This category was nominated for deletion on 14 May 2007. The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn, as "Historical" an established description (see linked CfD).
This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This category 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 category attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Hmm... I have a problem with the way "Historical" is being applied; to my mind, "Historical" implies that it's trying to emulate a portion of history, not simply has a theme pulled from history. For example, Stonehenge (game) - none of the games in it are representations of real events, it's just the Stonehenge theme for the pieces and board to give inspiration for the games using the system. Thoughts? — TimotabTimothy (not Tim, dagnabbit!)18:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. I guess my point is I looked through the RfD, and the consensus was "No, don't delete or change, as 'Historical games' is the accepted term". However, I contend it's the accepted term for a particular class of game that does not include Stonehenge. Nor would it include half the games that seem to have this as their category. "Historical board games" I would contend is the accepted term for games that try to emulate history or some specific historical event in some way. To make the leap that "Pirate's Cove is about pirates, Pirates happened in the past, therefore Pirate's Cove is a Historical Board Game" is somewhat far fetched. People within the hobby (and thus the same people that accept the term "Historical", and was thus the basis for the withdrawal of the RfD) would seem to agree with me (otherwise, why wouldn't Pirate's Cove and Carcossonne appear in this geek list about Historical Games.— TimotabTimothy (not Tim, dagnabbit!)20:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't necessarily disagree with your main complaint, but I don't think that a geeklist is good support for your position. If you can think of a better name for this category or other category to catch those games that you think shouldn't be in this one, propose it. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you want to happen. -Chunky Rice20:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, a geeklist would not be good support for providing fact in an article, but on the other hand it does demonstrate accepted use. Do all games have to be in a "theme" category? I'd certainly like this category cleaned up so that it only contained true Historical games, given that was the reason the CfD was withdrawn (and thanks for your correction - small braino). If there's an appropriate alternate theme category for the games that drop out to go to, then great, if not, they should just be in [[Category:Board games]], unless there's a different sub-category for them to go into (such as Carcassonne going into [[Category:Games with modular boards]]) — TimotabTimothy (not Tim, dagnabbit!)20:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, yes, they should be in a theme category. There shouldn't be any games listed in the board game category, which is just a parent category for the board game sub-categories. -Chunky Rice20:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then suppose a new game came along that was unlike any other listed on WP. It was the first game of its type to become notable. Are you suggesting that because it shouldn't be directly under Board game, that we should simply create a sub-category for it that only has it in it? Let us suppose for a moment that you agreed with me that this was the wrong category for Stonehenge, Carcassonne, and Pirate's Cove. Where would you put them? would you create a new category for them? — TimotabTimothy (not Tim, dagnabbit!)20:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of hard for me to deal with a hypothetical like that. Hopefully, our current categories are structured broadly enough that it should fall somewhere. I would try to come up with a new category that described what those games were. You're welcome to do so. I think you may have seen that I recently revamped several board game categories because I wasn't happy with them. I came up with a plan for reorganization, proposed it to the project and at the CfD talk page. Got a general go-ahead and made the changes. I'm not trying to stop you from doing the same, it just seems like you don't quite have a plan yet. -Chunky Rice21:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I don't have a plan yet. I guess I see a flaw (this category being used incorrectly, IMO), have part of a solution to the flaw (cull the games that are incorrectly tagged), but don't yet have a plan for what to do with the articles so culled. So, firstly, thank you for helping have a better idea of what I need to do, and I guess I'm still hoping I'll get some input from other editors to see what they think. — TimotabTimothy (not Tim, dagnabbit!)21:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
