Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Board game categories

These are, in my opinion, a mess. There's stuff like "abstract strategy games" and "economic simulation board games" (which I think could be better named "Business themed board games") being in the subcategory of Games by Mechanic, when it should really be Games by Theme. There's stuff like the Talisman category, which probably shouldn't exist at all. There are categories that don't exist, like Trading or Negotiation games that could be created and exist under Board games by Mechanic, but don't.

Anyway, I was planning to shuffle these about and probably make a lot of category changes for individual games in a way that made more sense to me. It's a task that I can do at work (unlike taking photos). But I wanted to check in here to see if people thought this was a good or bad idea.

There's also the larger issue of whether it would be appropriate to expand the board game categories by theme and whatnot to include card games as well. I think that it would make sense to change "Fantasy board games" to something like "Fantasy themed board and table games" It just doesn't make sense to me that pretty much all card games only exist in the category of "Dedicated deck card games" and I don't think it would be that useful to create separate "card games by theme/mechanic" categories.

So, thoughts? -Chunky Rice 17:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a great plan. If you want to make significant changes to a category or group of categories, you might consider bringing them up at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion for feedback from a wider audience. —ptk✰fgs 17:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well I'm going to get started. I'm going to start with the least controversial and work my way up. -Chunky Rice 17:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it didn't take long for me to run into my first problem. The issue is the way that "board games" are defined. The divisions seem almost arbitrary. This is primarily for the "Board games by theme" and "Board games by mechanic" categories and sub-categories, though others would also be appropriate.

Aside from the fact that many of the games on the list already don't have boards (dominos, Hive, Carcassone, etc.) the difference between many board and card games is largely trivial. Puerto Rico has boards, but they're really just player aids. A similar player-aid type board could be added to many card games, like Bohnanza. Hive plays on, essentially an imaginary hex-map, but there's no board, proper. Can't Stop plays on a board, but is listed under "Dice games" (which I think is accurate, though it should probably be on both). There are separate categories for Board game publishers and Card game publishers, when most of the companies on both lists publish both.

I don't think that these distinctions are valuable. I'm of the opinion that it would be benficial to allow categories like "Fantasy board games" to be able to include card games with similar themes. Is there a way to combine these two that makes sense? Should I just double tag games that have board and card game characteristics (but then what to do about games like Hive, with no board and no cards?)? Or am I just talking crazy?

-Chunky Rice 21:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's "board" as in "room and board", not "board" as in "cardboard". You play it on the table ("board"). —ptk✰fgs 21:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you joking? I don't think that's the correct derrivation of that word. If that was true, though, then woudln't all card games be board games? -Chunky Rice 21:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything... and yet somehow I know one thing: Board Games are played on a board. zadignose 05:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Not so. Carcassonne is considered a "board game" (in the sense that it is not a computer and video game), it has won many board game awards, but is not on a board. Similarly, Blue Moon is played on a board, but is a card game (in fact, an NCCG). kelvSYC 06:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the distinction between different senses of "board" and "table" is pretty recent (that is, within the past few hundred years). I don't really care what we call them here. But I do think it would be pretty arbitrary to produce a huge distinction in categorization between table games that use a marked board and those that don't. —ptk✰fgs 07:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That's why this project's name is "board and table games" and not just "board games". In H. J. R. Murray's works (History of Games Other than Chess), he organized abstract strategy (board) games into four categories: race games, war games, games of position, and mancala (the first three represented by Backgammon, Checkers, and Go). Bell, in Board and Table Games from Many Civilizations, added dice games, domino games (which he includes Mahjong, so he really meant tile games), and "games requiring manual dexterity" to the "table games" category (Bell avoided card games, but does acknowledge them as members of the table game category as well in his other works). Categorizing modern commercial board games is much more nontrivial of course, but here's a suggestion:

• Board and table games by equipment
  • Board and table games using boards
    • Board games
      • Board games using dice
      • Board games using cards
      • Board games using tiles
    • Dice games using boards
    • Card games using boards
    • Tile games using boards
• Board and table games by objective
  • Competitive board and table games - where the players play against each other
    • Race Games - where the objective is to be the first player to achieve something (other than accumulate points). (eg. Pachisi)
    • Elimination Games - where the objective is to be the last man standing, other than games where this is determined by points. (eg. Monopoly)
    • Point Games - where the objective is to accumulate points (where a clear winner or clear loser is determined from having the most or least amount of points). (eg. Scrabble, Carcassonne)
  • Cooperative board and table games - where the players cooperate and play "against the game"
    • Cooperative beat the clock games - race against the clock, and if you lose, you can always cheat by resetting the clock... (eg. the interactive VCR/DVD board game)
• Board and table games by player setup
  • Cooperative BTGs are also in this category (as all players are working together)
  • Head-to-head board and table games - head-to-head, free-for-all games (ie. games where distinct players act solo). (eg. Diplomacy)
  • Team-based board and table games - players act separately, but are divided in groups with a group objective. (eg. Axis and Allies)
  • Solitaire board and table games - meant for one. (eg. Peg solitaire)
• Board games by board type
  • Central board games - board games where there is a central board that dictates all action. Supporting equipment may or may not exist, but the board takes center stage. (eg. Trivial Pursuit)
    • Graph-based board games - where the board is a graph of some sort, excluding those that are played on circuits or grids. (eg. Ticket to Ride, Scotland Yard, Fanarona)
    • Grid-based board games - regular or slightly irregular grids. (eg. Hasami Shogi)
    • Circuit-based board games - played on a circuit, where completing circuits is a central gameplay element. (eg. Formule De)
  • Individual board games - board games where each player is given a single board, which dictates action for the player. (eg. Puerto Rico)
  • Modular board games - games with modular game boards (or "board tiles"), largely for variability in board setup, replay value, etc.
• Board-optional games - where the game comes with the board, but for various purposes, the board is strictly unnecessary to play the game (eg. it is a scoring track, a player reference, etc)
  • Board-optional board games - board games where the board acts solely as a centralized source of information.
  • Board-optional card games - intersection of the above with Card games using boards (eg. Cribbage, Blue Moon)
• Board and table game series - For game franchises whose individual games span multiple categories, but for which some or all of individual games are not notable in and of itself. (eg. Settlers of Catan)

Issues with this system:

• What's the difference between "tile" and "card"? You could conceivably play poker given 52 distinct Carcassonne tiles and assigned each one a meaning. Likewise, you could conceivably print Carc tiles on cardstock and play with "Carc cards". The key may be what is "generally viewed": Mahjong is generally viewed as a tile game, but is available in card form from many manufacturers.
• what does "dice-optional", "cards-optional", or "tiles-optional" mean?
• board game expansions are generally not notable (as we can agree), but what if, like Thurn and Taxis: Power and Glory, it is an "expansion in name only" as it only requires parts from the base game to complete the set of equipment?

Your thoughts? kelvSYC 06:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I really like the "Board and table games by objective" category and subcategories. I don't like the board type and by equipment categories. I think they would just lead to overcategorization. The "board-optional" cateogry, I think borders on original research, and I'm not sure it's that useful, regardless. I would like to have a "Board and table games by theme" category and subcategories. I would also like to keep "Board and table games by mechanic." So mine would look kind of like this:

• Board and table games by objective
  • Race Games - where the objective is to be the first player to achieve something (other than accumulate points). (eg. Pachisi)
  • Elimination Games - where the objective is to be the last man standing, other than games where this is determined by points. (eg. Monopoly)
  • Point Games - where the objective is to accumulate points (where a clear winner or clear loser is determined from having the most or least amount of points). (eg. Scrabble, Carcassonne)
  • Cooperative board and table games - where the players cooperate and play "against the game"
• Board and table games by player setup
  • Cooperative BTGs are also in this category (as all players are working together)
  • Head-to-head board and table games - head-to-head, free-for-all games (ie. games where distinct players act solo). (eg. Diplomacy)
  • Team-based board and table games - players act separately, but are divided in groups with a group objective. (eg. Axis and Allies)
  • Solitaire board and table games - meant for one. (eg. Peg solitaire)
• Board and table games by theme
  • Horror themed board and table games
  • Fantasy themed board and table games
  • Business themed board and table games
  • Mystery/Crime themed board and table games

etc.

• Board and table games by mechanic
  • Board and table games with action points
  • Board and table games with auctions
  • board and table games with negotiation or trading

etc.

The rest of the categories could stay the same (except possibly for a name change to "board and table game..." instead of "board game."

The category "Tile-based board games" is a really weird one. It should probably be split up into "Board and table games with modular boards" and "Board and table games with tile laying" as those are fundamentally different mechanics. -Chunky Rice 16:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

On kelvSYC's scheme:

Oog. Seems too much, and not enough by turns. Let's see... Squad Leader would come under... "Board games using dice", "Competitive board and table games" (but doesn't fall neatly into any of the subcategories), "Head-to-head board and table games" (...I think, I'm not sure about the entire 'player setup' business), "Grid-based board games", and "Modular board games". No thanks, that seems too much to me. I'm not sure that we really need categories for the generally obvious stuff. The fact that a game is competitive shouldn't really make for a notable category, as the vast bulk of games are competitive. Categories for cooperative board games is a must, team-based games might also be worthwhile.

I think we can profitably define board games as 'any game where action occurs on a game board other than the pure tracking of scoring.' (Trying to be as broad as possible while excluding Cribbage.) Carcassone would be a fringe case, and is definitely a tile game, but as I understand the interactions of placing the Meeples (and whatever), it should also be a board game.

Tile: A game element that has particular positional value. (i.e., it's value is it's position.) --Rindis 16:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

See, I was trying to think of some similar, but I realized that there's really no need to try and exclude traditional card games. Why shouldn't Bridge, World of Warcraft and Spades all be in the category of "Team based board and table games"?

I agree that the "Head to head" category could probably be dropped. It's the overwhelming majority to the point of not being useful. -Chunky Rice 17:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm operating from the assumption that we do want to break up table games into subcategories of board, card, and tile games at some level. These schemes seem to be endeavoring to work around that, but I'm not convinced that that is necessary or desired. (Yeah, I'm rehashing earlier points of argument, not having really paid attention until this morning.) --Rindis 17:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that breakdown is already done Category:Tabletop_games at a more basic level. I just think that we don't need to make the distinction when sorting games by theme or mechanic. -Chunky Rice 18:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The basic categories of Murray (1952) and Bell (1960/69/79) are essentially (and better?) reiterated in the more recent Oxford History of Board Games (Parlett, 1999). This constitutes about 60 years of general scholarly agreement on the taxonomy of (abstract, Parlett ultimately calls them "positional") board games. It seems to me that not utilizing these general categories as the core of wiki's BTG taxonomy would virtually constitute original research. This is not to minimize the real difficulties that you are up against with newer games; even Parlett, to my mind, does not sufficiently address these. In expanding this taxonomy, we should be guided by its method, which (as I read it) is to categorize primarily by objective and mechanism. It may not always be possible strictly to separate these: is "capturing opponents" an objective or a mechanism? Yes?

I am preparing a summary of Murray/Bell/Parlett. This will be no panacea, but should provide a reasonably solid foundation. But I'm new to wikipedia. Where should I put it? My inclination is just to create an article, say, "Board and Table Games Taxonomy" -- even though at first it will obviously be very partial -- just so that there is something set down to work with.

I'm unclear on whether cards are expected to be part of Board and Table Games. If they are, it might be well to consider the overall category to be "mind games". Though this has negative associations, it seems to be in somewhat general use, and is conceptually apt. I think of that whole category as any game suffiently non-physical that, if you played with a proxy (i.e. had someone move the pieces/play the cards/whatever for you) you would still be playing the game, not your proxy. Regarding cards' taxonomy, I suggest we should be principally guided by Parlett's Guide to / History of Card Games (1990) and McLeod's http://www.pagat.com/class/.

RE: tiles, as the discussion suggests, the problems will be difficult, and must probably be resolved on a case-by-case basis. I'm skeptical that a catch-all category of tile games will be helpful. Mahjong, like, say, Rummikub, is structurally a card game which happens to be played with exceptionally thick cards. Many forms of Dominoes, likewise, are probably "matching games" of the card game type. Carcassonne is primarily concerned with the creation and partitioning of areas over a surface that I think can properly be called a "board". Here, it is not a pre-existing surface that defines the grid (like a Chess board) but the tiles themselves: the fact that they're squares, and we know to place them squarely abutting each other automatically defines a virtual grid surface, on which the game is played. Conversely, Scrabble could be played without a physical board; it wouldn't be as good, but the tiles would sufficiently define the virtual board. Carcassonne seems to fit within board games somewhere near Go! On the other hand, Settlers of Cattan is not a tile game at all. The game would be impoverished, but not materially changed, if it were always played on the same static board.

By the way, to beat a dead horse, "board" would have to be defined as something like: any maxtrix by which discrete and significant positions between playing pieces may be defined. To specify a material, or even that it must be material, would be self-defeating.--Phil wink 22:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Board game categorization is a tough one. It's almost better to define it by what it's not. The reason why games like Fluxx, Bohnanza and even Rummikub fall under the broad genre of board rather than card game is that to my mind, card game implies a game played with one (or more) standard pack(s)/deck(s) of 52 playing cards made up of the four standard suits, Ace through King. If there's a collectible (and trading, not simply expanding) part to the game, like M:tG, then that also drops it from the larger Boardgame into Collectible Card Game (CCG) or Trading Card/Component Game (TCG) - even there, terminology is not clear! I don't know quite how to describe it, but it's got something to do with the feel and player interaction. Much like Justice Potter Stewart, I know it when I see it. Bohnanza is perhaps a boardgame that happens to use cards. As I say, Card game, to me, and I suspect to the large majority of people who have no experience of the genre means "as played with a 52-card pack". Perhaps a fair first pass of categorization is to look at Boardgamegeek]'s Categories and Mechanics. They are not perfect, by any means, and that is recognised by the admins and members of the site, but they are fairly long standing and well understood, especially within the hobby. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim, dagnabbit!)} 17:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Transformation playing card

I recently created an article about Transformation playing cards. I think they fall under the purview of this project, but I'm not sure, so I didn't add a project tag. Anyway, any input would be welcome. It's my first fully fledged article. -Chunky Rice 23:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

BGG Template considered for deletion

Just thought that I'd mention this template is being considered for deletion so you can express your opinion on this. Craw-daddy 07:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Board game discussion at WP:NOT

The members of this project might be interested in this discussion [1]. -Chunky Rice 21:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Farkle?

Would anyone involved in this project care to take a look at the Farkle page as written, and let me know whether it markedly deviates from the style expectations of this project? Thanks!Jbening 21:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Boardgame article at AfD

An article about online board game retailer Funagain Games is up for AfD here[2]. Thought the project might have an interest. -Chunky Rice 19:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to find more online references. Unfortunately most of the ones that I find are of the "press release" type, which don't really qualify under the notability guidelines. Oddly enough, there are several passing mentions in the investment columns of the Motley Fool. And I did find another passing reference in this newspaper article. There should be more stuff somewhere, but it's been hard to find. --Craw-daddy|Talk 18:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been having a hard time, as well. I did find this interview [3], which has some depth, though I'm doubtful that Tom Vassel qualifies as a reliable source (this was before his podcast became affiliated with the site). -Chunky Rice 18:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess it would still be good to incorporate appropriate material from that interview into the article, if it seems like a good idea. Unfortunately, I also noticed that there's a notability tag on The Dice Tower article. :P --Craw-daddy|Talk 19:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it could be argued that The Dice Tower meets criteria 3 of WP:WEB, in that it is distributed by a respected entity independent of itself, which is to say, Funagain. -Chunky Rice 19:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, how odd!?  :) --Craw-daddy|Talk 19:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

category for WP:WPBTG

Is there (or should there be) a category for Articles that fall under this project? As I've been looking around at some of the games and designers listed in WP many of them don't have categories, or, perhaps not useful ones. I think that a category for WPBTG would be useful.— Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim, dagnabbit!)} 15:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A better understanding of how categories work has answered my question. No. :) — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim, dagnabbit!)} 23:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Scope

Should Board/Card game designers and publishers come under this project?

Certainly. -Chunky Rice 20:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"German-style" board games

Ugh. I'm sorry, it's beginning to grate on me. Within the hobby, German-style has pretty much fallen into disuse, and Eurogame (or simply Euro) has almost exclusively taken its place. Looking at discussions on Boardgamegeek would confirm this. So... what I'd like to do is essentially rewrite German-style board game to either Eurogame or Euro (with an appropriate link in Euro (disambiguation), then move German-style board game to the new title, and then redirect the old link. Once that's done, I'd find all the pages that link to the old title and edit them to link to the new. What do people think? — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim, dagnabbit!)} 06:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This was one of the options suggested last year when I requested a move of german-style board game to designer game. Ultimately it was decided there was no consensus for a move to either title. If you do want to move GSB to eurogame then I suggest you use the requested move process too. I think calling it simply "euro" is against one of the MOS rules about using contractions, but I can't find it at WP:MOSTITLE. I think there's a good chance we could at least drop the "board" part of the article title, as it deals with games such as Bohnanza and San Juan.

On a personal level, I feel that the "german-style" and "euro-" prefixes are misleading at best and racist at worst; so I prefer the admittedly less-used name "designer game". Percy Snoodle 08:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen any suggestion on any of the BGG discussions that "Euro" is racist, and the simple fact is, "Euro" is the de facto name for such games. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim, dagnabbit!)} 13:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Historical games category

I have no problem with the [[Category:Historical board games]] tag, but I do have a problem with the way it seems to be used, as I've mentioned on its talk page. Comments welcome — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim, dagnabbit!)} 18:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

more about about categories

How do we get it so that if someone adds (for example) the [[Category:Science fiction board games]] tag that it also appears as if they'd added [[Category:Board games]]? This would make tying all the games together much much easier.— Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim, dagnabbit!)} 19:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, first, I'm not aware of a technical way to do that, other than to employ a bot. Second, that would likely be counter to Wikipedia's category guidelines. Generally speaking, when an entire category is broken up into subcategories, we don't list both the subcategory and the parent category. There are exceptions, but I don't think this would be one of them. -Chunky Rice 19:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't ever want that to happen. That is the point of having more specific categories. 2005 20:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

ok, I understand better how it works now that I've followed the category up and down. I guess what I was hoping for was to, say, go to the Board games category, and see everything that was under it, rather than having to keep traversing the sub- and super- categories. I guess I had a misunderstanding of how things worked.— Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim, dagnabbit!)} 20:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

People infobox templates

Is there be a special infobox template for game designers, or, if not, is there a generic one to use?— Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim, dagnabbit!)} 23:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I found the generic {{Infobox Person}}. I'll use that for now — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim, dagnabbit!)} 23:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

High School Drama!

I've started a page for the High School Drama! card game. Right now it's only a stub (although cited), and help on direction would be apprechiated. A fairly new game, but perhaps some else here has experience with it. I'd hate to think I'm alone. Nargrakhan 21:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As a warning to you, I think you're going to want to replace the images you're using on the wiki page. You shouldn't just take images from the company's website and upload them here (I think that violates all the fair usage rules, even thought you're not using them for profit, etc, etc). If you have a copy of the game, scanning the cover, for example, is okay, provided you give an appropriate fair use warning and so forth. For an example of the kind of fair use statement that you'll want, look at something like the image in Give Me the Brain or provide a picture of the game "in progress" or after the initial set-up phase like in Through the Desert or Samurai (board game). If you don't provide an appropriate image and fair use statement that goes with it, eventually some editor is going to flag it and it will eventually get deleted (unless you provide one). Hope this helps! --Craw-daddy | T | 21:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on the article and a heads up on how images work on Wikipedia. I'll borrow a digital camera and make the alteration ASAP! Nargrakhan 23:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Category for Steve Jackson Games games??

Given the lengthy list of games from this company (see the article itself), would it be appropriate to create a category for its games? This would then allow editors to use this category and avoid the lengthy list in the article (as it's also marked for cleanup). This category could then also encompass all of its board games, card games and role-playing games.

I kind of hate the idea of [[Category:Steve Jackson Games games]] as the name of the category (like the awkward [[Category:Cheapass Games games]]), but can't necessarily suggest anything more appropriate. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe [[Category:Steve Jackson Games products]] or [[Category:Steve Jackson Games publications]] might fly, as the company also publishes Pyramid and has previously published Roleplayer as well. What say you? --Craw-daddy | T | 16:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't it just be [[Category:Steve Jackson Games]]? For all articles SJG related? There can't be that many non-game ones anyway. -Chunky Rice 16:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Should I go ahead and create it then? --Craw-daddy | T | 17:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Be BOLD. -Chunky Rice 17:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: 2038 (board game)

Resolved

• 2038 (board game) (via WP:PROD on 4 October 2007) Redirected→List of 18XX games#2038

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Malvinas 2032

Resolved

• Malvinas 2032 (via WP:PROD on 26 September 2007) Kept

• I think you want WP:CVG again with that one. Percy Snoodle 11:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmm, agreed, this is a PC game and not (which I took at first glance) a boxed strategy game ... my apologies. More care will be taken in the future. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Deep Thought Games, LLC

What would people's views be on the notability of:

• Deep Thought Games, LLC
• Any of the games published by said company (all linked from their page)

None of them seem to have any sign of any verifiable sources, but I don't want to do a mass prod in case I'm missing something. All the articles seem to have been created by User:JTamplin, while Deep Thought were founded by John Tamplin... Cheers --Pak21 07:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a moderate fan of the 18XX family of games, which are notable as a group based on the original publisher's mainstream distribution and the awards earned, but I'm not sure whether Deep Thought Games has received enough independent coverage to meet Wikipedia policy. Certainly Mr. Tamplin needs to work with us to overcome WP:COI concerns. The one magazine cited in the references is a specialist publication; while it's probably useful for details, I don't think it meets reliable sources policy, and the fan websites certainly don't. Can more coverage be found from sources like the biggest gaming mags (such as Games Magazine) or from mainstream news? Barno 15:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you give an example of an edit I made which was improper regarding COI? When I first cleaned up the 18xx articles a year ago, it was simply with the intent of making it a useful resource for people trying to find information on the games. I never made any attempt to hide my connection to DTG, never made any marketing or pro-DTG statements or any disparaging remarks about other 18xx publishers, etc. It seemed to me that if the 18xx games were suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia the companies that produce games in the series would also be suitable. I have no problem with saying individual games or DTG are not notable enough for inclusion, but I take offense at the suggestion I acted improperly. JTamplin 19:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if you took the mention of WP:COI as an accusation; the intended point was simply that edits about a topic in which the editor has financial interest are viewed with suspicion, so you should propose changes on talk pages rather than directly editing the articles. I'll be doing the same thing when I edit an article involving my employer. I have not noticed any edits where you added inappropriate content or deleted appropriate content that was unfavorable to your company. This is more an "avoid appearance of impropriety" thing. By the way, we have a general guideline (somewhere in the notability guidelines) that just because a series of games, books, TV shows, etc. might be notable, not all members of the group are independently notable enough for articles. And I don't see evidence that a player-designed 18XX game that got a small print run through DTG is equally as notable as 1830 (board game) just because they're both "18XX games". Barno 19:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

When I first started working on the 18xx games here, there were plenty of more obscure games (ones which were never available for purchase for example) so it seemed perfectly reasonable to add the other 18xx games I was aware of, including the ones I publish. The fact that immediately after I added them I received positive feedback about improving the articles led me to believe this content was desired, but I guess the fact that some other articles already existed wasn't sufficient to assume that they should exist. Regarding conflict of interest, I assumed that simply making it clear who I was and my relation to the company/games was sufficient if I kept a neutral stance towards the games. Frankly, we don't make any money from the company -- we publish the games because we like the series and felt there were many good games not seeing the light of day, and the company exists just for liability protection. Considering the state of the 18xx pages when I started, it seems unlikely that anything would have been done if I only proposed changes rather than actually doing the work. Also, regarding notability of the games, does their appearance in the World Boardgaming Championships as games for the 18xx tournament count? JTamplin 23:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) Proposing changes via talk pages: with nobody else active on the individual game pages most of the time, you could edit a draft on a subpage of your user page, or on a subpage of each article's talk page, and then leave a message here (and maybe the talk pages of editors who have worked on related articles) asking for approval, then request a pagemove ( Wikipedia:Requested moves ) if you heard from non-admins. See Wikipedia:Subpages. (2) WBC: In fact I brought that up on the 18XX Conventions talk page and in this discussion. But WBC's official site isn't an independent source about a tournament at WBC; it's a fine reference for verifying details, but it's not strong enough to get a topic past the WP:RS and WP:V basic requirements. Same for the online gamer forums; even BGG doesn't provide enough for notability, just detail-filling. We need publication in professional mainstream media, specifically mentioning this game system, since there won't be peer-reviewed research papers on the topic. Barno 00:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I am curious about why an article from Sumo Magazine was suitable for establishing notability but Counter Magazine isn't -- especially since Stuart Dagger edited Sumo and now edits Counter, and many of the other regular contributors are common to both. Likewise, a link to The Game Report was cited which certainly seems no more reputable than Counter. I guess it depends on what you mean by "mainstream", but those all seem comparable to me. The board games hobby as a whole is relatively small and the mainstream media are unlikely to show much interest -- even magazines such as "Games" only touch the games with the broadest appeal, but smaller magazines such as Counter are well respected within the hobby and provide valuable information. Also, I feel like one of the reasons Wikipedia can beat traditional encylopedias is because it can employ a far greater number of SMEs (who are each passionate about a particular topic) than they can, and another advantage is the lack of budgetary constraints (for the most part) on the size of the encyclopedia as the marginal cost of another article is vanishingly small. If articles are correct and verifyable, why should they be excluded because the number of people interested in them is smaller than the number of people interested in say, the Arab/Israeli conflict or the latest Britney Spears album? Of course I realize you have to draw the line somewhere or you wind up with a bunch of useless articles cluttering up search results, but Google has shown that a better way to handle that is to weight the search results -- you only see niche pages if they are clearly the best answer to a query, rather than discarding them completely.

I guess this is getting outside the scope of this discussion, but I feel this change has made Wikipedia a tiny bit less useful, and if this standard was consistently applied across the board (which would result in many deletions, and maybe editors just haven't gotten around to it yet) then Wikipedia would be a whole lot less useful. JTamplin 02:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• So is there anyone who can give me an answer of why one niche magazine is acceptable as a reliable source but another one isn't? JTamplin 13:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• As far as I'm concerned Counter is fine as a reliable source. -Chunky Rice 13:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, unless much more can be found, I don't think any of the listed games have had nearly enough individual coverage for separate WP articles. The level of detail in the Deep Thought Games article is sufficient, if it's kept at all; I would support mass deletion of the individual game articles, even though they would be great for a game specialty website. Barno 15:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

A merge into a List of 18XX games minor topic list might be a better option, if the games don't have enough notability individually but do as a whole; but I'd reluctantly support a deletion if that were the decision of the WikiProject. Percy Snoodle 15:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Except a List of doesnt' typically allow for much expansion. This information is already in 18XX (at first glance). I would be inclined to change the subheading in that article to Published titles in the series and then giving a short description of that specific game under each title, with a {{main}} tag for those specific titles that truly have their own notability. Essentially, I'm saying merge the (non-notable) game articles into 18XX. As for Deep Thought, I'm not sure that it is, in itself, notable, so I'd lean towards recommending that article be deleted. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 16:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

A 'minor topic list' article can allow for considerable expansion; see List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens for the sort of thing I'm talking about. Plain list articles are barely better than no article at all, but I'm not suggesting one of them. Percy Snoodle 17:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair comment - I'd not seen such a list before. However, given the existence of 18XX, I'd prefer the information was moved there to begin with, and then expanded into separate articles as the need/notability arises. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 17:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the articles, I think that two articles, 18XX and List of 18XX games would suffice for most purposes. I think that everything could be merged into one of these. If an individual game is notable and has sufficient content, it can be split off, but at first glance, I'm not seeing one. -Chunky Rice 16:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input everyone. What I propose doing, on the basis of a vague sort of consensus here:

1. Merge all the 18XX games except 1830 which I think probably has notability of its own into a new List of 18XX games article.
2. Remove the list from 18XX and link to the list via {{main}}
3. AfD Deep Thought Games, LLC

Does that seem vaguely reasonable to everyone? Cheers --Pak21 09:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 11:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds sensible. Percy Snoodle 11:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Done, done and done. This removes the {{prod}} from 2038 (board game) but on the other hand I've added one to 18XX conventions on the basis that Wikipedia is not a directory. The list article could do with a lot of cleanup. Cheers --Pak21 13:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, but I'd have to say that the 18XX and 1830 (board game) articles could use some more references to help demonstrate their notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 13:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just going to add the same comments as Craw-daddy. Thank you, Pak21, for helping get this whole topic into appropriate coverage. Barno 13:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, though I don't think there's any real question whether the series is notable or not. I found this article, [4] and it looks like Mike Siggins may have written an article about 18XX for Sumo, though I can't find it. -Chunky Rice 13:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Here it is. [5]. -Chunky Rice 13:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not questioning its notability myself, but given the recent hoo-hah that's going on with regards to RPGs in general, I thought I'd mention the fact that references are much desired so that others less familiar with the subject (and these games in particular) will see notability being backed up with suitable references. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

For reference, I also left 1829 (board game) as a separate article as the game which "founded" this genre. While the article's not a good article, I'm guessing it there's enough reliable sources about it out there, especially given what Chunky Rice has just found above. Cheers --Pak21 13:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm late to the party, but I strongly disagree with this approach, and with deletion crusades in general. The trend towards removal of information because of what current editorial policies say Wikipedia "is not" is undermining Wikipedia's value as a source of information. Rather than follow those guidelines, we should think about whether they make any sense. — Aldaron • T/C 14:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

None of the articles merged were verifiable, which is a core policy of Wikipedia. If you think that doesn't "make any sense", this isn't the project for you! Cheers --Pak21 14:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to disinvite editors, Pak21. One of the problems I see with this merger is that it went unadvertised on at least some of the affected pages -- the edit history and (non-existent Talk) for 1824 (board game), for instance, show no indication that the page is about to be scrapped for a list, even if it is warranted. This resolution seems to have been too quick and/or too broad, and biting the people who were surprised won't help. It could be that some of the other affected games might be verifiable, but perhaps not if the editors who are likely to verify them are driven off. -- JHunterJ 12:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The point I'm making is that these articles were not merged because of what Wikipedia's "current editorial policies" say; there were merged because of the fact they didn't comply with the core, unchanging, fundamental policy of verifiability. Verifiability is non-negotiable, so any attempt to debate whether it "makes sense" is not a debate which it is worth having on Wikipedia, as it won't have any effect, whatever the conclusion. If any of the merged games are verifiable, they can be recreated without any difficulty. --Pak21 14:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The point I'm making is that the usual niceties of mergers and redirections were not observed here, and you shouldn't be so dismissive of people who didn't get the memo since no memo was given. That they can be recreated without any difficulty is a lousy argument for recklessness. -- JHunterJ 23:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't be dismissive. On the other hand, there was nothing particularly reckless or incorrect about this merger. Please see WP:BOLD and WP:BRD. -Chunky Rice 23:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

1824 (board game) was affected but not notified of the discussion beforehand, for instance, which seems counter to the merger guidelines at WP:MERGE. I am aware of WP:BOLD -- that's the page that say "but don't be reckless." -- JHunterJ 02:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as the one who did much of the work cleaning this up and improving it over the past year, I have to admit feeling frustrated with the procedure and going from proposal to merger in two days with limited notice elsewhere seems quick to me. As mentioned, it is trivial to get the old versions programmatically so I can preserve the content elsewhere. JTamplin 00:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any encyclopaedic information has been lost. The 18XX game information has been kept, but reorganised, and a non-notable publisher has been proposed for deletion. Do you have a problem with the deletion of the 18XX Conventions article? — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 14:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not sure that I agree with deletion of the conventions article. Some of the cons (WBC, GenCon, Origins) that have significant 18XX tournaments, and ought to be listed when that section gets merged back to the parent article, are themselves notable enough for WP articles. The main 18XX article doesn't mention that this game series is one of the more active and significant ones within the boardgaming hobby, in terms of conventions and tournaments and published versions. Might as well treat it as a merge (and redirect). Barno 23:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

After doing some custom searches, the 18XX, 1830, etc. tournaments at these notable conventions show up in conventions' official sites, and get discussed on gamer websites and BoardGameGeek forums, but this game system's cons and tourneys have not received specific coverage in national newspapers, print magazines, or other sources meeting WP:RS. So I don't think this article can show enough notability to be kept standalone; but I do strongly think it has enough significance-within-topic to be merged back to the parent article and generalized. It might have enough significance-within-topic for a sentence to be added into the Gaming convention article. Holy cow, that article doesn't have a project tag; I'll mark it now. It needs some work but is useful, if we can add some citations beyond gamer-group websites. Barno 23:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I can probably get a article in a major newspaper for Mark Derrick's convention as a reporter and photographer came out last year, but I don't want to go to the trouble to dig it up if it isn't going to matter anyway. At the moment I'm not particularly feeling like putting much effort into it here, but I could be persuaded otherwise. JTamplin 00:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

There may be renewed interest in this due to public whinging here.--66.129.135.114 16:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As the owner of Deep Thought Games and the person who took what was a mismash of incomplete coverage of the series a year ago, I personally have no problem with deleting it from Wikipedia or merging it into a summary article (I think BGG is generally a better source of material about board games) -- I was simply trying to make the resources that were here more useful. However, I think there are serious inconsistencies in what is kept in Wikipedia -- there are many topics which (IMHO) are "less notable". I would venture a guess that most board game entries on Wikipedia have no references from reliable sources either (most have a link to a BGG entry or the publisher's web site or other place to purchase it) -- does that mean most board game entries should be deleted from Wikipedia? I also think that it doesn't serve the community well to have incomplete information so my preference would be to put a note and a link to BGG for the rest of the information if there is no attempt to keep a list of all 18xx games. In fact, it might be good to put something on the main board games page that the content is incomplete due to notability requirements (it has only a small fraction of board games, leaving out many popular or widely known ones while having some really obscure ones with dedicated articles and no references, such as Totopoly). JTamplin 19:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not sure why we're doing a deletion and not a simple redirect to 18XX. Second, Wikipedia never claimed to be an all inclusive index of all creation. Third, whether or not another board game article is notable or not has no impact on our anaylsis of these board game articles. Fourth, even if an article doesn't have references, that doesn't necessarily indicate that it is not notable, only that references should be added. Only if there are no references to add does notability become an issue. -Chunky Rice 20:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I was simply suggesting that if the intent is to improve Wikipedia the same standards should be applied consistently. I realize it is a volunteer effort and people work on what they are interested in, but I feel like I wasted many hours improving the content when there are lots of pages being left alone which seem less notable, less useful, and frankly of low quality. When I first started on improving this content which was already present in greater detail than is left now, I received positive feedback immediately which led me to spend the many more hours I put into it -- if at that point I was told this shouldn't be here I wouldn't have bothered. The nice thing about having these complete articles at Wikipedia, as mentioned on the referenced BGG thread, is that you can pull in indirectly related material (such as links to the real companies or events represented in the game and the back links from them so someone interested in a particular company can see which games they are referenced in) which is not possible on a more narrowly focused site. JTamplin 00:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you received bad advice about what was suitable for Wikipedia; it may be worth you pointing the sources of that advice to Wikipedia's verifiability and notability guidelines amongst others so they do not cause this problem for others in future. With respect to your comment about linking it real companies and events, there's absolutely no reason that the hypothetical more focused site couldn't link to the train companies. --Pak21 07:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You can see the comment on my talk page, and the person thanking me for adding the content has participated in this discussion and voted for the deletion. Regarding linking the comment elsewhere to here, that is easy enough (although I would likely choose more authoritive sites for many of them, such as the actual companies' sites, if it isn't actually hosted at Wikipedia) -- what that doesn't get is an easy way to use backlinks from the Wikipedia articles on the companies/events to find the games that involve those events. BTW, shall I go ahead and remove the DTG page since nobody is arguing against it and there are no more English-language references to add? Or would that get someone else accusing me of a conflict of interest? JTamplin 17:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There isn't an "easy way" to link to these games from the company pages because, with all due respect, that's not interesting to the vast majority of readers; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Of particular relevance here is the recent swathe of deletions of "X in popular culture" type articles: we don't mention every time something was mentioned somewhere else unless it has some significance of some sort. Cheers --Pak21 18:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That already exists on every page -- "What links here". I wasn't suggesting adding actual links to every such page, but I personally use the backlinks to find interesting related articles, and this is not possible for non-Wiki content. JTamplin 20:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be pretty easy (and appropriate) to link the games on the list to the web page of the publisher. All we need to do is use the publisher's product page as a reference for saying that they published the game in question. -Chunky Rice 18:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so if I delete the DTG article and change all the DTG links on List of 18XX games to point to the company website that is appropriate? JTamplin 20:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, not quite. I don't think that an embedded external link would be a good idea. Here, I've inserted the ref as I think would be appropriate for 18EU on the List of 18XX games article. I think that this kind of reference would be fine. Any opinions? -Chunky Rice 20:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed: A reference to the appropriate game-page of the micropublisher's website is useful for attributing the claim that the game is published by them, and serves the side benefit of letting the reader find any extra details (explanation of differences, pics of game components, strategy comments, etc.) that are on the pubber's site but aren't "encyclopedic" by WP's policy and guidelines. An inline external link would go against the manual of style, and if we allowed these, most articles would turn into advertising directories and suffer commercial edit-wars. I recommend continuing to add refs and de-link all occurrences of "Deep Thought Games". Perhaps the citation text could be clarified to something like "18EU page of Deep Thought Games website, www.blah.com/18eu, (the external link), retrieved 2007-10-05." Barno 22:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I can go through all the 18xx games and add publisher web page references for the ones that have them. Shall I go ahead and delete the DTG page or is there more procedure to follow on the AfD page? JTamplin 23:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well you can't just delete it unless you're an admin. The options are letting the AfD run its course (which will likley result in a delete); we could redirect the page to 18XX (though some people complain about doing this in the middle of an AfD, I doubt it would cause much consternation, we'd just do an early close as redirect); it looks like you're the only significant contributor, so you could request a speedy deletion (per CSD:G7) and I could delete it right now. I have no really strong feelings about it. -Chunky Rice 23:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Grass (card game)

It looks like pretty much the entire rules have been added for this game - I suspect it's not appropriate, but I wanted to check with people here first. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 14:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, both on the basis that Wikipedia articles should not include instructions and that they read to me as a direct copy of the game rules and as such, a copyvio. Cheers --Pak21 14:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

So you also think that Mille Bournes should be deleted, since it has instructions on how to play the game? (Which, as far as I know, is not a copyright violation of any published set of rules...) Or that Laws of the Game (and it's subarticles) should be deleted since they give instructions on how to play football? Or Poker? And so forth... I guess I'm wondering where the line is drawn on WP:NOT#GUIDE. In any event Timotab has reverted Grass (card game) to a former version, without the copyvio. (Thanks for that, by the way.) --Craw-daddy | T | 15:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Mille Bournes is an absolute mess and needs serious cleanup. Laws of the Game is the beginnings of a good article, going into the history of the laws, though the actual laws could arguably be placed on Wikisource instead, with commentary on them from secondary sources here; the "subarticles" aren't describing each law, but are encyclopedic things about the ball, the referee, the pitch, etc. Poker is fine, although could do with some sources for the "Game play" section (but then so could most of Wikipedia...). Cheers --Pak21 15:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The Laws of the Game are on Wikisource already :-) Cheers --Pak21 15:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Photos

Know of an article that could do with a picture of a game? Ask me! I have access (through my own collection and my board game group) to many games, and I can likely take a picture for you. Can't guarantee it, of course, but I'll do my best.  — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 14:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking through the current top ten on BGG, none of Twilight Struggle, El Grande, The Princes of Florence, BattleLore nor Shogun have free photos. Cheers --Pak21 15:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I have none of those, but I'll see what I can do. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 15:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: 18XX conventions

18XX conventions (via WP:PROD on 8 October 2007) Kept

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've removed the PROD tag for now, because (as I've added to that talk page) I think there's a likelihood that enough coverage will be found for a standalone article. If not, there is enough hobby-website coverage to verify these details, so part of this article should be merged into 18XX rather than deleted. Some of these conventions have 18XX tournaments with hundreds of people competing for honors that will be noted by a few thousand people. Barno 13:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

External play sites

Hi. A user has raised the point on my talk page that the policy on links to external play sites should be mentioned in our structure/style guide section. It's my feeling that they're discouraged by WP:EL, so I'd like to add a note to that effect to the guide; but what would other people's opinion be? Percy Snoodle 09:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the points you used in your talk-page response are valid. A couple of sentences from that could be added to the project's guide, and probably should, since boardgames are more likely than most topics to have non-notable sites that people will want to link to. If we don't make this guideline's applicability clear, we can expect linkspam revert wars to waste a lot of our time. Barno 15:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Knucklebones (magazine)

I invite everyone to contribute to the new article about this gaming magazine that I've just moved into the mainspace. It likely needs more "claim to notability" (whatever I mean by that) and more references. Cheers --Craw-daddy | T | 17:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Origins Award question

I've been adding references to Origins Awards for some games and I've run across the following question. Is the organizing body called the "Academy of Adventure Gaming, Arts & Design" or the "Academy of Adventure Gaming Arts & Design"? The difference is in the comma. Even the website of the Academy is vastly inconsistent.[6] On the home page you can even see the inconsistencies there, with none in the page title, one in the banner, none in the first sentence, and three(!) in the first sentence under the "Award Submissions..." heading. I know that the article on the Origins Awards has it listed without the comma, but I'm not sure which one to use here. (Minor question, perhaps, but I'd like to source articles correctly.) --Craw-daddy | T | 18:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There are seven newspaper citations for the use without a comma -- Capital Times (Madison Wisconsin) ×3, Chicago Daily Herald, Puget Sound Business Journal, Lansing State Journal, Toronto Star -- and none for the use with a comma. Of course, they're inconsistent on the use of the ampersand vs. the word "and". :-) -- JHunterJ 23:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it's just hard to figure out what the correct usage should be given the state of the website itself. So the "Adventure Gaming" is a modifier for the phrase "Arts & Design" (or "Arts and Design"). --Craw-daddy | T | 23:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a member, and there is no comma in the name. Being an adventure gamer doesn't get you in the organization, nor being an artist or a designer. You need the confluence of those things, either being an adventure gaming artist, designer, publisher, or other gaming industry member. The website is indeed wildly inconsistent, though. So I guess I'm saying, "Um, trust me." Which kinda sucks.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Warhammer articles

A concern has been raised at WT:VG#Excessive Warhammer articles about the Warhammer 40,000 articles. As Warhammer is primarily a table game, I thought I'd let you know here. Cheers, Miremare 19:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Greenspun illustration project: requests now open

Dear Wikimedians,

This is a (belated) announcement that requests are now being taken for illustrations to be created for the Philip Greenspun illustration project (PGIP).

The aim of the project is to create and improve illustrations on Wikimedia projects. You can help by identifying which important articles or concepts are missing illustrations (diagrams) that could make them a lot easier to understand. Requests should be made on this page: Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project/Requests

If there's a topic area you know a lot about or are involved with as a Wikiproject, why not conduct a review to see which illustrations are missing and needed for that topic? Existing content can be checked by using Mayflower to search Wikimedia Commons, or use the Free Image Search Tool to quickly check for images of a given topic in other-language projects.

The community suggestions will be used to shape the final list, which will be finalised to 50 specific requests for Round 1, due to start in January. People will be able to make suggestions for the duration of the project, not just in the lead-up to Round 1.

• General information about the project: m:Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project
• Potential illustrators and others interested in the project should join the mailing list: mail:greenspun-illustrations

thanks, pfctdayelise (talk) 12:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC) (Project coordinator)

Assessment

I think we should create our own assessment template and begin tagging articles. 99% of board and table games are not claimed by any project, and not assessed. This can be easily modeled on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment and Template:Vgproj. PS. Would we include ccgs within our framework? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've noted we already have a template that can be easily modified for that: Template:BTGProject.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been going through many of the articles for this project, updating the ratings (class and importance). The ones that I have found seem to be mostly stubs and "start" class articles, with the occasional "B" class article, and the very rare higher class article. I have generally been giving importance ratings of "low", with a few getting a "mid", and the rare one receiving "high" or "top". As an exception to this, for gaming companies and designers, I have been giving them "mid" or "high", as without the designers and publishers we, of course, wouldn't have many of these games.  :) Feel free to join me in the assessments and/or alter ones that I have made if you disagree with me. I have also set up the category pages for the quality/importance, so we can soon add a table having the ratings of articles such as can be found at the Video Game WikiProject. I hope this encourages people to contribute to those articles that are lacking. Many of them are in desperate need of references/reviews. --Craw-daddy | T | 01:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Having thought about this a little more, I had the following idea about rating the importance of articles:

1. Most games will, by default, receive a "low" rating.
2. If a game has won something like the Spiel des Jahres, then this should likely bump it up to "high". If a game has won an Origins Award for something like Best Game/Best Miniatures Game/Best Science Fiction Board Game/Best Card Game/etc. this should bump it up to "high" (most likely) or possibly "mid". If the Origins Award is for something like Best Graphic Presentation then I would say that this would, at most, raise it to "mid". If it won an Origins Vanguard or Gamers' Choice Award, however, this would rate a "high" value on importance.
3. I think that board game and card game publishers would, by default, receive a "mid" rating. Some company like Hasbro would merit a "high" rating because of the influence and longevity of the company. Similarly, a company like Avalon Hill (in their separate article) would also merit a "high" rating. Simulations Publications, Inc. would have a "high" rating, as another example.
4. Most game designers would merit a "high" rating, except, perhaps those that only have one or two game designs to their credit.
5. The "top" ratings go, firstly, to the "obvious" articles, the board game and card game articles themselves, but also a few games and game designers would rate here too, but that's a more subjective measure.

Comments? --Craw-daddy | T | 04:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The Dice Tower

Hey. I wrote a brief stub for the podcast The Dice Tower. This is a well-known podcast among board game geeks, hosted by prolific game reviewer Tom Vasel. It's been in existence for 112 episodes (some weekly, some every two weeks). Tom has interviewed many of the cream of crop of game designers. His podcast is hosted by Funagain Games, a major internet game distributor. Anyway, the stub has been nominated for deletion for non-notability. Is there anyone out there with more knowledge/experience of The Dice Tower who might be able to dredge up notability stuff so this article is not deleted? I emailed Tom, and he said he thinks they are going to be mentioned in a gaming podcast article in Knucklebones magazine's next issue. Applejuicefool (talk) 06:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll add the citation there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Monopoly

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

Wall Street Spin

Could someone will more knowledge of the notability standards for board games chime in at Wall Street Spin? There was an interesting bit of link hijacking going on there, but verifying the remaining content is probably best left to editors who have worked in the genre. Thanks! Kuru ^talk 18:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Chinese chess players

This category name is highly confusing, since Chinese chess is the common English name for a different board game, and one would naturally expect it to be filled with players of Chinese chess. Any suggestions on renaming it? 70.51.9.174 (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Just like Category:American players of Canadian football (for players of Canadian football that are American nationals), how about Category:Chinese players of Chess? kelvSYC (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Project's article structure guide (strategy sections)

• I've made some changes to the front page guidelines ("Structure" section top) for what "at a minimum" needs to be in an article, trying better to spell out what should be in a strategy section (at the level of whether to include one or not). The later section "Structure > Style guide for game articles > Strategy" goes into more detail. I thought the previous text wasn't what an encyclopedia is trying to do (unless the thing most noted in reliable sources was "why it is entertaining, etc."). Please compare the present version to the previous (15-December) text and feel free to suggest further changes or to be bold. Barno (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Richard Borg

I would think that the designer of games such as Memoir '44, Battlelore, and the Command and Colors series should have his own page here. When I have a chance I will start one, but please feel free to do so in the meantime. (If you start one on your own sandbox, feel free to post a link here so that others can add to the work in progress if you like.) There's a relatively recent article in Knucklebones, namely the relevant information is < ref>Drake, Matt (2007). "Richard Borg: A Regular Guy". Knucklebones. 2 (5). Jones Publishing: 38–41. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)</ref>. When (if?) I make an article, I will certainly include some mention of the material in that article. Obviously the project would want more references than a single article, but I mention this one as a start. Cheers. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(Video) Games

Hello from Wikiproject Video Games. I'm just here to tell you about a discussion[7] that a an IP user started on our discussion page. The point raised is about the where your non-video and our video game articles overlap as regards the people who actually create games. Please chip in to the conversation, it always helps to get a different angle on a subject. - X201 (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC) -

Had I known this project existed, I would've posted my original rant here instead of there, but there's no way I would have found that out from the pages in question - which is exactly the point I was trying to make. 71.126.99.212 (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

ICE, Merp and The Hobbit Adaptations

In order to source some of the adaptations of the Hobbit, I'm trying to find reviews or magazine articles for several Iron Crown Enterprises boardgames namely the Battle of Five Armies, The Lonely Mountain and The Hobbit Adventure game. I've looked through indexes of Dragon (magazine) and White Dwarf (magazine) but can't find any reviews or references to them (othe than the odd advert). I was wondering whether anyone could help track down reliable sources and possibly add them to the article, or point me in the right direction. Thanks. --Davémon (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Categories

I saw that our project page lists only Category:Tabletop games. Looking there, I see that Category:Board games and Category:Card games are two of the categories within the Tabletop games cat-tree. There are others... and looking down Category:Wargames I see more detailed subcats at different levels. Reviewing Diplomacy (game), I see that it's tagged with category "Board wargames", but that doesn't make it come up in the list for category "Wargames". I think this means we just have to make each cat a member of its parent cat by adding its tag. But that should be done for all the tree that we're concerned with, correct? That will help us see the whole group, and help users see all games in our project's scope, is that right? I might be away for 48 hours but I will look into this (if nobody else gets to it first). Originally I just intended to ask whether to put the "Board games" category tag on the Dip article, then I was going to ask whether to add mentions of that and "Card games" in the cats section of the WPBTG front page. Barno (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't add Category:Board games or Category:Wargames to the diplomacy article. From Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories: "In straightforward cases an article should not be in both a category and its subcategory." Diplomacy is in board wargames, which is a subcategory of board games and of wargames, so it should not be in either of the parent categories. Regarding adding Category:Card games to the list on our front page, I'm in favour of it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Excess gameplay description template

There's a template under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Role-playing games#Excess gameplay description template for marking articles for cleanup. Comments from members of this WikiProject would be welcome. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for comments on (and additional references for) Ogre (game)

Greetings! I've been working on the article for Ogre and would like to have additional input on it. Despite having never played the game myself, it's my desire to get this article up to WP:GA standards in the next couple of months (I don't think it's ever going to be a candidate for WP:FA, so that's why I'm going for GA). Anybody that has access to (print) magazines (like White Dwarf, Dragon, computer magazines where they review the Atari/Commodore versions, etc), I'd like to request them to please add some appropriate info/citations to this article. I think this game is an important milestone in the history of gaming, bringing lots of attention to, and attraction for, the Microgame concept. After all, if this game wasn't as successful as it was I doubt that Metagaming Concepts would have printed so many other microgames, and likely other companies would not have entered into the microgame (or minigame) market either. Many thanks in advance! --Craw-daddy | T | 20:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

BTG Project template

Hmmm, would it possible that someone with more knowledge than me about how templates work, and how to change them correctly, could edit the {{BTGProject}} template? I'd like the template to automatically add the appropriate category (or categories) to the talk page, indicating whether it's a "Low-importance" or "Mid-importance" article and so forth for the project (and the same for the "class" too). I've tried to edit the template a little bit, but there is obviously more going on than I understand at the moment. Basically I've seen other WikiProject banner templates that automatically add these categories to the talk pages based on the parameters in the template and would think it would be rather useful to have here as well. Many thanks. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now I think I understand a little better. The edited template seems to work fine, I was assuming that it worked something like Categories did. I thought that if I changed the template them it would apply to the old pages that used the template, but you have to update those pages (even if you change nothing on them) to have the template re-applied to them. So I don't think that any further editing has to be done to the template (just the part of my brain).  :) Sorry. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference available for games

Having mentioned this to a few other people, I thought I'd share it here. Check out the book Hobby Games: The 100 Best, edited by James Lowder (2007 by Green Ronin Publishing). This is a collection of essays done by game designers (like Gary Gygax, Greg Costikyan, Allen Varney, Richard Berg, Steve Jackson (both the US and UK Jacksons), Richard Garfield, etc) about their favorite games (they couldn't choose their own, or one in which they had a financial interest). It's the closest thing to an "academic reference" that you might find for many modern games (i.e. ones published in the last 25-30 years or so). The coverage is mostly geared towards board/card/war games (with a few articles on role-playing games). Now go forth and improve more articles.  :) --Craw-daddy | T | 22:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean Richard BORG or Richard Berg 81.156.248.136 (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There is an essay written by Richard Berg (on a game called Plague!). There is also an essay about Berg's game Terrible Swift Sword. Richard Borg is not one of the essayists, although there is an essay about Borg's game Battle Cry, written by Tracy Hickman. Hope this clears things up a bit. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits about card games

I don't want to bite the newbie, but a new editor is starting to edit articles on card games, inserting the word "sport" in various contexts, as well as add them to Category:Sport (which should be an empty category anyway, as the category page says). See, for example Speed (card game). I don't think it's appropriate to do this, but wanted some additional input before I start reverting these kinds of edits. I will leave a similar message with my thoughts on this editor's talk page. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the editor is trying to achieve, there's got to be a better way of achieving it than replacing "game" with the awkward construction "sport/game" every place it occurs. -Stellmach 17:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, if the thesis is that card games are sports, then the existing categories for card games should be subcategories of sports. Articles should not be in both a parent and child category, as noted above. So in no case is adding these articles to the Sports category called for, as far as I can see. -Stellmach 17:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The editor clearly has a non-standard understanding of things. I reverted some of the edits, Craw-daddy didn't. They should be reverted everywhere, at least until all board and table games are redefined as "sports". 2005 (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I asked at the time here to see if there was any consensus before I just started reverting them. I know I reverted some of the changes at some point, but there still could be a few that remain. --Craw-daddy | T | 00:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify my above comment, I reverted some of the edits; Craw-daddy reverted some of them also... "I reverted some of the edits in addition to the ones Craw-daddy reverted" I believe they were all fixed as of teo days ago. There may be more since then..2005 (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Now also more "sports"

The user is now on his/her third identity and has moved on to labeling board games like backgammon, chess and go as "table sports" and "mind sports", including making his/her own parallel "sports" category structure. Considerable work appears to be needed to keep this from getting way out of hand. 2005 (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Collectible card games

I have been working on articles contained in list of collectible card games and was wondering if there were others out there who could research additional cititions to add to these. Mathman1550 (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It depends I guess. I have access to the Pyramid archives (which require pay access). Let me know what game(s) you're interested in and I can try to have a look when I have some free time, especially if there's something specific that you may be looking for. Otherwise you can always post more general inquires here and hope that someone can help you out. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well there are so many of these with references and info lacking, its hard to choose which are most important to do first. We could start with the oldest games and work our way foreward. The oldest games on the list that need help are Dixie (card game), Galactic Empires, Illuminati: New World Order, On the Edge (game), Spellfire, Star Trek Customizable Card Game, and Super Deck!. Some just need referenced, some need so much more. Thanks if you get time to look at these. Mathman1550 (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality and importance

The project page has this nice form showing how many articles are currently tagged for each quality and importance rating, and even nicely cross references the two of them. However, there's no way to get at the cross reference. That is, I can see there's 2 'start'-class Top-priority articles, but I can't just go to them. I have to look through the 9 top-priority articles until I find them. That isn't too bad, but finding 69 high-importance stubs out 198 high-importance articles isn't very practical, and it just gets worse from there.

Is there any way for us to see what that form is already calculating? --Rindis (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know of any way to get into one of the boxes of the cross-reference, but it would be nice to do this. (Maybe there is some way and I just don't know it.) If you have a look here you can at least see the record of the bot as it's assessing the statistics from the talk page templates. I'm not sure if this is what you're asking for above.

The categories Category:Board and table game articles by quality and Category:Board and table game articles by importance have all the article with the {{BTGProject}} template on their talk page. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

On further review, try Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Board and table game articles by quality and the pages that are listed there. At the very least, you then have color-coded lists of article titles which can help you at least find the different classes ("Start" or "B" or what-have-you). Hope this helps. --Craw-daddy | T | 21:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that last looks like what I want. After sorting I can see what I want to know. The categories were precisely what I was complaining about as I can't crossreference one from the other. So... is that list updated automatically, or what? --Rindis (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the lists are automatically updated (as is the "statistics block" on the main project page). You can see the history of updates at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Board and table game articles by quality log. Updates occur (I think) once or twice a week. It's all based on the {{BTGProject}} template on articles' talk pages, and the "class" and "importance" parameters associated with that template. --Craw-daddy | T | 07:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You might also be able to use a tool I found called Cat Scan [8] on wikimedia. There are sometimes some bugs that make it not work at all, but I still like using it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathman1550 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Article is listed for deletion Cake (draughts player)

• Cake (draughts player) (AfD discussion) SunCreator (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Games timeline

Board and Card Games Timeline omits a lot (almost all those used in the "History" section of [4X]!) but may be useful for others tracing the history of various game genres. E.g. Tactics II seems to have been the "first influential commercial wargame." Philcha (talk) 09:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

4X and board games

Randomran and I have been working to get 4X up to GA, and we've found board games described as "4X". Since neither of us knows much about board games, we'd appreciate input from someone who does. Can anyone help? Please respond at Talk:4X#Board_games. Philcha (talk) 09:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)