Talk:Hyborian War

Reviews needed

The article could use some more reviews, but older print periodicals are challenging to search through online. Magazines such as Dragon, Paper Mayhem, White Elf, and other out-of-print (or current) gamer magazines likely have more articles and reviews on Hyborian War. If you know of some, please add them to the article or note their location here. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I do know what you mean! I went through all the reviews sections of the Space Gamer a while back and added reviews to every game, and I found that they did cover PBM pretty extensively. In fact, my working through Space Gamer was the reason this article existed in the first place, and good work on expanding it. :) BOZ (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for getting it started! I'm going to tinker with it a bit more (e.g., ensure the lede summarizes the article, add "See also", and tighten up the references), but I'll probably stop there and see what other reviews are available. Airborne84 (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Cool, Airborne84.  :) As I was going through Space Gamer, I expanded Category:Play-by-mail games quite a lot; I do not know if you are into PBM in general or just Hyborian War, but you can pretty much adopt any of those that you like. Some of them have been expanded since I created them, and some are still pretty stubby the way this one was when you started on it. BOZ (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to say there's at least one old player happy to see this article get built out. Thanks! Kuru (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

You bet! --Airborne84 (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Separate paragraph suggestion

I saw it @BOZ. I have some additional material I'm planning to pull in during the next few days. I think it'll end up reshaping that paragraph as well. I'll chew on it. Thanks!--Airborne84 (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Not to say you can't edit as you like. I do appreciate the discussion, of course. :) --Airborne84 (talk) 05:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Copy edit queries

Hi, I am copy editing this for GoCE. Feel free to flag up anything you think I have got wrong or don't understand why I have done it here. I have some queries:

• "Gameplay is multifaceted and complex, drawing from various factors" I don't understand what the "various factors" are that are drawn from.
• "with the ability to augment armies with magic as well" Is that just for set piece battles?
• "RSI added an email option to submit game turns" Is it known when this occurred?
• "games of specific formats" What does this mean?
• "play-by-mail" or "play by mail"?

Actually this is taking me back to the good old days. I will review the article for GAN, so don't answer here, I'll repost the queries to the assessment page. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hyborian War/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 14:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• "Gameplay is multifaceted and complex, drawing from various factors" I don't understand what the "various factors" are that are drawn from.

  I should have caught that earlier, thanks. I explained, and reworded slightly.

• "with the ability to augment armies with magic as well" Is that just for set piece battles?

  I clarified as per the source that it's for armies in general. That would be both types of invasions and presumably even raids, although interestingly, I think for open field battles and raids, any magic used wouldn't be chosen by the player—it would be the computer. Only set piece battles would give the player an option in a turn sheet to choose battle magic. But short of a note, that seems too long to explain, and I'm not even sure if it's true or not, although I suspect it is.

• "RSI added an email option to submit game turns" Is it known when this occurred?

  Unfortunately no. I checked RSI's website and the hard copy game materials I have. I also searched around on the web, mostly on the Hyborian War sites, but elsewhere too. This doesn't appear to be recorded somewhere verifiable on a WP:RS, or anywhere, for that matter.

• "games of specific formats" What does this mean?

It was rhetorical. I overdo that - sorry.

You know us military types: a stray thought is the same as an order.... :)

• Clarified with an example in the article. E.g., privacy game: no contact between players. Could also be random assignment of countries, and the like.

• "play-by-mail" or "play by mail"?

  Play-by-mail here on Wikipedia across numerous articles. I changed all but three instances—the remaining three are awards that go by "Play By Mail" in their title. I'll ask your advice/opinion. Does that need to be resolved and consistent across the board? If so, is it a copyright or plagiarism issue if we change the Origins Award and Paper Mayhem award titles from Play by Mail to the format we've been using in Wikipedia article of Play-By-Mail? I'd hate to go in the other direction and change Wikipedia's format to play by mail as it would involve thousands of changes across many articles. Your thoughts?

There is no requirement to be consistent between articles. So long as there isn't a policy or guideline, and I don't think there is, specifically covering this, you can use either in your next article. And you are correct, a formal title is not changed.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild thanks for taking this on! --Airborne84 (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Takes me back to my PBM days and occasionally contributing to Flagship, the UK board game and PBM zine.

• The three Road of Kings links need to indicate that registration is required. See Template:Cite web#Description#Subscription or registration required

Gog the Mild (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild done! Or I'm pretty sure I did that right anyway. Thanks for pointing out the location. First time doing that! :) --Airborne84 (talk) 01:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

A nice piece of work. Promoting. If you have any more like this, feel free to give me a ping: I'm not promising, but I enjoyed reviewing this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild, many thanks! I'd like to take this to FA sooner or later. I saw that you've pulled many an article up to FA standards. Any advice? E.g., it's occurred to me that the lack of images could be an issue. I could probably add some more from game materials. If you have any other thoughts, I'd appreciate it, here or on the article's or my talk page. Thanks again. --Airborne84 (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

DYK and Featured Article

I'll nominate the article for Did You Know (unless someone else already has). I'll also nominate it for Featured Article within the next month or so. I'd like to run down a few more bits of info to make sure it addresses criterion 1.b.: "neglects no major facts or details". I'll also try to find one or two more images. I tried using an ad from an old Savage Sword of Conan magazine with fair use rationale, but it got deleted. I'll try again. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Start date of Hyborian War

I'll note here my research on the start date of Hyborian War, since I happened on it again for the DYK nomination. It's narrowed down to the year, at least, if not the month.

At first, I listed the start year as 1984, using this reference by Charles Mosteller, from page 51 of Suspense and Decision Issue #17, where he said "The year was 1984, if memory serves me correctly." He wasn't far off, but apparently he wasn't exactly on the right year either. I called RSI a few weeks ago to ask some background questions after running into some frustrating walls, and a very nice lady corrected me when I mentioned the "start year" of 1984. She said that was incorrect and it was probably 1985, and perhaps 1986 when the first set piece battle started (since open field battles hadn't been introduced then yet).

The only source I had that pointed to either of those years was the 1990 White Wolf magazine interview with game designer Ed Schooner where he talked about the first four years of the game. Not very precise, since the article didn't say when the interview was done, but generally pointing to 1986. Then I acquired a November–December 1985 issue of Paper Mayhem with an advertisement for Hyborian War. That identified it as a published game available for play in 1985. It may have been available before Nov/Dec 1985, but that's as close as I can narrow it to, at least with published sources. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

As an update on the launch date of Hyborian War, in an article about Duelmasters in the May–June 1985 issue of Paper Mayhem, Mike Scheid stated:

In telephone conversations with Ed Schoonover, the game designer, and Paul Brown, the president of Reality Simulations, I have been told that plans for the immediate future include ... a full-fledged fantasy game based on the Conan Stories called Hyborian War.

Given that the noted ad for Hyborian War appeared in the November–December 1985 issue, it is apparent that RSI launched the game sometime between the publication of the May–June and November–December 1985 issues of Paper Mayhem. Airborne84 (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

References

The Gameline section in the same issue narrows it down further. In it, RSI announces the launch of Hyborian War as of the following issue: "starting with your next issue of Paper Mayhem, RSI presents ... HYBORIAN WAR". Airborne84 (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Copy edit queries

Hi Airborne84, I am giving this a pretty thorough copy edit, with FAC in mind. If there is anything you object to or don't understand the reason for, don't hesitate to flag it up here.

• "Continuously played for 35 years" This gives the impression that a single game has lasted that long. We need another form of words.

I changed to "The game has had an active player base for 35 years." I think this works better, but let me know if not.

• Suggestion: "Playing time" 'Varies – months to years.

Done, thanks.

• "Material(s) required": what is the difference between "kingdom reports" and "turn results"?

Kingdom reports are the initial reports on a kingdom with extra info. But I deleted "kingdom reports" as they are part of the set-up kit which is already noted.

• "Skill(s) required": strategy, operational art and tactics are not skills. Suggest 'strategic thinking, communications, planning and problem solving' or similar(?)

Done!

• "Paper Mayhem magazine featured the game with various articles and reviews in the late 80s and early 90s, while additional articles appeared in Gaming Universal, Space Gamer/Fantasy Gamer and the modern-day PBM magazine, Suspense & Decision, among others." I am not sure what the point of this sentence is?

Was trying to show the game's general notability. Lots of PBMs out there that people didn't care enough to write an article or review about. I probably didn't do a good job communicating that. Thoughts?

Ah. OK. Off the top of my head, something like 'The game has garnered numerous mentions in the specialist PBM press since its release'?

I tried a slight variant, given that Space Gamer/Fantasy Gamer isn't a PBM mag and I thought "mentions" might strike people as "trivial", especially here at WP:GNG: "The game has garnered numerous articles in the specialist PBM and gaming press since its release."

• " PBM game ratings ... regularly returned among the most reader responses for Hyborian War" Sorry, but I am struggling to work out what this means.

Agreed, tortured wording on my part. Was trying to find a way to illustrate the game's relative popularity. Seemed evident given the many Paper Mayhem game ratings that drew from reader votes. The magazine also published how many people voted for each game. Although Hyborian War didn't score well in ratings in the 1980s and early 1990s, a relatively large number of people voted for the game, one way or the other, in each of these ratings. I figured that was a way to show popularity. I just didn't do a very good job of wording it.

'In the annual votes for best games of the year in Paper Mayhem Hyborian War invariably attracted a relatively large number of votes, regardless of it final standing'? Assuming that the sources support that.

Close, I changed it to: "In periodic PBM Game Ratings votes in Paper Mayhem, Hyborian War invariably attracted a relatively large number of votes, regardless of its final standing." I don't know what schedule they were on for the ratings. Might be able to figure it out. Also not sure if PBM Game Ratings needs quotes or not.

I seem to have made quite a lot of changes, soo I will pause to let you give feedback - if you wish - and address my queries above. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Really appreciate your assistance on this Gog the Mild! Airborne84 (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem. It is what Wikipedia is about, it reminds me of my misspent youth, and I shall probably be asking you for a review or two sometime in the future *evil chuckle*.

No problem. I'll likely be more off than on in the coming 2-4 months due to IRL, but won't be completely absent.

• "helps prevent negative outcomes" I think that we need a better phrase or phrases than "prevent negative outcomes".

Fair enough. I chewed on that paraphrase for longer than I'd care to admit. I'll think about it tonight and fix it.

Done.

A couple more sections copy edited. Shout if you don't like what I'm doing. Looking good so far. Have you rounded up 2 or 3 "volunteers" to review it when it is nominated? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Really appreciate your work Gog the Mild. Will work on reviewers this weekend. Just taking a break now from work IRL. Airborne84 (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

As a side note, I had added this sentence at the end of the Setting paragraph as a transition: "This was the Hyborian Age saga of Conan as written by Robert E. Howard." When you start the next paragraph, the reader sees that they get to (as a player) write a new history. It's not a very subtle transition, of course. I only mention this in case you stopped copyediting at the end of the section and are picking up the next section later—the transition attempt won't be apparent.

The sentence was my way of trying to link the sections together as much as possible to tell as story. I'm not saying the transition is needed—might be extraneous. It reads fine without it too. I trust your judgment, so am good with either version. Airborne84 (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I see what you are trying to do, but I don't think that it is necessary. Note that I have very lightly tweaked the second sentence of the next paragraph. However, it is your article, so please go with what you prefer.

All good. Happy with what you did.

• "each with varying costs per turn" I think that you need to state what these are. (Possibly in the infobox too?)

I added the explanation of the respective cost of each country size in a footnote (unless you think it's worthy of inclusion in the main text). I tried adding it in the infobox, but I'm not familiar with how to use the blank_field and blank_label entries in the Infobox_gameinfobox game template, or if those even are relevant.

• "The setup kit includes a set of detailed game rules" If I were doing that I would put the link in a footnote.

Fair enough. Done!

• "playable kingdoms" If there are non-playable kingdoms, this concept needs explaining. If there aren't, "playable" is redundant. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

There are non-player kingdoms. I added some text to explain that. Tried to keep it minimal. Let me know if it needs a bit more.

LOL! Yes, I know what they are. You still haven't explained what a "non-player kingdom" is.

Ah! :) I noted these are kingdoms run by computer.

Question for you. For the new images I uploaded, I tried keeping them around 30kb, but apparently they were still too large in pixel size for length x height. Usually, when the initial look patrol bots don't like them, I just leave the images alone and another bot comes along and resizes the images within 24 hours. Indeed, a tag placed on the images I uploaded says that will happen. But it didn't. Is there some way to prompt a bot to do it? Or do I need to resize the images in Photoshop and reload/replace them, being careful to ensure they are within the guidelines at WP:IMAGERES?

Sorry - that's beyond my technical expertise. Maybe ask at Wikipedia:Help desk?

Still working on lining up reviewers.... Airborne84 (talk) 06:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• "practice in-game statecraft at digital speeds" What does this mean?

It means people can communicate about gameplay in online forums vs. sending letters via postal mail. However, the "in-game" wording was erroneous as that implies within the gaming system. I adjusted to "interpersonal game statecraft". Nice catch.

I have finished copy editing and it is looking good to me. I am going to leave it for a couple of days and then give it a last read through with as fresh a pair of eyes as I can manage. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again. I don't have firm commitments from reviewers, but believe I'll be able to get at least 2–3 reviewers once it's posted. I think I'll be able to spice up the pitch a bit better as well with a bit of Conan and gaming and Heroic Fantasy sprinkled in. I'll work the images. And standing by. Airborne84 (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Airborne84, two of the images form a MOS:SANDWICH. You probably need to move them around. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, done. Thanks! Airborne84 (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• "turnaround time is how long a company takes to process a player's "orders" and return a fresh turnsheet. The average turnaround time in the 1980s was 2 weeks" Incorrect - it doesn't take the company 2 weeks to do what you say; most of the time is for the player to complete their order sheet.

I must be slipping. Nice catch, thank you. Corrected.

• "have all players starting equally" Do you mean 'starting on equal terms'?

I think that's a better way to put it, so I made the change. The source said "Most closed end games start everyone at the same time and strength."

• "with rapid, intense" Why is this particularly a feature of closed end games? (I am not sure that it is.)

I think it's a reasonable statement. If you compare the average person who played Monster Island (open-ended) for years with a player who played a game of Hyborian War, the Monster Island player doesn't have the same incentive to play fast and risky as there's no milestones or victory conditions that have to be met. The Hyborian War player, on the other hand, knows that there are 35 other players that are trying to finish in front of him/her by the time the game is done in 30–50 turns, and there are a set of victory conditions that must be met. On the average, that probably drives what the source says about closed-end games. In my humble opinion, anyway. However, I will note that the source said "faster paced, usually more intense" (emphasis mine). Also, the source is from 1986. So, if it seems this might be outdated and/or imprecise, I'm OK with striking it or adjusting.

In the '80s I played a lot of closed end PBMs and preferred slow strategic ones. And you may struggle to pursued anyone that a two week turn around can deliver a "rapid" experience. 'But, if you have the sources to back it up, that's fine.

• "filling out turn sheets for a game (see example image)" The "turn sheet" is referred to as a "command sheet" in the image caption. Maybe call them 'order sheets'? I thought that "turn sheets" were what you got back from the company.

Order sheets. Done.

• "are given a large kingdom to migrate to" The four are given one between them? Or one each?

One each. Clarified.

• "domination of half of the globe". "globe" or 'map'?

Map. Changed

• "which provides a player with ten new troops" Maybe "troops" → 'military units'?

You're right. "Troops" is hyperaccurate for the game, but that will be lost on the average reader. Changed.

• "Best Play By Mail Game of 1987" - upper case initial letters; "best PBM game of the year" - lower case. Is there a rationale?

I'm pretty sure I was trying to break it up a bit and not sound too mechanical by saying "Best Play By Mail Game of 1987" and "Best Play By Mail Game of 1988" in two consecutive sentences. "Best PBM game of the year" is a paraphrase of "Best Play By Mail Game of 1988" off the top of my head, although I took off "of the year" as extraneous. However, if you think the second sentence should just have the title again, I can make that change.

In this particular case, I think so. Your call, it's marginal. But if you leave it, you will be explaining it again at FAC.

An easy call to change then! Not wedded to it.

Gog the Mild, one last question on the formatting of the "Best Play By Mail Game" titles here. When I referenced the source, it reminded me that most of them were in all caps. The Wikipedia manual of style says to normalize all caps to regular text, which I had done, but it occurred to me that I should probably point out where I did that. I just did so where it would be unobtrusive, I think, in footnotes. Does that look right? The only other place would be in the references, where the titles are standard text, but are caps in the original. How should that be handled here on Wikipedia? Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a very good point. I haven't looked at your referencing at all. I will stick it on my to do list and get back to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, thanks! No rush. I'm cranking out some things IRL anyway, in the coming days. Airborne84 (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed work Gog the Mild. Airborne84 (talk) 04:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Excellent. IMO this is now ready for nomination. No promises: I haven't worked on this sort of article before, and have never seen its like at FAC; but it won't be getting a quick fail, and I am optimistic that it will go all the way. Great work in getting it into such fine shape. Gog the Mild (talk) 06:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Greatly appreciate the assistance Gog the Mild. Planning to nominate tomorrow sometime. Will advise! Airborne84 (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Apologies for taking so long to get back to this.

• It is usual to only have the author (or equivalent identifying information), year of publication and page number (if applicable) under References. So IMO all the extra information in eg cites 8, 33, 34, 35 etc should be deleted.

Deleted (mostly). Should I also delete the three notes indicating that I added italics to words in the quote boxes?

And I assumed based on your comment that it wasn't necessary here to note where I normalized all caps to regular text, so I removed those notes.

• Items only need Wikilinking at first mention. Paper Mayhem and Flying Buffalo Inc are both linked twice within the first five sources; there are probably others.

Removed

• Titles of works are usually in title case, even if the original isn't. Eg "Howard's Hyborian Age: The meticulous histories of Robert E. Howard"

"Title cased"

• Paper sources in the bibliography should have an issue date if there is one. Eg Paper Mayhem and White Wolf.

I think I've noted what I can. White Wolf is frustrating because some issues just don't have any publication dates. I've interpolated years in a couple of cases for that magazine, but not months because in a few cases back then they were late in publishing and/or they varied between a one month or a split month pub date, so it might end up being incorrect.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Side note: think I have another reviewer lined up as well.

Thanks again Gog the Mild, standing by. Airborne84 (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I am far from an expert on sourcing, and don't really know my way around the <ref> style (I use harv refs) or the type of periodicals which many of the sources are, but, IMO, this is ready for a serious shot at FAC. No guarantees, but I don't see that it will disgrace itself and given enough reviewers I reckon it has a better than even chance of promotion. Time to pull the trigger. . Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help!! Airborne84 (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. Good luck. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Request discussion on removal of language regarding size of player base

Dweller added this tag to the lead, for the wording, "Hyborian War has retained a sizable player base", noting there isn't a more detailed explanation in the main body. I reverted it with another tag, although mixed the reasons incorrectly.

Dweller is right about this tag, as it points to the concluding sentence which is similarly worded. We had a short discussion on my talk page here where I noted that there isn't a reliably-sourced estimate for the number of players for Hyborian War and Dweller states that the term used is a WP:PEACOCK term as it is unclear. I recall some wide-ranging player estimates on the Road of Kings website, but I don't know that they would be reliable. Since there hasn't been any estimates since 1985 in the sources I've seen (and I've probably seen most or all), I don't know if there ever will be a good estimate. The alternative is to delete that part of the sentence and delete the concluding sentence (which Dweller supports). I don't support that since that removes any mention of the size of the player base for the reader. Interested in opinions from other editors. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that the current statement has no value as it is so vague it undermines the high quality of the article. I cannot tell if the source thinks there are 1,000 players or 10 million. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I changed it to "has remained active" into the 21st century. If reliable estimates become available in the future, it can be updated. Airborne84 (talk) 02:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Good edit. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 01:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)