechanism (which a game could have more than one of), and 2. objective. 72.216.186.113 (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Board_and_table_games/Archive_2&oldid=1294924421"