Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games

Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject Board and table games (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page 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.
Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 


How to prove WP:GNG on board games articles?Edit

Hello, I am redirected here from the teahouse.

I have written an article in the past about a boardgame, and it didn't pass muster because of what I perceived to be lack of WP:GNG. In my rage those day, I just speedily delete my article and then never return again.

Seeing some other articles about board game, it turns out that apart from more famous one like Twilight Struggle most others only cover how the game is played, and most sources only cite Boardgamegeek or the developer site. For example, Fields of Fire (game), Europe Engulfed, SPQR (board game), We the People (boardgame), Empire of the Rising Sun, and some others.

Thus, how to prove WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV to board games? Almost all board games, except for very few, will be covered by mainstream medias. And seeing how the articles above still be allowed, if I created similar articles with similar sources (not much in media coverage) can it pass review?

Thank you! SunDawn (talk) 05:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I think they've just been missed and should be nominated for AfD. I came across several card game articles with little or no reliable references and they've been deleted. Bermicourt (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Other possible reasons for notability include board game awards and press coverage in Eurogame-playing countries like France and Germany. But notability is a big problem and a lot of articles about recent board games clearly don't meet strict notability criteria. Ungulates (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

PichenotteEdit

Messy article, if anyone feels like getting involved. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Recreational WargamingEdit

Just had a look at the RW Wiki page. The later sections on the current state of the hobby are un footnoted/referenced and contain assertions that are untrue, at least for the hobby in the UK (board wargaming is not more popular than miniatures gaming for example). I have made some revisions and added an extra paragraph. I will try to return and add references in due course. Trebian (talk) 10:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

New memberEdit

I wanted to join this Wikiproject because I'm a huge fan of board games and thought I could contribute. I came from WP:VG and I saw the main page was a little bare-bones, so I added a Start tab template as my first contribution to the Project's space. I also intend to make a Barnstar or some form of unique award for the project to help encourage other editors. At the moment, I have my eyes set out for Scythe (board game), Settlers of Catan, and Betrayal at House on the Hill.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 08:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome. I am new too. Slimy asparagus (talk) 08:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

EvolutionEdit

I have a very rough sketch of an article for the game Evolution, here -> User:Slimy_asparagus/Evolution_(game). I realize that the Reception section is probably using overly long quotes and everything else is either unsourced, original research or opinion. Apart from that I think it's okay. ;-) Seriously any constructive comments would be appreciated. I will be working on finding sources and getting it to conform. Slimy asparagus (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

You should mention who developed the game in the lead. See if you can find some interviews on the game. I personally found some reviews I found if you want to use from 3rd-strike, shut up & Sit Down, Board Game Geek. I definitely recommend trying to reduce the points in the reviewers down to a single sentence and summarize their points rather than relying on quotes.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Shut up and sit down are great to watch. However I prefer written sources if possible as they archive better. I do realize this is a long way from being ready. I will probably leave the quotes as they are for now. However thanks for the confirmation that section is not in its final edit. Slimy asparagus (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • check out {{infobox game}}
  • lede needs more 'spice' from the body
  • try to incorporate quotes into the text rather than bullet pointing them
  • if you want a history timeline then drop it into a table
That is my initial feedback. signed by a total amateur ==> —¿philoserf? (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
At the risk of stating the obvious, BGG is a useful tool, but isn't a reliable source, though it may point the way to reliable sources. DonIago (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@Doniago: I didn't know it was not reliable. Is there a reliable source list for WP:BOARDGAME or WP:GAMES?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I checked the project pages and didn't see such a list, but it seems as though it might be a good idea to have one. :) DonIago (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
It would be a great idea. Also if there were somewhere people could go to find more reviews; see my section above titled "Online source database for board and tabletop games?" for difficulties in finding out about reviews online. BOZ (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Just to be clear I am totally clear that BGG is not a reliable source. I am finding that every day. They do have admins, but once false information gets passed them it is not corrected very often.
As I understand it BGG reviews are considered okay. I presume that is because admin approval is required for a review and usually they are done by people unconnected to the company. I guess there is no guarantee that the reviews will be 100% correct, but then presumably that is not what "reliable source" means. Because no source of information can be 100% correct.
In my draft Evolution article I was using BGG not as a source but as scaffolding. When I have appropriate resources in place I will remove the scaffolding. That article is a long way from completion. And I got distracted by other stuff.
If you want to see the most egregious example of using BGG I have seen, check out Zoophoria. I put some comments on the Talk page there. Basically the page links to the BGG page for Zoophoria and calls it a "review". I would raise an AfD but I have three pending and I think that is enough. Slimy asparagus (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't use a BGG review unless it originated (i.e. is available) on a different (professional) site. I've submitted a review to BGG myself in the past, and I'm certainly no games expert and I'd be appalled if I saw my review quoted on Wikipedia.
I'm now afraid to look at that article. :p DonIago (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
@Doniago: I am willing to bet you are as knowledgeable as many writers with published game reviews. I'd say that if you only learned about gaming yesterday. ;p back at ya. —¿philoserf? (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
There's many things I'm knowledgeable about, but when it comes to board games, and especially writing professional reviews of them? Not so much. :) Absolutely nobody should be using me as a subject matter expert in this regard. DonIago (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
FTR: BGG is a perfectly good external link. There are templates for BGG title, designer, & publisher. So do not be afraid to use BGG links in general. —¿philoserf? (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes. Fine as an external link, but not a citable source/reference. DonIago (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
speak of the devil. in my semi-random citation cleanup tour today i found this: StarForce: Alpha Centauri
almost all of the current references are BGG —¿philoserf? (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm enough of a deletionist that it's probably best if I don't look. DonIago (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have created the page: Evolution (board game). I don't consider it finished. But it has filled a hole in my heart and Wikipedia's. Slimy asparagus (talk) 10:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay someone has already tagged it up and I am pretty pissed off. Maybe I can accept criticism such as prose and too many or overly lengthy quotations. I had felt this and I had cut back in the drafting stage. I am finding it really hard to go any further than I have done already.
But "reliable sources"? We are talking about Nature, The Guardian and Ars Technica as the backbone of the article's support. Slimy asparagus (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Frustrating, I know. IceWelder's talk page is where I would share your questions and explore the reasoning. —¿philoserf? (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
It is probably a good idea to wait a day or two. My sark levels may have sunk down by then. Though I do think may be I could ask him to tag specific sources rather than the whole article. Slimy asparagus (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Since I was pinged, I can also reply right here: Ars Technica, the Guardian, and Nature are certainly reliable (per WP:RSP and otherwise); however, Opinionated Gamers and Space-Biff! appear to be personal blogs rather than professional websites, which would make them unreliable. BoardGameGeek is user-generated as far as I can tell, so it is definitely unreliable. If my assessment on the former is incorrect, I apologize and the tag can be removed, but if these sites are indeed unreliable, they should be exchanged for higher-quality ones.
I was not aware that this discussion was going on; the article appeared in the backlog for unreviewed video game articles (which is clearly a miscategorization, but alas), so I reviewed and tagged the article per our standard practices. The tags should not deter from the fact that there is a notable topic at hand, but they are recommendations/instructions on how to bring the article in line with other encyclopedic content. The project here should be able to help you polish the article and there is plenty of good-article content in the project you can model your work after, such as Golem Arcana. Regards, IceWelder [] 14:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I only used a BGG reference for the future project Nature. That is I believe pretty much the only source as they are just looking for play testers now. I have no issue replacing that with a better source when one becomes available (or removing it if the project disappears without a trace). I was not using it to claim Nature exists, but that North Star have announced they are working on it. But as I see it now it is direct from the publisher and has passed BGG admins. So for the incidental point I am trying to prove there, I would have thought that would be okay.
The blogs I was using to back up and fill out the references. As bloggers go they are not fly by nights. So I know they are not as good as The Guardian etc, but from what I recall of the policies I thought they were permissable. I certainly was not claiming I had fully referenced everything. Some of the gaps I have tagged, some I have not.
The list/prose and lengthy quote tags I feel should be moved to the relevant sections. Slimy asparagus (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi, IceWelder. I have done some investigations and here are my conclusions:
  1. The BGG reference is effectively a statement from North Star Games, and so essentially a primary source. I know primary sources are not usually considered reliable, but in this case it represents a stated intention of the publisher. As such it is subject to the Statements of Opinion exception.
  2. Spacebiff is as you say the personal blog of Dan Thurot. However Dan has written for Ars Technica here: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/02/evolving-underwater-oceans-board-game-review/ . The policy states "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Spacebiff probably qualifies though I am not relying on it heavily anyway.
  3. Opinionated Gamer really is not a personal blog. https://opinionatedgamers.com/contributors/ That said I am not too sure where it fits in Wikipedia's world view. Slimy asparagus (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. Under the premise stated, Space-Biff! can be considered (situationally) reliable, and BoardGameGeek may be used if its citation properly classifies that North Star Games is the author (i.e. |publisher=[[North Star Games]] |via=[[BoardGameGeek]]. I still feel like Opinionated Gamers should be exchanged as it is more of a gamers-for-gamers site (the kind that the VG project rejects on a regular basis) with volunteer contributors, not staff with journalistic experience. I reorganized the maintenance tags as you requested. IceWelder [] 09:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I have tagged up those references. I think Matt Carlson might have that experience, but I need to check that. Slimy asparagus (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I am getting frustrated. I have added an ICv2 source to replace one of the Dale Yu references flagged up as unreliable. And it gets the release year of Evolution: The Beginning wrong. That is the second error I have found in a so-called reliable source. I can't bring myself to remove the Dale Yu reference therefore.Slimy asparagus (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Has the Opinionated Gamers source been deemed unreliable? We can discuss that if you like in order to determine whether it's usable. Their review policy is a bit loose. Dale Yu specifically is the founder and has developed his own games and has a strong connection to the Board Game development community with published and notable games attached to him, such as Agricola (board game) and Age of Steam (game). His review and input on the game may be deemed verifiable based on what is given in Opinionated Gamers. This is why we should be talking about creating a list of reliable sources and discuss them. This wikiproject just doesn't have the resources.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
You can see comments above to see how Opinionated Gamers has been questioned. It started out as a blanket criticism of all the sources in the Evolution article. But that was the one that remained after pushback.
To be fair I can see the principle of what he was saying. Fundamentally these are just blogs and they could be just some guy in his basement writing whatever. And they probably all start out that way. But the reliable sources all seem to be websites primarily devoted to video games, because that is where the money is. I think when it comes to board games they are doing little more than rehashing press releases, whereas the blogs actually put some experience and thought and analysis into it, and care about what they are writing.
I think may be we should escalate the issue up to the official "Reliable Sources" forums, but I really have little idea what that entails. Slimy asparagus (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
On the other hand Dale does not help his case, when he writes stuff like this: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamedesigner/11222/dale-yu . Slimy asparagus (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE2: I have updated the history and reception sections. I will continue to update them as I find new sources, but apart from that they are probably as good as I can make them. Is there a consensus I can remove those section tags? Failing that I am going to need some help. Slimy asparagus (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE3 I have done a fairly heavy edit - especially of the game play section. I have tried to take people's advice including on the lead. I have also reduced my use of Opinionated Gamers, according to whether how critical the claim is. Feedback would be greatly appreciated. Unless I hear any objections I will remove the RS tag, by Tuesday.Slimy asparagus (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

[CK]orps CommanderEdit

These two articles (Corps Commander and Korps Commander) seem to be about essentially the same product, just different versions 2 years apart. So at the very least I think they should be merged. However the references also look very close to the source at first glance. One has a BGG entry and they don't look very notable. Slimy asparagus (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I created a source list pageEdit

i created a source list page where we can add what is considered reliable and what isn't. The link is here. Once we have a substancial list, i believe we can share it publically on the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/Sources.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for getting this started! I added Dicebreaker, which I asked about at RSN recently. Sam Walton (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
These are mostly sources for RPGs, but if you see anything there that might also apply to board and table games, feel free to copy: Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/References. BOZ (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Other suggestions from another user which covered RPGs, some of which definitely will also apply to this project:
More potential sources:
  • Web
    • Comic Book Resources
    • Dicebreaker
    • Di6dent (French; used to be released as a magazine as well but is now only published online)
    • GameFan
    • TheGamer
    • Gry-Online (Polish)
    • Guide du Rôliste Galactique (French; in addition to their own content and their database, they have licensed some reviews from out-of-print French RPG magazines, which are added to the corresponding items' entries in the database)
    • ICv2
    • Mir Fantastiki (Russian)
    • Polygon
    • Pyramid
    • SciFi-Universe (French)
    • SF Site
    • Tabletop Gaming Magazine (also exists as a magazine)
    • Tom's Hardware (Italian)
    • Tor.com
    • Unification France (French)
    • Valkyrie
    Print
    • Arcane
    • Australian Realms
    • Backstab (French)
    • Casus Belli (French)
    • Computer + Videogiochi (Italian; focused on video games, but also covered TTRPGs)
    • Dragão Brasil (Portuguese)
    • Dragon
    • Envoyer (German; also has some reviews available online)
    • Fenix (Swedish; also has some reviews available online)
    • The Games Machine (Italian; focused on video games, but also covered TTRPGs)
    • Magia i Miecz (Polish)
    • Mephisto (German)
    • Realms of Fantasy
    • Rollespilsmagasinet Fønix (Danish)
    • Rue Morgue
    • Saga (Danish)
    • Shadis
    • Świat Gier Komputerowych (Polish; focused on video games, but also covered TTRPGs)

BOZ (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: and @BOZ:, should we start reviewing these articles now? I'm willing to provide Barnstars to whoever assists in determining reliable sources. I know Icv2, Polygon are considered reliable by WP:VG and WP:COMICS. So I think these are considered reliable. I also want to include Kotaku as well.

For the rest, I would appreciate a link to their website because not all of them are easy to find.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I think we can safely assume that those are RS for tabletop games as well, and I copied the list from a post by User:Alexandra IDV who would probably be able to come up with links to those sites faster than I could. BOZ (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
A good test of whether a website is considered a RS is when it is recommended in the literature as a high quality source. Bermicourt (talk) 11:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
@Bermicourt: can you clarify? Are you referring to literature outside of Wikipedia, or the Literature Wikiproject?

Actually there already was something a bit like this. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Board_and_table_games/Resources#Reliable_reference_archive It did not have as much information however. Slimy asparagus (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Slimy asparagus: In my humble opinion, it was a really bad idea to move all of these important links into one single outside link into a generic "Resources" tab. It looks like the previous editor who did this was only doing it for the sake of removing it from the home page. It can be moved to the current list and go from there. Most Wikiprojects will create a separate page.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Again I don't mind where they end up. But we should really only have one of everything. Slimy asparagus (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
@Slimy asparagus: at this point, just assume that the Resources tab is going to be re-organized or dissolved into other pages that will give it more visibility.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
I hope we are careful not to throw information away. Slimy asparagus (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
FWIW; for another project, i broke a very large page into subpages that were then transcluded back into the main page. one pane of glass, many manageably sized pieces. —¿philoserf? (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
That sounds interesting. But that also allows the bits to be used in several palces. Would that have applications? Slimy asparagus (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
indeed it does have applications. the whole template namespace makes transclusion simple. a sub page transcluded does the same thing. i do not have a example right now. oh, yes I do. The Signpost's various presentations use the subpages in multiple presentations. —¿philoserf? (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


So could we get a link to this from the main project page? That way it would be easier to turn the text into links and integrate the legacy resources. Slimy asparagus (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't consider it ready just yet to add it to the tabs. But for easy access and easier to edit, I decided to add it in.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

My thoughtsEdit

I have been thinking about this and it is all confusing and a mess. So I am just going to go point by point.

  1. I am really impressed with your approach here. Especially evidencing the classification.
  2. Of course I still stand by my previous point that we need to migrate over the previous legacy page.
  3. For the one source that has been evidenced as reliable so far, Dicebreaker, the evidence is actually quite equivocal. That same discussion also lists " Eurogamer, GamesIndustry.biz, and Rock, Paper, Shotgun. " as reliable. I don't think we have those in our list yet.
  4. I checked ICv2 in the same archive. I only got back: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_280#ICv2. I have seen this touted as a rock-solid reliable source on notability. But in this we read:

You need to provide the relevant edit and article in the source to determine this. While it appears to be a reliable source for its topic area, not every article in a reliable source is reliable and sources should not be used outside of their area of expertise.

My own experience of ICv2 is that it seems to be largely packaging press-releases. It's an industry mag, so maybe its writers know what is notable and what not. But I have found it useless for getting information in what playing a game is actually like.

  1. Of the so-called "reliable sources" I have seen so far the only one that has had useful information about game play is Ars Technica. But then looking at that list I am sources I had never heard of and which never came up in my searches. So may be I need to keep looking.
  2. But combining my experience and what I am seeing in the "reliable sources" archive is that we should not see "reliable sources" in a binary way. You don't ask "Is X reliable?" You ask "Is X reliable for Y?" So I can believe that certain sites ICv2, polygon, Ars Technica may be useful for establishing notability but they may or may not be any good for say sourcing a section on gameplay.
  3. Now in editing Evolution (board game), I am still having issues with finding better sources than Opinionated Gamers. But a quick search shows that we are using them a lot. So maybe we do find them "reliable" so what is going on?
  4. I can see why we should never (or probably almost never - let's leave some wiggle room here) rely on bloggers for establishing notability. For starters blogging on board games may be just a step in some blogging farm's master plan to rig our elections. More seriously (or is it less seriously?) Game publishers often send reviewers free copies of the game. I would say that certainly undermines their credibility on notability. I have even seen a publisher pay Dice Tower to do a video review (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zoophoria). But does that undermine their credibility when it comes to saying how a game is played?
  5. I was thinking of transcluding all discussions here about the reliability of sources to the Talk page of the new sources list.

Cleanup listEdit

Over in the Teahouse, someone told me about this link: [1]. I think this would be useful to link to on the project page. There are also some other forms such as CSV. Slimy asparagus (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Linking to the BGG site as a reviewEdit

One thing I keep seeing is Wikipedia pages linking to the corresponding BGG site saying it is a "review". I suppose if they said it was a "reliable source review" that would be just a bit too obvious. Here are some examples:

Doing this I think calls out for an AfD. Slimy asparagus (talk) 07:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Related ProjectsEdit

We now have two sets of links to related projects. One is in a box on the right saying "Project Resources". The second is a section called "Related Wikiprojects" just above "Participants". This seems redundant. Also the first one has a lot of links the second one does not. Slimy asparagus (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Some of the changes that were made were done by me. But thought the main page was too barebones and attempted to bring it back. I don't think there needs to be an external link for related projects and should be merged back here.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't mind which one we keep. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. But seeing as we are both fairly new here, I'd be interested in knowing what others think. Slimy asparagus (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Decided to ping @JudgeGregg: the original creator of these subpages and other WP:BTG members like @Thibbs: @BOZ: @Samwalton9: @Doniago: and @Philoserf:. I don't really think its a controversial edit, but its good to get more input.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
I am fine with either. The project page section is traditional and very common. I think more folks visiting from other projects would be comfortable with it. That said, I am not certain it helps us or them.
If you forced me into an either or I'd pick the project page section. —¿philoserf? (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Wargames introduced in 1968Edit

I am finding categories like Category:Board games introduced in 1978 very useful in syncing up pages like 1978 in games. I see a similar category for Card, Role playing and Video games. There is also a broader and possibly less used Category:Games and sports introduced in 1978 series, which is the parent category. I don't think all Wargames are strictly speaking board games - especially those that use miniatures. So I am thinking of creating similar categories for Wargames. But there might be a better decision here, so I would appreciate some thoughts. Slimy asparagus (talk) 10:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm in favor of anything that helps with organization, accessibility, and usability. BOZ (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
So I have started. But it may be a while before one of the new categories has two members or I really feel it is working by any of the other possible metrics. Slimy asparagus (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry. These are not enough Category tree for board games by decade? —¿philoserf? (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Obviously there is overlap. But should miniature wargames be in those categories? Also the GAmes and Sports are divided into Card/Video/Board so "Wargames" feels to be at least at the same level as Card. Slimy asparagus (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
i was commenting on "in 19xy" and "before...two members". I'd recommend they go into the decade until there enough to warrant an individual year. —¿philoserf? (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
That may be a good point. However I probably have at least 150-200 wargames on file. But I think those will group mostly in the 1970-2000 period. I have already created 1990, 1982, 1995. Is there any point do work that will simply need to be redone? (Not to mention the extra scripting work.) If you prefer I could hold off creating any more till I have hard data, which is definitely a possible approach. Slimy asparagus (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm not saying no. Just offering an established pattern. —¿philoserf? (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Actually my script only reconciles as far back as 2008 for now. It is trivial to extend it back, but I probably have enough other things to do. So I was probably overestimating the amount of work it would cost me. So that's a point in favour of sticking to decades for now. I would still have to restructure the categories I have created so far. Ah!. I see you have the decades and the single years. So you would not phase out the decade categories. In that case I get it is pretty clear. I should go with your plan. I just missed the decade categories somehow. Slimy asparagus (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
perfect. glad you see it. i find the category tree tool useful when planning. —¿philoserf? (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I think it I won't remove the year categories I created for now. I will just insert the decade categories in the hierarchy. But if someone else decides to "tidy up" I won't complain. That is the least work for me. Which is of course what really matters. ;-) Slimy asparagus (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Hearthstone?Edit

I am not clear why Hearthstone is in WikiProject Board and table games. It is a digital only game, even if it does simulate a board game. Slimy asparagus (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


Skirmish Tactics Apocalypse -mproposed for deleteEdit

Talk:Skirmish Tactics Apocalypse

Requested move at Talk:Major Arcana#Requested move 20 August 2021Edit

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Major Arcana#Requested move 20 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  — Shibbolethink ( ) 02:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

SuperclubEdit

Hi! This is an incredible new board game I've found. It launched last year. Is it eligible for inclusion?--The Voivodeship King (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

The key policies are Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If it can meet those policies then sure. Slimy asparagus (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Should we describe the game's ranking in BGG Toplists?Edit

It is possible, the data is there, see https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/2694529/you-can-view-some-game-rank-history-internet-archi

I've added this to the newly created stub for Caverna (board game), and also a while ago to Here I Stand (board game). I think it is a vital statistics for board games. Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I would say it is useful if the game is in the top 100. Otherwise ignore it.

I am not clear if you have found the graph which I think would be better. (I am at work so not everything works.)Slimy asparagus (talk) 06:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

BGG graph? Yes, I did. BUt i don't think it's directly linkable? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
It seems to be linkable. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/102794/caverna-cave-farmers/stats/history?rankobjectid=1 But I have no ieaa whether it survives the wayback machine. It might well be making JSON calls behind the scenes or something/ Slimy asparagus (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Do we know that those rankings are any more reliable than, say, IMDb rankings, which aren't at all reliable? DonIago (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

They are a poll. Sometimes the sample size is fairly big. They are however subject to certain biases. For example there is a kickstarter bias where they get inflated before the game is even out and so on. So in many cases I would discount them. But when they have been holding a top ranking for a substantial amount of time, then I would say that means something. Slimy asparagus (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
This isn't reassuring. One could just as easily argue that if a film has held a top ranking for a substantial amount of time at IMDb that that means something, but we don't use IMDb ratings in film articles because they aren't considered reliable. As per MOS:FILM: "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database, Metacritic, or Rotten Tomatoes (including its "Audience Says" feature), as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." I fear BGG rankings have the same problems. DonIago (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah they probably are subject to a similar range of problems and probably should get similar treatment. I think they do sometimes tell one something but I guess if we try to make that judgement call we're doing original research. Slimy asparagus (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Though, if a reliable secondary source mentions a game's rating at BGG, then that would be a reasonable way to bring it up, if that's any help. DonIago (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
No I think if it is worth mentioning at all, one might as well go to the source. Saying "the BGG ranking of game X at time T is P" is an objective statement. The question is, "Does it mean anything?"
The question BGG ratings are trying to answer is "What do board game fans think of a certain game?" That is a perfectly fair question. But it has enormous problems. What even is a "fan"? Slimy asparagus (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Dead Link on Origins Game FairEdit

I have been cleaning up the bare URLs in references here. One [2] (currently ref 31) appears to be permanently dead. I don't think it is really needed so I would like to just remove it. Any objections? Slimy asparagus (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Scrap that. I just figured out how to recover it. There is a something quite odd about it. There is only one capture and the page disappears after a while, but you can read it.Slimy asparagus (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


Awards and WikidataEdit

I while back I looked into putting the awards data into Wikidata. I talked to some people in Wikidata about it. However I shelved the idea because I had not at the time seen much communication within this project, and if it is done at all, it needs to be done right. Once the initial investment had been paid off it would reduce labour. You would do it once on wikidata and the our "this year in games pages" could use it, our awards pages could use it, and the specific game pages could use it. Other language wikis could leverage it for almost no cost, and if a game had entries in Wikidata, then that would settle the notability question for that game at least. I am guessing nominations would not be worth the effort but that needs to be settled at the beginning. Any thoughts? I currently working on 2019 Origins Award winners the old way. Slimy asparagus (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I had a look over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards. They have asked the question twice: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Awards/Archive_2#Awards_at_Wikidata... and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Awards/Archive_2#Updates_of_awards_information_&_Wikidata. It does not look terribly promising as an idea or at least not yet. Still I am going to add their talk page to my watch list for a while. Also I wonder if we should add our awards pages to their project. Slimy asparagus (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Embassy chessEdit

 

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

I cannot find reliable or even independent sources.

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. Slimy asparagus (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Name of the Uno Flip articleEdit

The game is actually called "Uno Flip!" Uno Flip! at BoardGameGeek. There is another 2009 game called "Uno Flip" Uno Flip at BoardGameGeek which uses dexterity. I think this should be moved therefore. However there is already a "Uno Flip!" which is a redirect to Uno (card game)#Video games. Looks like a bit of a mess to me. For the actual product page (so we are not relying on the unreliable source of BGG) of "Uno Flip!" see [3] and for the instruction manual for "Uno Flip" see [4]. Or compare these geekhobbies pages [5] and [6].

With regards to the redirect itself, the only thing that points to it, looks to me like a video game implementation of the 2019 game "Uno Flip!" so the requested move would make that more correct. Slimy asparagus (talk) 10:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


Proposed deletion of UnashogiEdit

 

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

I could not find reliable sources (that is anything unrelated to wikipedia or the chess variants website. I doubt its notability.

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. Slimy asparagus (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cannon shogiEdit

 

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

I cannot find reliable sources, especially ones that do not depend on Wikipedia. I doubt notability and the article cites no sources.

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. Slimy asparagus (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

StarwebEdit

The PBM Starweb, which was recently promoted to GA, is a DYK today. :) BOZ (talk) 13:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Sequence (game) - avoiding a revert warEdit

Could someone have a look at Sequence (game) please. Someone has been removing its tags without doing anything to improve it. Not all of the article has references. There references themselves are of dubious quality and poorly formatted. I am less concerned about notability, as I doubt it is a deletion candidate, but at first glance I am not sure the current references do the job. Slimy asparagus (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Capitalizing GoEdit

Please join discussion here on the capitalization of the name of the game Go in Wikipedia articles. Thank you. Coastside (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Announcing Go Portal and Nav templateEdit

Announcing the new Go Portal.

Also announcing a new nav template for Go: {{Go (game)}}. You can expand it here:

Coastside (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Golden Geek AwardsEdit

I copied a more extensive table from pl:Golden Geek Award to BoardGameGeek#Golden_Geek_Award (I am not sure the awards deserve a stand-alone article). But the able is ugly; maybe someone feels like making it nicer? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Card pictures for Dominion articleEdit

Would anyone with second edition cards be willing to take some photographs/scan some cards for the Dominion article? Please reply here or at my talk page if you would like specifics. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 06:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

But they would not be free images. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Board_games Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't realize the rules were so strict. Thank you. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Hang on - wouldn't unfree images still meet the criteria for non-free content? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria#Policy The kinds of pictures I'm thinking of seem similar to the ones in the articles on Magic, the World of Warcraft TCG, Dark Millennium, and V:TES - for instance, this image [7] or this one [8], which both have fair use rationale. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
@CohenTheBohemian Possibly. English Wikipedia accepts fair use per WP:FAIRUSE. Just note that Wikimedia Commons does not. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Backgammon, Frontgammon, and everything inbetweenEdit

Hi. I've started a conversation about rejiggering the subcategories of {{Tables games}} at Template talk:Tables games#Buckets -- in case anyone's interested. Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Tents and treesEdit

I realize this is not quite on-point for this Wikiproject, but if anyone has suggestions for finding reliable sources for puzzle games like the one above, they would be welcome at the draft talk-page. Not watching, please ping. --JBL (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Ogre (board game)Edit

Ogre (board game) was nominated for GAR today, in case anyone is able to address any of the issues raised by the nominator! BOZ (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion is here: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ogre (board game)/1. I'll try to participate, time-permitting. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. If more could respond to the reassessment that would be great- VickKiang (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

WargamesEdit

If you ever spot more sources for any of these deleted/redirected articles, they may yet have a future!:

BOZ (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

How do I report an apparent omission on the Taikyoku shogi page?Edit

[I am completely new at this, and apologize for any etiquette violations.] I've read the Taikyoku shogi page, and while it frequently mentions the promotion of pieces, I cannot find on it any reference to *how* pieces promote. (I gather from "Game play" on the Taikyoku shogi Talk page that it's promotion-by-capture; when a piece captures an enemy piece, the capturing piece compulsorily promotes.) How do I report this in such a way that a knowledgeable editor of the Taikyoku shogi page will see it? Wdstarr (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Simulations Publications gamesEdit

I want to give a huge shout-out to User:Guinness323 for working on every single one of the 80+ articles in the Category:Simulations Publications games over the past year, expanding and rewriting them, even starting a few new ones, adding images as well as reviews and other sources. That takes dedication and I think we are all at least a little better off for his efforts!  :) BOZ (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Board Game QuestEdit

Recently, this edit by User:VickKiang to Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/Sources added the website Board Game Quest as an unreliable source. I've searched this page for discussion about it, but found none. (There is discussion about other sources at #I created a source list page.) I've also searched the discussion archives, and again could not find mention of this site. The reason given for listing this site as unreliable is "Self-published source without editorial control", but according to their about page, the site has four editors, or at least employees they regard as editors. Any thoughts about this site as a source? Mindmatrix 13:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello and apologies. In this discussion (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_371#RS_for_Board_Games-_Board_Game_Quest,_Ars_Technica,_Kotaku_and_TechRaptor), an editor noted that:

About Board Game Quest lists most of its staff as "reviewers", which I think makes it clear that they are mostly in the business of publishing subjective opinions about games. The website could be a reliable source for the reviews published by its staff, but it's not clear to what extent a mention of their review would be WP:DUE. The home page shows that the site publishes some "Board Game News", but all of the news article are written by Tony Mastrangeli, who is also the publisher. I could not locate any editorial policy, so I think the news articles are not reliable to source factual claims." For example, one of the authors, Jason Kelm, identifies himself as "Jason enjoys solo games when his ginger toddlers finally sleep, but also enjoys party games and good times with friends. He makes great second impressions as well." He seems to be a hobbyist devoid of expertise, therefore, this "author" is not a subject-matter expert, also, there is no signs of editorial control.

Numerous other editors also agreed that if a source is reliable at the Video Games list, it should be at board games, but it is also not. Also, I stated a conclusion that was not objected to. Hence, IMO the statement is reasonable, and the employees are by no means subject experts, merely amateurs who play some games. Therefore, I am tentative on your statement that you could not find anything in the RSN, could you please elaborate? Many thanks. VickKiang (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
@VickKiang: Note that I stated "I've searched this page..." and "...the discussion archives..." (ie - the archives for this page) for past discussions about this. I never stated I searched RSN, which didn't actually occur to me to do. I don't care about the result one way or the other, so long as there was discussion and it was not simply a unilateral decision. Mindmatrix 21:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
@Mindmatrix: Apologies for my misunderstanding and no worries, I accidentally thought that the "discussion archives" meant all of the ones, but it is all right now. Also, I would ask that do you think it would be all right if some refs that are cited to Board Game Quest could be removed? Thanks for your time and help. VickKiang (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Notability of SdJ WinnersEdit

Would an SdJ win be sufficient in determining if an article should be created? I would like to create the article for the 2020 SdJ winner Pictures, but could not really find multiple independent, reliable sources except for the SdJ award. There should indisputably be some coverage in reliable magazines in German, but am tentative if the article has enough refs, and even if so it would indubitably be a Stub or at best a Start article. I had a discussion with Piotrus previously, who stated that SdJ is sufficient to justify the article Manhattan, but all other sources all poor. Therefore, should I create an article for Pictures, and will it be notable enough to be accepted? Many thanks for your help and time. VickKiang (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that's a pretty significant award, but I would recommend having other sources before trying to start an article. I would say no article on a winner of that award should be deleted, though. BOZ (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
That said, I have nominee Draft:Favoriten (board game) in draft space in case anyone has any sources to help with it. :) BOZ (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
IMO this is an interesting article. Nevertheless, I don't possess a copy of the magazine, hence am tentative about its contents. The reception section seems to be restrained, and an SdJ recommendation is certainly an RS, however, it is the lowest level of the coveted award, below the nomination or win. There are multiple games, such as The Mind or Nova Luna, that is devoid of English Wikipedia entries. The other award seems to be peculiar, on the corresponding article from WP, there are ten recommended, still, via its official link (https://www.spiel-messe.com/de/deutscher-spielepreis/preistraeger/) there are merely three for the year 1990. Further, a book (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=GPdRVOl8fU0C&pg=PA247&lpg=PA247&dq=Favoriten+(board+game)&source=bl&ots=x1zAIyJTQz&sig=ACfU3U2pNKeoT8MTla_SZr7OygDmstus0g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwizmZX5rvH2AhXS4HMBHTK2C6oQ6AF6BAgbEAM#v=onepage&q=Favoriten%20(board%20game)&f=false), cites this game as a ref, but did not seem to mention it in other pages. This article should likely be accepted as it has two reliable, independent refs, however, if created, it might always be a stub. Also, a separate note that, albeit BGG being extremely unreliable, this game seems obscure, with less than 200 ratings and it lists only a single award (still, this, like IMDB ones, should only be taken as a grain of salt). Many thanks for your time and help. VickKiang (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sourcesEdit

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Tiến lênEdit

The Tiến lên article is in terrible shape. Are any project members interested in overhauling, or trimming down to something that's actually helpful to readers? ---Another Believer (Talk) 12:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, just glancing at it, clearly a case of everyone making sure to document their own personal experience of the game on Wikipedia-as-blog. I don't know whether this project considers pagat.com to be a reliable source or not -- it's neither on the white list nor black list at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Board_and_table_games/Sources -- on one hand it is largely crowd-sourced; on the other hand it is curated by John McLeod (card game researcher) a recognized and published expert in the field. But if you deem it useful:
  • McLeod, John. "Tien Len - card game rules". www.pagat.com. Retrieved 10 June 2022.
More reliable (from a WP point of view) will be:
Hope that helps a bit. Phil wink (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
  Done Rewritten Phil wink (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
@Phil wink: and well done! :) Bermicourt (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Ark Nova (board game) Article CleanupEdit

The article for Ark Nova (likely the most popular board games of the year) was created sometime ago with only one ref. I did some cleanup, and I think that the article could survive AfD as there are three refs that are likely reliable (Polygon, IGN, and SdJ), and are proobably significant coverage. However, IMO the gameplay section needs comsiderable clarifying and copy editing. I tried to search more refs, but couldn't find much, though this game is still being released in some countries and would probably have more refs by the end of the year. Still, could you comment on whether the game is notable enough, and possibly do some copy editing and MoS adherence of the gameplay section? Many thanks for your time! VickKiang (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@VickKiang Pretty please, link articles you want us to look at. Ark Nova is clearly not it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC) PS. As for Ark Nova (board game), sure, the article needs improvement, but yes, I think it is notable, since I consider the sources used you mention indeed reliable. Btw, did it win SdJ or was it just a nominee? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed replies. Apologies for my hastiness, I meant the board game through the line "Ark Nova (likely the most popular board games of the year)", but sorry for the potential misunderstanding. I have linked all of those now, and thanks for your suggestion! Ark Nova was only recommended by the KdJ, but that is still significant, as only six to seven games are nominated or recommended for each award. Upon my search, this game doesn't have much more refs, but at the current state the three refs to me make it just notable enough. Many thanks for your time! VickKiang (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Tak ArticleEdit

The article for Tak (2016 board game) is extremely poor IMO. Almost all of the refs link to self-published blogs, Reddit, or Youtube. I will remove some of the contents (e.g., refs only to clearly unreliable refs), however, if you could find more reliable refs please let me know. Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@VickKiang: Looking at Tak (game), which I assume you meant, I share your concerns. I consider boing boing reliable, but [15] is hardly in-depth (WP:SIGCOV). The only review that looked reliable is... password-protected ([16])? Further, a look at BGG ([17]) suggests this was a Nominee for a number of awards, but failed to win. If there is reliable coverage of this, outside the usual blogs/YouTube channels that these days review almost anything, I am not seeing it. That said, some of those reviews are written by popular influences or whatsyacallthem, like GeekDad [18], and I do wonder if that review or this would pass muster at WP:VGRS. Right now I'd support deleting this if this was brought to WP:AFD, but with a weak delete, and if someone digs up more reviews like that, maybe I'd change to weak keep. In either case, this article, needs cleanup, as it certainly has too many references to reddit and other stuff that fails WP:RS. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies! Yes, IMO the refs coverage does not constitute to such a lengthy article. If you are all right with, I will gradually remove the Youtube and Reddit content. Also, do you consider the Tak Times reliable, since it is a key ref? It states that it has "editors" but the methodology or editorial process is not described. Also, the US Tak Association looks all right, but I doubt whether it is indepedent enough from the subject? Many thanks for your time and detailed comment! VickKiang (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Re Tak Tikes, it seems like a fanzine. I'd say reliable enough to cite, but not to establish notability (due to lack of independence). (You could ask about it at WP:RSN if you really want further feedback on this aspect). Ditto for the USTA. Rethinking this, I'd call GeekDad review reliable and satisfying half of GNG requirement of multiple (I read this as two) in-depth sources. BoingBoing gives us maybe a quarter, as it is reliable, but too short to be in-depth. So, as I said above, this is almost notable, but right now, not quite. I'll tag it with {{notability}} for now, thanks for trying to clean this up. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
There are now broken references that don't appear to have been broken before. So I'll clean those up when I can.
Re US Tak and Tak Times: one publishes the other, and have had interviews with the designer of the game and interactions with Patrick Rothfuss. It's definitely reliable as a source, but is not dissociated from the success of the game itself. The editorial rules are not published, but they do have legal oversite due to the incorporation of US Tak and their bylaws. Humanat (talk) 23:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm sure you'll notice that this is a fresh account, so for full clarity, I am a part of the Tak community, but I am not associated with US Tak or the publishers of Tak. It came to light that there concerns about the article and I volunteered to address them. Humanat (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Thanks, though below is my source assessment table. Please inform me on whether you disagree:


Source assessment table:
(This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.)
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://boingboing.net/2016/04/19/kickstarting-tak-a-new-cheapa.html   Yes ~ The author seems to have written many articles, but Boing Boing is a "group blog" according to RSP. ~ Counts as half of a significant source IMO as it has three short paragraphs (excluding the parts directly from the game description in the Kickstarter or website) though most are quotes. ~ Partial
https://www.pastemagazine.com/games/boardgames/tak-brings-a-fictional-boardgame-into-the-real-wor/   Yes   Not the best ref, but a well-known magazine with its own WP article , and editors. It is probably reliable (IMO).   Long, significant review. Yes
https://geekdad.com/2016/04/kickstarter-tak-kingkiller-chronicles/   Yes ~ The source is a blog (?) according to WP, and won some blogs of the year awards, along with an unclear (?) editorial policy. To me, on RSP it would be Option 2 (marginally reliable) at best, and am unsure of its reliability.   In-depth article, just its reliability is of question. ~ Partial
https://www.taktimes.com/   Yes   Unfortunately, I'm going to go with a no for this. Its FAQ results in me doubting this website. It says The Tak Times is a player-made online publication that publishes "breaking news" in the Tak world and produces a quarterly "issue" of articles and other content for all Tak players to enjoy. The "player-made" suggests that this does not has a reliable enough editorial team. There is no mention of this in reliable refs, and it uses a Strikingly is our current low-cost website platform, similar to Wordpress, Wix, or Blogger. Both Wordpress and Wix are casual websites, so it suggests that this is fan-made. When I open the news articles, it says it's a blog accoridng to the URL (https://www.taktimes.com/blog/tak-times-year-one-review). As a result, IMO it is unreliable, but considering the extremely poor article, the source could be kept for now.   Very in-depth. No
https://ustak.org/2017/02/new-website/ ~ It's the official Tak association, and it claims that it is indepedent. I don't have much evidence for or against this, so am unsure. ~ I am unsure if it is a reliable secondary source.   Has detailed coverage. ~ Partial
https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Mastering_Tak_Level_I.html?id=okORswEACAAJ&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y   Yes   The author is a Tak fan who is a "plumbing sales specialist with a degree in philosophy" and not a subject-matter expert. Its publisher is CreateSpace, an unreliable self-publishing service owned by Amazon according to our WP page. As it is self-published and the author not an expert, IMO this is unreliable.   140 page book on Tak strategy. No
Table created using {{source assess table}}

Concluding, there is one ref I am sure is reliable. GeekDad, US Tak Association, and Boing Boing are uncertain, but I would not say that the fan-made Tak Times or the Mastering Tak book are reliable. Otherwise, the other refs are in my opinion so poor that they are definitely not RS, let alone contributing to GNG. I would like your opinions on whether you agree with my assessment, if you disagree, I might change some of these and possibly ask at RSN. Thanks for your time! VickKiang (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Good find re Paste, I missed that one. I'd say that the article is borderline notable, now, one good source, several "halves" (partials). Thanks for reviewing this and copyediting it. When we are done here, I'd suggest copying that discussion - or at least linking to it - from the artice's talk page. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of The PolygonEdit

I added The Polygon, a reliable ref according to the Video Game Wikiproject (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Polygon), to the sources list, there is consensus that reliable for Video Games should be for board games as well. But if anyone disagree, I will remove this and start a discussion on the reliable source noticeboard or here. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@VickKiang I've always considered it reliable. Btw, we could use more attention at Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/Sources. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussions on SourcesEdit

Please also see a discussion on the reliability of BTG sources here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Board_and_table_games/Sources. Please contribute if possible, many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The Crew (board game)Edit

The Crew (board game) is an article that I recently did some cleanup. I believe that with a bit of c/e, it could potentially be C-class, as the refs are all decent, and the reception section is passable. Though, the gameplay section needs work. If possible, could someone potentially help with some minor c/e with this article, and assess whether it's still start class? Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Update: I think it's better now, an image and links have been added. Rater says that it's 54.7% at B or higher, so I reassessed C for now; if you disagree, please comment. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 06:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Re: Mind Sports OlympiadEdit

This article is rather vague about list of games played as a part of this competition. While I understand that the standard answer is "edits welcome", I'm curious if anyone here knows a reason for that? Isn't there a public list of games for each of the past events, so that a table "list of games played in 2021, 2020, 2019, etc" can be made? --Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 21:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Chess variant boards (modules & templates)Edit

Dear colleagues, please consider the issue of modules and templates of chess variant boards. Yevrowl (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

51st State (board game) CleanupEdit

@Piotrus: Pinging article creator (if there's other significant editors, I will ping as well). I think this article's notability is of question. Techraptor is probably the best, and the review is well written, and the site does have editorial policies, but the qualifications of its editors are unclear. Per the BTG WikiProject sources, the Dice Tower is marginally reliable but doesn't count to GNG (I think we discussed this before probably?) , but Board Game Quest is clearly marked as unreliable. The other ones (Gameosity, Zatu...) are non-reliable, SPS like blogs. Also, according to BGG it was nominated for the Golden Geek (see here), the early version also won another obscure award (see here and another Golden Geek nom, but it hasn't won any significant awards. Upon a quick search, I didn't found much RS that demonstrate GNG. But considering this game's popularity and numerous BGG reviews (again this doesn't count notability, but is a good, but not the best, measure of at least how popular and well-known a game is, but not how notable), I'm assuming that there must be more refs. So I am starting this thread, if no more better refs are found, an AfD might be needed, but I don't think it's necessary, as probably refs in another language have reliable coverage (I assume). Many thanks for your help! VickKiang (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@VickKiang Two reviews in Rebel Times [19] (page 33, page 36). This should help, assuming Rebel Times is a RS (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Board_and_table_games/Sources#Rebel_Times). Additional Polish reviews are collected on the publisher page: https://portalgames.pl/pl/51st-state/ . Those include reviews in [20] pl:esensja (popular Polish e-zine), or Polish gaming/sf/fantasy portals such as pl:Poltergeist (polter.pl) [21]. Of course, to what degree those and other listed sites are reliable is a question. All could use a discussion in our new RS subforum. That said, IMHO the "sum" of all such reviews does indicate notability, even if the math is a bit fuzzy. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/NotabilityEdit

A subpage has been started. Years ago it was written in this WikiProject's goals that creating it is one of our goals. Ok, here we go. Note that this is an essay-level page, i.e. non-binding. Right now it's just my POV + some older section on Awards. Please discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games/Notability and feel free to expand/change it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

New article feedEdit

I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/New article announcements. (This may not be populated until the bot runs again, which happens more or less daily). It will look like Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/New article announcements (I note Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements uses a different bot that produces a slightly different list of results, but I was not aware of that, so I used the old one I am familiar with). The new bot(?) is operated by User:PresN, I think? The old one should suffice for us I think. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

For the video games project, I have a custom script that I run locally once a week that reads through Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Video game articles by quality log, determines which article assessments represent new articles/categories/templates (and deleted, and redirected), and then checks the articles' histories directly to figure out who was the creator (or re-creator). It's not available as a bot, unfortunately. AlexNewArtBot's results work fine, though; the difference is that it will give you articles that look like they're in the subject area, whereas my script is looking for articles that are newly "tagged" on the talk page for the wikiproject, whether or not they're "new pages". --PresN 14:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
It lives. @VickKiang, you may want to watchlist this feed :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your update, I've watchlisted that feed. Though, after a failed try to retire (which is lame as it only lasted 5 days), I decided that I probably can't retire entirely, so I'm semi-retired. I probably wouldn't always be active at the BTG WikiProject, but would still occasionally edit (maybe several times a day). Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 08:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Gen Con 2020 onlineEdit

Looking for further comments at Talk:Gen Con#‎Where should Gen Con 2020 be listed?. BOZ (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Should detailed components be listed?Edit

@Piotrus: @Blue Pumpkin Pie: @BOZ: @Guinness323: @Mindmatrix: Should components be listed for wargames? Obviously, it's implausible for more complex board games, such as Scythe (board game), but I am asking on wargames specifically since there's a dispute at Beda Fomm (wargame), see this diff. Pinging Piotrus, BOZ, Guinness323, Mindmatrix, and Blue Pumpkin Pie, who wrote the style guide for the BTG WikiProject. Personally, I strongly oppose a list of components, but IMHO a clearer consensus and a clarification of the style guide would be good. VickKiang (talk) 03:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with including that info, as long as it provides some context on the game play. A bare list isn't helpful, but if the purpose of the components are explained then I don't see a problem. BOZ (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
It sounds a bit WP:INDISCRIMINATE to me unless sources have commented on the components for some reason. DonIago (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Personally, I disagree with inclusion. WP isn't supposed to be an indiscirminate, and there isn't clear guidelines for board games except for the style guide written by one editor. But in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games, it cautions jargon and says that As with most Wikipedia content, gameplay details must be appropriately verifiable to reliable sources. While secondary sources like reviews are preferred, primary sources like game manuals and game guides are acceptable, though articles should not incorporate too many gameplay-related details, per WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE. The Wikipedia is not page also suggests Avoid lists of gameplay concepts and items unless these are notable as discussed in secondary sources in their own right in gaming context (such as the BFG from the Doom series). A concise summary of gameplay details (specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, etc.) is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry, but walk-throughs and detailed coverage are not. See also WP:WAF and WP:VGSCOPE. IMHO, I strongly oppose inclusion of components, it could be included if a) it's very, very brief (less than 2 sentences), b) it is written in prose and flows sensibly, but that IMO seems to be too excessively detailed still. VickKiang (talk) 05:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
While I agree that for family board games, a list of components is unnecessary, in the field of board wargames, the number of counters, the size of the map and the size of the rulebook are all crucial to understanding the complexity (or lack of complexity) of the game. On the one hand, there's Drang Nach Osten!, with its 1700 counters, three huge maps, 65-page rulebook and ten double-sided charts; then there's Beda Fomm, with a tiny map, 120 counters and a 4-page rulebook. They are both wargames, but at opposite ends of the spectrum, with a different vision from the game designer and different expectations from the players. Part of that difference can be graphically illustrated by the components. However, I agree with BOZ that context would be helpful. Guinness323 (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I think it's useful provided it isn't too long and detailed. An overview is useful to get an idea of complexity and what's involved. Bermicourt (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
The family board games could also apply to modern strategy board games, IMHO. I still feel that including components isn't suitable for WP, but I might add a note in the Style guide should the result of this discussion be no consensus. Right now, 2 editors seem to vote against it (but caution on context and brevity), and 3 seem to vote for it. VickKiang (talk) 08:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, it depends. Most components are forgettable trivia, particularly if one tries to name them in detail ("8 life counters, 4 hit markers, 17 missile tokens..."). On the other hand, high quality components, like miniatures, are often a selling points of some higher end games. I think it's ok to have a single sentnece listing (referenced!) number and size of the maps (for wargames, doesn't matter much for board games), number of counters and miniatures. I am less thrilled about lising the page number and number of the rulebooks, but it seems reasinably harmless. I am mildly concerned this can be a bit unwieldy when we consider different editions and expansions, however. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree that listing every little component change from edition to edition is unnecessary. The only reason to do so might be if a major change in components resulted in a fundamental change to the game. For example, halving the number of counters in an attempt to respond to complaints about over-complexity.Guinness323 (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, Beda Fomm can benefit with some images to help explain the game. And so far from what I seen, most of the pieces and board appear to be basic enough to replicate and upload as free media. At least if you're going to show individual components. It may be beneficial to show a picture of the official game being played on a table. I edit these articles better once i played the game, so im going to see some reviews.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Help with Once Upon a Time (game)Edit

@BOZ: @Piotrus: @Guinness323: IMHO, this article, Once Upon a Time (game), is poor, I want to nominate it for GAR. Almost all of the reception is quoted, the development and release section is equally poor. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games, it suggests that Minimize direct quotations. Prefer paraphrase whenever possible, both for Wikipedia's emphasis on minimizing use of copyrighted content and to massage the essence of the source into what best suits the section. Almost all reviewer sentiments can be rephrased without using the source's exact words/phrases. Use quotations only to illustrate that which cannot be said better than the source. Reception sections that consist purely of quotations are treated as copyright violations, IMO for BTG-related articles it sohuld be the same. The awards section previously had promo-like external links and dot point format, which I changed, but is sourced from the publisher's ref, which lists non-notable, minor awards. Do you think it's a GA, or only a B or C class article? Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 05:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

2008 vinatage? No wonder it's not up to modern standards. It's probably notable, but yeah, some refs used are unreliable. I'd support a GAR (delisting), unless someone would rewrite it. Sidenote: I own the game. Anyway, right now it's B or C class, not GA due to unreliable refs used (RPGNet...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree, I'll start one soon. Would you prefer an individual or community GAR? VickKiang (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
@VickKiang Not sure if there is a difference; community is the standard I think I am familiar with for delisting. Only GANs seem to be individual, in my experience at least (and even those are better if others chime in - usually, I did have one bad experience but I digress - usually the more eyes the better on everything in the wiki world). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
PS. Ping pro forma mostly inactive nom (@Craw-daddy) and inactive reviwer (@Gloss). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

GAN for Wingspan (board game)Edit

@Piotrus: @BOZ: @GhostRiver: @Mindmatrix: I'm thinking of a GAN for Wingspan (board game), but am wondering should the Golden Geek awards and The Dice Tower awards be listed, as well as another one (Nederlandse Spellenprijs without a WP article), which are all currently listed? These are considered generally unreliable or marginally reliable per our sources section, and doesn't appear to be notable enough to have a WP article (all of these links are redirects). Many thanks, pinging Piotrus, BOZ, Mindmatrix and GhostRiver, the latter having worked in a sandbox article for this game and also helped with Scythe (board game). VickKiang (talk) 03:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the awards, but best of luck at GAN. :) BOZ (talk) 10:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
IIRC they are popular enough that they are often listed on game boxes. That's an indicator that they are not minor. I do think the article should list them in the list of awards. Note I don't have an opinion about nl:Nederlandse Spellenprijs; the nl wiki article exists but does not indicate notability, just existence. It may of course be simply poorly written, but presumably, without a Dutch Wikipedian commenting on this, we will never know (you could ask about this at WT:NETHERLANDS). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Many thanks, I'm iffy on if these sould be included, so I'm fine with either option (I also seen a lot of game boxes with Golden Geek awards on it). I'm leaning towards rm the Nederlandse Spellenprijs, since it doesn't appear to be that notable or reliable, but I'm okay with including it as well. VickKiang (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Reminder to watchlist Article AlertsEdit

Just a note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/Article alerts exists and is good to watchlist. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

On Scythe (board game)Edit

@Piotrus: @BOZ: @Blue Pumpkin Pie: @GhostRiver: Does everyone agree on listing factions for Scythe (board game)? I'm iffy on this and am fine either way. Pinging a couple of BTG users, or others who've edited the article. VickKiang (talk) 07:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

As the one who suggested it, I will reiterate that I believe that a (short) listing of factions is good for the article being comprehensive. Many review mention some factions, although due to the 'no spoilers' attitude the last two factions are not mentioned/named often, sigh. Anyway, the article did mention 3 out of 5 basic factions before my edits, something I consider rather strange (why mention just 3 out 5?). PS. This discussion should IMHO be on the talk page of that article, with just a note and redirect from the section on wikiproject talk. Just for organizational reasons (future editors of Scythe are unlikely to check WikiProject archives for such discusisons). I suggest this is moved there, with just a hatnote here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll do so later if another editor also agrees, ping me tomorrow if I forget, many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)