Jump to content

Talk:Lords of the Earth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Restoring?

[edit]

The original version of this article was deleted in 2020 for "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" - if any remnants of such can be excised from this version, I will happily move to article space  :) BOZ (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's good to publish now BOZ. Airborne84 (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, awesome!  :) BOZ (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Theleekycauldron (talk) 13:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that the play-by-email game Lords of the Earth takes about 25 years to play? Source: Harlan, Thomas (2002). "Lords of the Earth: Basic Rulebook" (PDF). Throne Enterprises LLC. p. 2. Retrieved December 11, 2022.

5x expanded by Airborne84 (talk). Self-nominated at 00:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.

Overall: @Airborne84: Unfortunately, I do not think the nomination can be approved at this time. It looks as if the majority of the expanded content is copied with attribution from the Wikipedia article for Heroic Fantasy. This is not a plagiarism problem, as you have appropriately attributed the content. However, the Did You Know program seeks to promote pages that have new content. Per the footnote on 1b of Eligibility criteria, copied text is acceptable if it "does not exceed one-sixth of the total prosesize of the added content". In this case, the copied material seems to be the majority of the added content, looking at the page history. I realize this may be disappointing to learn when this is your very second DYK nomination, but I hope this helps clarify how to expand pages for DYK nominations in the future. It would take additional work to make the page eligible for Did You Know, as the length of the page excluding the copied content is 2,974 characters compared to its 1,247 character length prior to Airborne beginning expansion work on the page on December 11. The target length would be 6,235 uncopied characters, so with the new content, the page is a bit less than half as long as a 5x expansion would be, which is why I have marked this as needing "considerable work". If you still wish to pursue nomination at this time, perhaps the Play-by-mail genre could be removed or at least shortened (I don't think it really adds to the page; a paragraph describing how play-by-mail games are played by mail, and how Lords iterates on that by being played by email, seems like it'd be sufficient), and could the listed but unused articles written by Ben Lynch for Flagship magazine be used to fill out the details of what gameplay is like? Thank you for trying out DYK, and I hope you continue to participate despite this setback for this particular nomination. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Greatly appreciate the review Hydrangeans. I wasn't aware of the original content criterion. That's too bad. The material is appropriate to provide context for the article, but it seems it becomes a problem for DYK. Unfortunately, the original article was quite a bit of unsourced material, so it makes a 5x expansion challenging. I will look at the material in the unused articles to see if it's worthwhile expanding further. If no action on this by me by 25 December 2023, I have no issue with an admin closing the nomination. Thanks again! Airborne84 (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify, if you think that the material is important for context in the article, I might disagree but you're free to leave it in, and I wouldn't count it against the nomination. It just doesn't count toward the 5x expansion. Best wishes as you look at the material; I hope it works out and that you're able to expand the page. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Airborne84: If you still wish to see this article on DYK, one possible option would be to nominate the article for GA status, then nominate the article for DYK once it's been promoted. A newly-promoted GA counts as a possible DYK candidate regardless of how much of the article is based on other sources, so you don't need to be worried about the copying if you wish to pursue that path. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hydrangeans you're right in that the context isn't essential for a DYK nomination, but it aligns with Featured Article criterion 1.b. "plac[ing] the subject in context". I wasn't suggesting it count here though—only that I would prefer to leave it for readers while expanding the other material to 5x. Narutolovehinata5, that is a good suggestion, thank you. The article needs some more work to get to GA, but probably about the same amount as the other option. I'll chew on it for a couple of days. Appreciate the comments! Airborne84 (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Airborne84 Best wishes with this. Also, I'm sorry for my previous comment saying this was your "second" DYK when in reality you've been doing DYK for a long time and have had numerous successful nominations. Not sure where I got that false impression from. Maybe I got mixed up from reading a different nomination on the same day. Anyhow, cheers! Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Airborne84: what are your thoughts on this? If you're planning a 5x, I'll leave this open, which gives you a little bit of a head start on the prose (you can use what's already there). If you're planning a run for GA or a withdrawal, though, I think it's best we close this, with no prejudice against a renomination once the article has achieved GA status. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Theleekycauldron, please close the nomination. I'll run it later after a GA nom. May take a while. Thanks! Airborne84 (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lords of the Earth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 09:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this shortly. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

2. Verifiable with no original research:

  1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
  2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
  3. it contains no original research; and
  4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  • 2a. checks out fine, the presents short and full citations in appropriately titled sections.
  • 2b. some queries below. Note that I'm not necessarily saying they don't meet WP:RS, but the onus is on the nominator to demonstrate that they do:
The main reason I used this source (and why I think it should be treated as a WP:RS here) is because the Lords of the Earth official site points visitors to this article to describe how the game works. If they had concerns about its reliability or accuracy, I think they would not provide it as the main descriptive reference. Airborne84 (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is Greg Lindahl's published list of play-by-mail games available. It's the most comprehensive list anywhere. Charles Mosteller, the founding editor of Suspense & Decision PBM magazine, also runs playbymail.net and points to Lindahl's game index as a reference here at the bottom. Airborne84 (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Nuclear Destruction" link appears to be a 404 Not Found.
Good catch. The publisher changed. I updated the link and reference. Airborne84 (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that "Bruhn, Warren (1995)", "Lords of the Earth: The Official Site", "Harding, Sean (1997)" and "Lords of the Earth: Basic Rulebook" are all primary sources; WP:RSPRIMARY states that "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources." Generally, the balance here isn't too bad, but "Bruhn, Warren (1995)" is pretty heavily used; if more of that information could be cited to secondary sources, that would be ideal.
As a commentary on the game from a source who does not appear to be an owner, publisher, or hired employee, Bruhn, Warren (1995) appears to be a secondary source. Please advise. Airborne84 (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll AGF for all the magazine articles; I don't know enough about the subject matter to be sure on their reliability, but generally they're okay for GA.
Thanks. These magazines are sources in other PBM Good Articles and a Featured Article as well. Airborne84 (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that it appears "Helsdon, Martin (October–November 2002)", "Lynch, Ben (February–March 2004)", "Lynch, Ben (April–May 2004)" and "Lynch, Ben (June–July 2004)" aren't used as sources, but are listed in the Bibliography.
Moved to a "Further reading" section. Airborne84 (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2c. all significant information is sourced. Spotchecks carried out on three facts sourced to accessible sources:
    • "Martin Helsdon reviewed the game in various issues of Flagship magazine in 2002–2003. He noted drawbacks such as lengthy rules and "GM burnout"." This is cited to "Helsdon 2002. p. 23." First issue is that the short link provided here goes to "Helsdon, Martin (June–July 2002). "Lords of the Earth: Campaign One, Part 1" (PDF). Flagship. No. 97. pp. 16–17. Retrieved December 10, 2022." – So it is a bit confusing that it refers to page 23. Is it safe to assume the short link should direct instead to "Helsdon, Martin (December 2002 – January 2003). "Lords of the Earth: Campaign One, An Age of Air and Steam – Part 4". Flagship. No. 100. pp. 22–23."? This leads me onto a further question: why is that one issue of Flagship linked, but the rest aren't? It looks like most, if not all, are available online?
I added URLs to the other Flagship issues. Airborne84 (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Accordingly, I went to issue #100, page 23, and sure enough "GM burnout" appears, as does to the reference to lengthy rules. So, fine, it isn't original research, but the short link needs directing properly. Could you check all the Helsdon sources for this issue?
Checked all. Part of the issue was I had the same ref anchor for two different sources. Airborne84 (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Conducting diplomacy and developing public works contributes to success, with the latter returning outsized dividends for new players." Appears in the source.
  • "In these two-player games, players sent moves directly to each other. Multi-player games emerged later: Diplomacy is an early example of this type, emerging in 1963, in which a central game master manages the game, receiving moves and publishing adjudications." The second half appears in the source, but this source doesn't explicitly back up the first half: "In these two-player games, players sent moves directly to each other. Multi-player games emerged later: Diplomacy is an early example of this type.."
I don't know that Chess and Go being two player games needs sourcing (or that people would send the moves to each other to play it by mail). But I added a source to address that and to be clear about the "early" part. Since it's offline, it says: "When I first got interested in play-by-mail, the only things going on were the two player games such as chess or pbm Stalingrad, and Diplomacy. Diplomacy was the only multiplayer game with a referee that was being regularly moderated, and no one was doing it as a business. It was mostly college students with access to a mimeograph, typing up game moves and fanzines on weekends and after school. This was back in 1970, long before there was any such thing as a personal computer." This is from Rick Loomis, writing about the start of commercial play-by-mail. Airborne84 (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Global calamities were much more frequent in Campaign 1 relative to other campaigns." I'm not sure about this. Is this based on the paragraph which includes "Almost every turn something terrible happanes on the world stage"?
Yes, it goes: "Whilst strange things do happen in other campaigns, LOTE01 is a Fortian nightmare. Almost every turn something terrible happens on the world stage, and local disasters are not uncommon." Here it seems that the writer is juxtaposing these frequent calamitous Campaign 1 events with "other campaigns". Airborne84 (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2d. Most of the sources appear to be offline, though as noted above, at least the Flagship sources are actually available online. Spotchecks:
    • "Conducting diplomacy and developing public works contributes to success, with the latter returning outsized dividends for new players." I've gone back to this one, because I do wonder if it could be rephrased slightly. The source repeatedly refers to "conducting diplomacy", and while it is only very minor, I would feel more comfortable if we could use a different phrase. "Engaging in diplomacy.." maybe?
Done. I understand your thoughts on this. I used to put things like "conducting diplomacy" in quotes. After some GA/FA reviews when people told me it was being overdone (one said they almost seemed like scare quotes), I started leaning toward not using quotes for a very few common words like this. Airborne84 (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It supplemented the base rules with a Renaissance and Industrial addition." no issues.
    • "Gameplay spans combat, economics, intrigue, and social and cultural topics" no issues.
Happy enough with this section now. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

  1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
  2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  • 6a. both images have appropriate license templates, all okay.
  • 6b. both images are relevant and suitably captioned.
    • Not a GA requirement, but consider adding alt text for the images.
Done! Airborne84 (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

[edit]

1. Well-written:

  1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
  2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • 1a. generally good, but some queries below.
    • "Diplomacy is also frequently an important—sometimes indispensable—part of gameplay." Could do with some explanation of exactly what is meant by "diplomacy" here. Just general interactions and "deals" with other players, or formal treaties etc. which form part of the game?
Done. Airborne84 (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a bit of unnecessary repetition between the two parts of the Play-by-mail genre section. Most glaring is "to the PBM game Empyrean Challenge, once described as "the most complex game system on Earth"." with "The next big entrant was Superior Simulations with its game Empyrean Challenge in 1978.[11] Reviewer Jim Townsend asserted that it was "the most complex game system on Earth" with some large position turn results 1,000 pages in length." I'd recommend simplifying the first to "..from the relatively simple to the extremely complex." There's also a little bit of re-tread between the first paragraphs of each part, regarding the mechanics of how PBM works in terms of mailing moves etc.
I'll note that this section is word-for-word from the Hyborian War article, a Featured Article. If you feel strongly about this, I will change it, but multiple editors judged it OK. Please advise.
The "most complex" quote only appears once in the prose of Hyborian War, and twice in the prose in this article. It should not feature twice. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I missed this. I took your suggestion. Please advise if any other concerns here. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All good now. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In 2002 there were more than twenty active campaigns run by multiple gamemasters globally. By 2002, the game.." Starting consecutive sentences with "In 2002" then "By 2002" feels clunky and repetitive, particularly after the previous sentence had started "In 1995".
Edited. Airborne84 (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "..to Game 42." Is "Game" synonymous with "Campaign", or are they different terms? Could do with explanation.
Synonymous. I edited this. Airborne84 (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "..barbarian or seafaring, secret nations, religious groups, and merchant consortia." Why the "or" at the start?
Struck. Airborne84 (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "..campaigns have started in periods from 2000 BCE to 1400 CE. The 1st Campaign was set in the mid-1800s.." Is this not contradictory? Especially when the article goes on to say "By 2002, 1st Campaign gameplay had progressed from the year 1000 to 1752 CE."
Fixed. Airborne84 (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are "1st Campaign" and "Campaign 1" the same thing? Because with the use of capital letters (see below) they seem like formal terms, and being different, it isn't clear if they refer to the same thing or different things.
I went with a consistent "Campaign 1" since that follows multiple sources. Airborne84 (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1b. Although I have raised some issues below, none actually fall under the MOS sections required for GA, so can only be recommendations.
    • Per MOS:ORDINAL (which isn't a GA requirement), use "first" rather than "1st". Same for "Campaign 1".
Same as above. Airborne84 (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Similarly, unless there is a single formal term for a campaign or game, they should take lowercase. Again, not a GA requirement, though I do feel it would improve readability.
Addressed. I only use capitals when stating "Campaign 1". Airborne84 (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "..around Cavalry, Infantry, Warship, and Siege capabilities." No need for capital letters.
Fixed. Airborne84 (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In the game, players can "found universities, build cities, create trade routes, massacre populations, enforce religious conversions, engage in both overt and covert warfare, forge alliances, break treaties, and sometimes suffer the dread dynastic failure, when their nation implodes". Ideally, attribute the quote inline.
Attributed. Airborne84 (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3. Broad in its coverage:

  1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
  2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

  • 3a. My only main concern here is that the most recent references for the game itself seem to be from the early 2000s. Do we have anything more recent. Ideally an estimate of how many active games are in play, roughly how many players, whether they have been any further additions or adjustments to the rules.
Mostly no. There are no articles on this in Suspense & Decision, the PBM magazine that has been running in the 21st century, other than a short descriptive entry in a list of PBM games (which doesn't add much) within the past year. I did add an update on the latest revisions of the rulebooks from 2006–2007 in the Development section. But nothing beyond that of note that I could find, either in secondary sources or on the website. Airborne84 (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well if there isn't source material, we can't do much about that. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3b. Probably fine for the GA requirements really, but too much unnecessary name-checking of other games in the Play-by-mail genre section, which feels excessively long in proportion to the article to me.
If agreeable, I'd like to keep the links. One of the reasons why I run these through GA/FA is to get visibility on the genre. As far as the relative length of the section, as noted above, this section passed FA review as part of Hyborian War and represents the best example of writing on the topic here on Wikipedia. It could certainly be that the rest of the article, at GA quality, should be brought up to FA standards, but that is another project. I'd prefer not to try reducing the FA quality of this section to match the GA quality in the rest of the article. Airborne84 (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The GA requirements don't specifically cover this, so I won't object here, but I would at FA. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4. No issues.
  • 5. No issues.

That's a wrap, I'll stick it on hold pending responses. Harrias (he/him) • talk 20:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greatly appreciate the detailed review Harrias! I think I've addressed all the areas you mentioned. Happy to continue revisions if needed. Standing by. Airborne84 (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Airborne84: Just the one outstanding issue regarding the repeated quote. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Harrias. Please advise if any other concerns to address. Airborne84 (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination 2

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Airborne84 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Lords of the Earth 2; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Excessive background

[edit]

The 'Play-by-mail genre' section seems excessively long and detailed to me. That's a history of the entire genre, not information specific to this game. It's material that should be on the article play-by-mail game, not here. While a brief bit of introduction - maybe one paragraph - would be appropriate, it's currently about half of the article. I recommend heavily cutting down that section, to give only the context necessary to understand Lords of the Earth, not the entire genre. Modest Genius talk 12:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Modest Genius. This was addressed in the GA nomination above. Appreciate your interest. Airborne84 (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm missing something, the only mention in the GA nom was to do with name-checking in that section, no discussion of whether the section itself is necessary or excessive. Besides, a GA review is the opinion of a single reviewer. I think there's far too much WP:OFFTOPIC material discussing the genre, when this is supposed to be an article about one game. Modest Genius talk 11:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Modest Genius. It's the same section. The reviewer stated that the section you are noting "feels excessively long in proportion to the article to me". I addressed that specifically in my response, outside of the name-checking comment. In short, that section is FA quality to address the FA criterion of putting the article into context. The rest of the article is GA quality. As I noted, I'd prefer the rest of the article be brought to FA quality standards rather than reducing that section to the article's current GA standard. Airborne84 (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK I see it now. I'm disturbed by your response there that 'this section passed FA review as part of Hyborian War', which is a very poor justification. Unnecessary duplication of material among multiple articles is unhelpful to readers and imbalances the content. We have a separate article on play by mail games for a reason - the same information shouldn't appear on every article about games in that genre. We don't explain the concept of film or music genres in every article about specific works. The issue isn't whether the material is high quality (it is), it's whether it's appropriate to have an article about Lords of the Earth that spends half its length talking about a different topic (it isn't). Your future plans for the article aren't really relevant (the problem is present now), and even if it was expanded so the proportion of background was lower, 700 words would still be excessive. Modest Genius talk 12:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your input. There appear to be differing opinions on this. You propose that it's unneeded context. But when I put the Hyborian War article through the FA process, the editors there wouldn't let it pass until I added these sections. When I noted that I had expanded the play-by-mail article and linked to it in the Hyborian War article to provide that context, they indicated that summarizing the information in the WP:FA nomination was preferred. So, I did it. I can understand either side of the position.
I don't agree that only the Hyborian War article should have context. I think serves readers well. And I typically customize the sections somewhat for each article.
The problem can also be described in multiple ways. You are describing a problem where the FA-quality material here is too lengthy related to the rest of the article. I would describe the problem as a need for editors to improve the GA-quality material, just as any article that is a work in progress. Again, thank you for your interest and input. I do appreciate it. Airborne84 (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ERA

[edit]

This article was first Begun in the BC/AD WP:ERA format. In addition, the game itself uses the BC/AD format. Russ3Z (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem reasonable to continue using those. BOZ (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:BRD for guidelines on how to handle this. You edited, I reverted with explanation, and now we discuss if you disagree. Reverting starts an edit war.
See also MOS:STYLEVAR for why your actions are an issue here.
I disagree with changing to AD/BC. I wrote most of this article and chose BC/BCE. I don't own the article, but neither does the editor who started it. And the fact that the rules use BC/AD does not impose a constraint on those writing about it. Airborne84 (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, even posted a veiled threat on my talk page of having me edit-blocked over this? I honestly thought this was a simple, reasonable change on my part. Your own link to MOS:STYLEVAR indicates "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." Given that the article was begun with BC/AD (via a quote from the introduction of the game's own Basic Rulebook, no less), and BC/AD is also used in the sources of your own bibliography section, I fail to see what your "substantial reason" could have been.
Regardless, I'm not looking to be involved in some silly "edit war", so do as you wish with this page and please leave me out of any future discussions. Russ3Z (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lords_of_the_Earth&oldid=1208587324"