Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games

William Tell cards

Hi, I'm running a DYK for the card game of Jaggln and a reviewer has asked whether the William Tell cards depicted are out of copyright i.e. "pre-1923". I'm pretty sure they were designed in the 1830s and the 'modern' printing doesn't look much different, but are there any card experts here who can verify that? Bermicourt (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Superfight (card game)

Was wondering if someone from WP:BTG can take a look at this and assess it for notability, etc.? It appears to have been created per User talk:ObseleteCody/sandbox and has a WP:GAMEGUIDE feel to it, but trimming out the inappropriate content might be preferable to deletion if WP:NEXIST is a real possibility. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Warhammer

Portal:Warhammer, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Warhammer and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Warhammer during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guilherme Burn (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Strategy games for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Strategy games is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Strategy games until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

abstract strategy game

Current wikipedia definition of abstract strategy game (An abstract strategy game is a strategy game in which the theme is not important to the experience of playing.) is a definition of abstract game. Abstract game is a hypernym of abstract strategy game. Notable example of non abstract strategy abstract game is Ghosts Ghosts at BoardGameGeek.

First reference of abstract strategy game article distinguish abstract strategy game and abstract game. Current WP definition is WP:OR and incorrect. --Sharouser (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The lead has to summarize the body. The lead-quoted Thompson article states that perfect (no hidden) information is important to the definition of abstract stragegy game, while the article body explains that some games generally also regarded as abstract strategy do incorporate hidden info (e.g. Stratego). --IHTS (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Game Preview by Nicolae Sfetcu mentioned that there are two definitions of abstract strategy game. Purists define abstract strategy game as game with no hidden information and no luck and etc. Pragmatists define abstract strategy game as a game which is abstract game and strategy game. He supported definition of purists. In my view, main definition should be definiton of purists. We may seperate abstract game. --Sharouser (talk) 08:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

In Monopoly (game) reference 4 is missing, in web.archive.org too

--Gryllida (talk) 08:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Leaving this open, but why here rather than Talk:Monopoly (game)?

I tried various patent templates to see if any of them would produce a link to the USPTO image file for patent 748626, but no, they all want to go to espacenet.com. How the title of the patent and the name of the inventor acquired the extraneous hyphens is another mystery. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the patent does anything for the article. The New York Times article (reference 1) has the same information and additional context. I'll just remove reference 4 altogether. Huon (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Notability for board games?

Hi, I work in an archive at Brigham Young University and one of the things we collect are LDS/Mormon board games. Most of the games (like on this BGG list) are based on existing games, but with an LDS theme. There are some original games out there too. If reviews for the games exist, they're generally on blogs like this and this. I did find a passing reference to three LDS games in an academic book. Am I correct in assuming the blog reviews aren't sufficient to establish notability? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I am probably not the best person to answer this but since nobody else has replied yet, I'll give it a shot. There aren't any subject notability guidelines for board games, so we're just operating under the general notability guidelines which require reliable sources. Self published content like those blogs certainly wouldn't be considered reliable sources, so yes, you are correct in assuming that they would not establish notability. Lowercaserho (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

okay, thanks Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I would like to put forward some ideas for a board game specific notability guidelines. As I say these are just ideas. In fact they are more to start a discussion than something I necessarily believe. I am doing this to try and work out some dissonance I am experiencing.

1. Nothing in these board game specific guides should be taken to contradict general wikipedia general policy and must be taken as at best interpreting it.
2. Expansions, Sequels, Prequels, Accessories, minor variants etc. should almost never get their own page. Usually they should all be merged into a single page. In some extreme cases a separate "History of X" or a series page maybe appropriate.
3. Any game that has become popular, notorious or famous in the general public is notable. The boardgaming community does not count for this purpose.
4. Popular childrens' boardgames (toys?) so long as they are suitably documented should qualify.
5. Traditional games so long as they are suitably documented should qualify.
6. Games that reach the top 100 on Boardgamegeek should qualify. Boardgamegeek will be considered a valid source for THIS PURPOSE so long as it has been archived.
7. Games which do not meet these criteria may be deleted by the normal propose, but failure to meet these criteria should not be taken as a reason to force deletion. Maybe it will elucidate additional criteria that should be added.

My dissonance is that quite a lot of the games I see on wikipedia seem to me not to qualify for notability. But many of these survive deletion attempts. Yet many other games that I do feel are notable are not on Wikipedia. I feel conflicted because I am not a fan of big purges. I think trying to get some sort of clarification would help.Slimy asparagus (talk) 09:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Because of the reliable sources guidelines, Wikipedia will miss significant cultural content not covered by "reliable sources." For example, the children's game Outfoxed is very popular. It is well-designed. Its method of allowing you to check that a given card is or isn't the culprit is original and ingenious. But the first page of hits on a Google search don't give any indication that it has been reviewed by news outlets or other reliable sources. Why would it? People don't go to The Atlantic for board game reviews. They go to YouTube, blogs, Facebook parent group posts, or BGG. Of course, I've never made a board game page, so maybe there are some periodicals (?) of board game reviews that it would appear in, or maybe being a "game of the year nominee" in 2020 or "2018 As d'Or - Jeu de l'Année Enfant Winner" would aid its notability. But I think the problem is with the reliable source guidelines themselves. Maybe one way to get around that would be to have similar notability guidelines to books. If a book receives a "major literary award", it is considered notable. Are board games that receive certain awards considered notable? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I meant to put winning in an award in as one of the possible conditions and I completely forgot. I think it would probably count already, but I believe that is more common sense than an actual guideline. Slimy asparagus (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Which games and game topics to list in WP:VITAL?

See Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5#Board and card games for a related discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox game and player age ranges

Ordinarily I'd ask this at the talk page for the infobox, but my last question there garnered no response, so... Is there a convention for including the recommended age range for a game? The Talk page for the infobox references including such a field in a taxobox, but I'd never stumbled across that term previously and know very little about them, much less whether they're in use with regards to this project. Thanks for any insight you can provide! DonIago (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Template:Infobox game, but the topic has come up on the talk page for the template. Some people have discussed there why it's not included in the template. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Board game sequels

Should we introduce a new category called Category:Board game sequels? I'm just thinking that with Return to Dark Tower, which is technically a sequel to Dark Tower, it may be helpful and necessary. I've always been a super casual board game guy, but now as I get into them more, I'm interested in the scene and what the WikiProject entails. Are there enough board game "sequels" to create a category? DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 21:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of adding the category myself. I believe this was a big missing component for those looking for connections to other installments, as well as those interested in sequels as a concept. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 20:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why sequels should ever get their own page. So why should they get a category?10:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC) Slimy asparagus (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Euchre variations

Hey, if someone's looking for something to do, I just happened to notice that Euchre variations and Euchre game variations are two separate articles that should probably be merged, if not just merged into euchre to make a more comprehensive single article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Good point. And neither of them are referenced so the new article may need to be a complete re-write after some research on what reliable sources say. I've just done this for Hearts but I'm no expert on Euchre and am too busy planning a trip to Germany to research modern-day Bruus, Knüffeln, Zwickern and Fipsen right now lol. Bermicourt (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Trivial Pursuit infobox with a bunch of pramaters that are broken

Maccore Henni _{Mii! Pictochat Mii!} (Note: respond on minha (my) talk page) 18:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed I removed the parameters that are not in use. DonIago (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Card game style guide

At the suggestion of other editors, I have drafted up a style guide specifically for card games here. It draws on those aspects of the existing style guide for board games (on the project page) where they are relevant, but there is a lot that is necessarily different and a lot of the detail does not apply to board games. In doing so, I've also tried to address those areas that often cause confusion, such as the names of individual games, cards, card suits and bonuses, by carrying out a systematic survey of English-language card game sources.

Please feel free to comment. If it is felt useful, we could link it from the project page or restructure the project page to incorporate it alongside the board game style guide. Bermicourt (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

My main concern is capitalisation. Card game writers frequently capitalise the name of the game to disambiguate it from the game's terminology. This is inappropriate for a general encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not modular, nor consists of self-contained projects, so capitalisation should be consistent across the site. The manual of style for capitals is found here: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Sports,_games,_and_other_activities.--Countakeshi (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Style guidelines for computational complexity and mathematical analyses

Many game articles contain information on computational complexity or mathematical analysis of the game.

• Most of these analyses do not pertain to the game as actually played, but generalizations needed for the theoretical analysis (e.g., complexity of chess or checkers is studied as a function of increasing N where the game is played on an NxN board). Such analyses should be separated in their own section of articles and it should be stated how the generalization differs from the played game that is the subject of the article.

• In the rare cases where theoretical analysis does reach the played game (e.g. application of surreal numbers to Go endgames) it is sophisticated and remote enough from the experience of most readers and players, to deserve its own section.

Both considerations suggest generally putting such material into a separate section with a title like "computational complexity of generalizations".

Do people agree with this and are there other suggestions on how to document mathematical analyses in game articles? 73.149.246.232 (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

History of the board game Monopoly FAR

I have nominated History of the board game Monopoly for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 23:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Should we have a category for out of print CCGs and minitature wargames?

Please see Talk:Collectible_card_game#Should_we_have_a_category_for_out_of_print_CCGs?. As I explain there, for most board games being out print is not an issue, which I probably is also true for RPGs. But for CCGs and miniature wargames which reply on a constant flow of expansions and tournaments, I think it is much more of a defining quality. For now I created Category:Defunct games, as a parent to an already existing Category:Inactive online games. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Online source database for board and tabletop games?

I know that if you look up the individual pages for role-playing games at rpg.net, novels at isfbd.org, and video games at mobygames.com, those pages have listings of known reviews in trade publications for the item in question. The listings are far from complete in each case, but they tend to be extensive and very helpful for both proving notability of the topic, and for finding sources that can be used to build the article. Does anything like that exist for board and table games? Boardgamegeek does not seem to have what I am talking about, at least not that I have found.

For an example of what I mean, see the bottom of the page here: [1], here: [2], and here: [3]. BOZ (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

RPGGeek.com has a similar functionality, see for instance https://rpggeek.com/rpgitem/43697/middle-earth-role-playing-1st-edition: Scroll down to the "linked items" module. It should be set to show linked periodical articles, including (but not limited to) reviews. It's probably a good idea to also use the advanced search (searching description fields) and the regular search, but limiting the search to "articles" (in the dropdown right below the search bar). Include "review" in your search terms.

Luding.org is a smaller database but also links reviews. --Jonas kork (talk) 08:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

You are right about rpggeek, I should have mentioned them as well - I have always wondered why rpggeek includes that functionality but bggeek does not? I know that for wargames there were several wargaming magazines that printed reviews of wargames, but I am unaware of an online database that lists them in a way similar to what the above websites do, and I would love to know if there is generally anywhere that I can see reviews listed for board and tabletop games in general. It is frustrating to have that unavailable, when I have sites for other types of publications that I can go to. BOZ (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not know about the decisions behind it, but RPGGeek got data structure for periodicals, issues, articles with some options which allow to link review articles from magazines to entries for rpg items in the database. BGG never got the periodical feature, although obviously there are several board game magazines out there, some of which publish game content (meaning: playable stuff). *shrug* Just never was implemented. The situation (with board game reviews) in general is what it is. --Jonas kork (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Board game reliable sources

I've been getting into contemporary board games recently and was surprised to see some of the most-talked about games in hobbyist circles not having articles! I've been writing Spirit Island (board game) and found it surprisingly hard to find references. Most I've found seem to be in primarily technology/video game publications, but I'm not sure if this is my own bias in evaluating sources (having written a lot of video game articles), or if there's simply a dearth of board game sources. I couldn't find any source guidance in the WikiProject - do folks have any recommendations for board game websites I should be looking at to find reliable sources on modern games? Sam Walton (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

It can be a real hassle, especially for games that are lower-profile than Spirit Island. BGG is a great resource for players, but reviews and advice from random players are a weak source for encyclopedia articles. I hardly ever see big publications like the NY Times cover games in depth, with the article you linked ("Should Board Gamers Play the Roles of Racists, Slavers and Nazis?") being one big exception. The general ambiguity of whether a tabletop game is notable seems like an obstacle to improving coverage. Ungulates (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

BGG also isn't considered a reliable source. That may be what you were implying, but I wanted to make that clear. There's been previous discussion at RSN. DonIago (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Fashionable isn't the same as notable. There are plenty of reliable sources covering table games, but the commercial deluge of such material means that games which are temporarily popular may not be well reported unless they win a recognised award. This is true of a lot of niche areas. Bermicourt (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Playing Oh Hell during lockdown

Hi, I created a page called Australian Whist in March 2020 which you have now reviewed and assimilated into the Oh Hell page. This is a good decision, I like it and am very happy with what you have done.

However, I did include a paragraph on my page describing how it is possible to play the game remotely using video conferencing systems like Zoom. This is generic advice, not restricted any particular version of the game. Since the world is living with various styles of lockdown I suggest that this advice is both relevant and helpful. Please can I encourage you to add this description to the Oh Hell page ?

Thanks. Mike Pryor Mikejpryor (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mike. Like you I have been playing card games online over Zoom with friends and family. In fact, we're looking forward to an evening of food, chat and a game of Grasobern online tonight with family! So it's a great thing to do. However, I'm hesitant about adding it to the article as Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and we're not supposed to share our personal experiences. Once Zoom card games are recorded in 'reliable sources' like a book or the online press, we can then cite it. Don't get me wrong, I'm an evangelist for this; but don't think Wikipedia protocol lets us do this. But happy for other editors to pitch in. Bermicourt (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

AfD nomination for Nines

The article on Nines (card game) has been nominated for deletion as non-notable here. Bermicourt (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

King (variant of barbu)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King (card game).

Short version: WP:CFORK from a section of Barbu (card game); it's unclear to the casual observer what from that page needs to merge to the section.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chess/archive4

I've started a FAR for this article as it needs much improvement to meet modern standards IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

How to prove WP:GNG on board games articles?

Hello, I am redirected here from the teahouse.

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

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

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

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

I think they've just been missed and should be nominated for AfD. I came across several card game articles with little or no reliable references and they've been deleted. Bermicourt (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Other possible reasons for notability include board game awards and press coverage in Eurogame-playing countries like France and Germany. But notability is a big problem and a lot of articles about recent board games clearly don't meet strict notability criteria. Ungulates (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Pichenotte

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

Recreational Wargaming

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

New member

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

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

Evolution

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

You should mention who developed the game in the lead. See if you can find some interviews on the game. I personally found some reviews I found if you want to use from 3rd-strike, shut up & Sit Down, Board Game Geek. I definitely recommend trying to reduce the points in the reviewers down to a single sentence and summarize their points rather than relying on quotes.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Shut up and sit down are great to watch. However I prefer written sources if possible as they archive better. I do realize this is a long way from being ready. I will probably leave the quotes as they are for now. However thanks for the confirmation that section is not in its final edit. Slimy asparagus (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• check out {{infobox game}}
• lede needs more 'spice' from the body
• try to incorporate quotes into the text rather than bullet pointing them
• if you want a history timeline then drop it into a table

That is my initial feedback. signed by a total amateur ==> —¿philoserf? (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious, BGG is a useful tool, but isn't a reliable source, though it may point the way to reliable sources. DonIago (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Doniago: I didn't know it was not reliable. Is there a reliable source list for WP:BOARDGAME or WP:GAMES?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I checked the project pages and didn't see such a list, but it seems as though it might be a good idea to have one. :) DonIago (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

It would be a great idea. Also if there were somewhere people could go to find more reviews; see my section above titled "Online source database for board and tabletop games?" for difficulties in finding out about reviews online. BOZ (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear I am totally clear that BGG is not a reliable source. I am finding that every day. They do have admins, but once false information gets passed them it is not corrected very often.

As I understand it BGG reviews are considered okay. I presume that is because admin approval is required for a review and usually they are done by people unconnected to the company. I guess there is no guarantee that the reviews will be 100% correct, but then presumably that is not what "reliable source" means. Because no source of information can be 100% correct.

In my draft Evolution article I was using BGG not as a source but as scaffolding. When I have appropriate resources in place I will remove the scaffolding. That article is a long way from completion. And I got distracted by other stuff.

If you want to see the most egregious example of using BGG I have seen, check out Zoophoria. I put some comments on the Talk page there. Basically the page links to the BGG page for Zoophoria and calls it a "review". I would raise an AfD but I have three pending and I think that is enough. Slimy asparagus (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't use a BGG review unless it originated (i.e. is available) on a different (professional) site. I've submitted a review to BGG myself in the past, and I'm certainly no games expert and I'd be appalled if I saw my review quoted on Wikipedia.

I'm now afraid to look at that article. :p DonIago (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Doniago: I am willing to bet you are as knowledgeable as many writers with published game reviews. I'd say that if you only learned about gaming yesterday. ;p back at ya. —¿philoserf? (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

There's many things I'm knowledgeable about, but when it comes to board games, and especially writing professional reviews of them? Not so much. :) Absolutely nobody should be using me as a subject matter expert in this regard. DonIago (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

FTR: BGG is a perfectly good external link. There are templates for BGG title, designer, & publisher. So do not be afraid to use BGG links in general. —¿philoserf? (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Fine as an external link, but not a citable source/reference. DonIago (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

speak of the devil. in my semi-random citation cleanup tour today i found this: StarForce: Alpha Centauri

almost all of the current references are BGG —¿philoserf? (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm enough of a deletionist that it's probably best if I don't look. DonIago (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Okay someone has already tagged it up and I am pretty pissed off. Maybe I can accept criticism such as prose and too many or overly lengthy quotations. I had felt this and I had cut back in the drafting stage. I am finding it really hard to go any further than I have done already.

But "reliable sources"? We are talking about Nature, The Guardian and Ars Technica as the backbone of the article's support. Slimy asparagus (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Frustrating, I know. IceWelder's talk page is where I would share your questions and explore the reasoning. —¿philoserf? (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

It is probably a good idea to wait a day or two. My sark levels may have sunk down by then. Though I do think may be I could ask him to tag specific sources rather than the whole article. Slimy asparagus (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, I can also reply right here: Ars Technica, the Guardian, and Nature are certainly reliable (per WP:RSP and otherwise); however, Opinionated Gamers and Space-Biff! appear to be personal blogs rather than professional websites, which would make them unreliable. BoardGameGeek is user-generated as far as I can tell, so it is definitely unreliable. If my assessment on the former is incorrect, I apologize and the tag can be removed, but if these sites are indeed unreliable, they should be exchanged for higher-quality ones.

I was not aware that this discussion was going on; the article appeared in the backlog for unreviewed video game articles (which is clearly a miscategorization, but alas), so I reviewed and tagged the article per our standard practices. The tags should not deter from the fact that there is a notable topic at hand, but they are recommendations/instructions on how to bring the article in line with other encyclopedic content. The project here should be able to help you polish the article and there is plenty of good-article content in the project you can model your work after, such as Golem Arcana. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 14:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I only used a BGG reference for the future project Nature. That is I believe pretty much the only source as they are just looking for play testers now. I have no issue replacing that with a better source when one becomes available (or removing it if the project disappears without a trace). I was not using it to claim Nature exists, but that North Star have announced they are working on it. But as I see it now it is direct from the publisher and has passed BGG admins. So for the incidental point I am trying to prove there, I would have thought that would be okay.

The blogs I was using to back up and fill out the references. As bloggers go they are not fly by nights. So I know they are not as good as The Guardian etc, but from what I recall of the policies I thought they were permissable. I certainly was not claiming I had fully referenced everything. Some of the gaps I have tagged, some I have not.

The list/prose and lengthy quote tags I feel should be moved to the relevant sections. Slimy asparagus (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, IceWelder. I have done some investigations and here are my conclusions:

1. The BGG reference is effectively a statement from North Star Games, and so essentially a primary source. I know primary sources are not usually considered reliable, but in this case it represents a stated intention of the publisher. As such it is subject to the Statements of Opinion exception.
2. Spacebiff is as you say the personal blog of Dan Thurot. However Dan has written for Ars Technica here: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/02/evolving-underwater-oceans-board-game-review/ . The policy states "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Spacebiff probably qualifies though I am not relying on it heavily anyway.
3. Opinionated Gamer really is not a personal blog. https://opinionatedgamers.com/contributors/ That said I am not too sure where it fits in Wikipedia's world view. Slimy asparagus (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Under the premise stated, Space-Biff! can be considered (situationally) reliable, and BoardGameGeek may be used if its citation properly classifies that North Star Games is the author (i.e. |publisher=[[North Star Games]] |via=[[BoardGameGeek]]. I still feel like Opinionated Gamers should be exchanged as it is more of a gamers-for-gamers site (the kind that the VG project rejects on a regular basis) with volunteer contributors, not staff with journalistic experience. I reorganized the maintenance tags as you requested. IceWelder [✉] 09:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I have tagged up those references. I think Matt Carlson might have that experience, but I need to check that. Slimy asparagus (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Has the Opinionated Gamers source been deemed unreliable? We can discuss that if you like in order to determine whether it's usable. Their review policy is a bit loose. Dale Yu specifically is the founder and has developed his own games and has a strong connection to the Board Game development community with published and notable games attached to him, such as Agricola (board game) and Age of Steam (game). His review and input on the game may be deemed verifiable based on what is given in Opinionated Gamers. This is why we should be talking about creating a list of reliable sources and discuss them. This wikiproject just doesn't have the resources.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

You can see comments above to see how Opinionated Gamers has been questioned. It started out as a blanket criticism of all the sources in the Evolution article. But that was the one that remained after pushback.

To be fair I can see the principle of what he was saying. Fundamentally these are just blogs and they could be just some guy in his basement writing whatever. And they probably all start out that way. But the reliable sources all seem to be websites primarily devoted to video games, because that is where the money is. I think when it comes to board games they are doing little more than rehashing press releases, whereas the blogs actually put some experience and thought and analysis into it, and care about what they are writing.

I think may be we should escalate the issue up to the official "Reliable Sources" forums, but I really have little idea what that entails. Slimy asparagus (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand Dale does not help his case, when he writes stuff like this: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamedesigner/11222/dale-yu . Slimy asparagus (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

[CK]orps Commander

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

I created a source list page

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

Thanks for getting this started! I added Dicebreaker, which I asked about at RSN recently. Sam Walton (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

These are mostly sources for RPGs, but if you see anything there that might also apply to board and table games, feel free to copy: Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/References. BOZ (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Other suggestions from another user which covered RPGs, some of which definitely will also apply to this project:

More potential sources:

• Web
  • Comic Book Resources
  • Dicebreaker
  • Di6dent (French; used to be released as a magazine as well but is now only published online)
  • GameFan
  • TheGamer
  • Gry-Online (Polish)
  • Guide du Rôliste Galactique (French; in addition to their own content and their database, they have licensed some reviews from out-of-print French RPG magazines, which are added to the corresponding items' entries in the database)
  • ICv2
  • Mir Fantastiki (Russian)
  • Polygon
  • Pyramid
  • SciFi-Universe (French)
  • SF Site
  • Tabletop Gaming Magazine (also exists as a magazine)
  • Tom's Hardware (Italian)
  • Tor.com
  • Unification France (French)
  • Valkyrie
  Print
  • Arcane
  • Australian Realms
  • Backstab (French)
  • Casus Belli (French)
  • Computer + Videogiochi (Italian; focused on video games, but also covered TTRPGs)
  • Dragão Brasil (Portuguese)
  • Dragon
  • Envoyer (German; also has some reviews available online)
  • Fenix (Swedish; also has some reviews available online)
  • The Games Machine (Italian; focused on video games, but also covered TTRPGs)
  • Magia i Miecz (Polish)
  • Mephisto (German)
  • Realms of Fantasy
  • Rollespilsmagasinet Fønix (Danish)
  • Rue Morgue
  • Saga (Danish)
  • Shadis
  • Świat Gier Komputerowych (Polish; focused on video games, but also covered TTRPGs)

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

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

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

Sure, I think we can safely assume that those are RS for tabletop games as well, and I copied the list from a post by User:Alexandra IDV who would probably be able to come up with links to those sites faster than I could. BOZ (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

A good test of whether a website is considered a RS is when it is recommended in the literature as a high quality source. Bermicourt (talk) 11:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bermicourt: can you clarify? Are you referring to literature outside of Wikipedia, or the Literature Wikiproject?

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

@Slimy asparagus: In my humble opinion, it was a really bad idea to move all of these important links into one single outside link into a generic "Resources" tab. It looks like the previous editor who did this was only doing it for the sake of removing it from the home page. It can be moved to the current list and go from there. Most Wikiprojects will create a separate page.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Again I don't mind where they end up. But we should really only have one of everything. Slimy asparagus (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Slimy asparagus: at this point, just assume that the Resources tab is going to be re-organized or dissolved into other pages that will give it more visibility.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I hope we are careful not to throw information away. Slimy asparagus (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

FWIW; for another project, i broke a very large page into subpages that were then transcluded back into the main page. one pane of glass, many manageably sized pieces. —¿philoserf? (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

That sounds interesting. But that also allows the bits to be used in several palces. Would that have applications? Slimy asparagus (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

indeed it does have applications. the whole template namespace makes transclusion simple. a sub page transcluded does the same thing. i do not have a example right now. oh, yes I do. The Signpost's various presentations use the subpages in multiple presentations. —¿philoserf? (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

My thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

Cleanup list

Over in the Teahouse, someone told me about this link: [4]. I think this would be useful to link to on the project page. There are also some other forms such as CSV. Slimy asparagus (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Linking to the BGG site as a review

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

• Demonworld - probably not by the time you read this as I may remove the link
• Zargo's_Lords
• Kroll & Prumni
• I think I remember another one, but I seem to have forgotten which it was.

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

Related Projects

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

Some of the changes that were made were done by me. But thought the main page was too barebones and attempted to bring it back. I don't think there needs to be an external link for related projects and should be merged back here.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't mind which one we keep. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. But seeing as we are both fairly new here, I'd be interested in knowing what others think. Slimy asparagus (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Decided to ping @JudgeGregg: the original creator of these subpages and other WP:BTG members like @Thibbs: @BOZ: @Samwalton9: @Doniago: and @Philoserf:. I don't really think its a controversial edit, but its good to get more input.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I am fine with either. The project page section is traditional and very common. I think more folks visiting from other projects would be comfortable with it. That said, I am not certain it helps us or them.

If you forced me into an either or I'd pick the project page section. —¿philoserf? (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Wargames introduced in 1968

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

I'm in favor of anything that helps with organization, accessibility, and usability. BOZ (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

So I have started. But it may be a while before one of the new categories has two members or I really feel it is working by any of the other possible metrics. Slimy asparagus (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry. These are not enough Category tree for board games by decade? —¿philoserf? (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Obviously there is overlap. But should miniature wargames be in those categories? Also the GAmes and Sports are divided into Card/Video/Board so "Wargames" feels to be at least at the same level as Card. Slimy asparagus (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

i was commenting on "in 19xy" and "before...two members". I'd recommend they go into the decade until there enough to warrant an individual year. —¿philoserf? (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

That may be a good point. However I probably have at least 150-200 wargames on file. But I think those will group mostly in the 1970-2000 period. I have already created 1990, 1982, 1995. Is there any point do work that will simply need to be redone? (Not to mention the extra scripting work.) If you prefer I could hold off creating any more till I have hard data, which is definitely a possible approach. Slimy asparagus (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying no. Just offering an established pattern. —¿philoserf? (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually my script only reconciles as far back as 2008 for now. It is trivial to extend it back, but I probably have enough other things to do. So I was probably overestimating the amount of work it would cost me. So that's a point in favour of sticking to decades for now. I would still have to restructure the categories I have created so far. Ah!. I see you have the decades and the single years. So you would not phase out the decade categories. In that case I get it is pretty clear. I should go with your plan. I just missed the decade categories somehow. Slimy asparagus (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

perfect. glad you see it. i find the category tree tool useful when planning. —¿philoserf? (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it I won't remove the year categories I created for now. I will just insert the decade categories in the hierarchy. But if someone else decides to "tidy up" I won't complain. That is the least work for me. Which is of course what really matters. ;-) Slimy asparagus (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Hearthstone?

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

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

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

Superclub

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BGG graph? Yes, I did. BUt i don't think it's directly linkable? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems to be linkable. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/102794/caverna-cave-farmers/stats/history?rankobjectid=1 But I have no ieaa whether it survives the wayback machine. It might well be making JSON calls behind the scenes or something/ Slimy asparagus (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

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

They are a poll. Sometimes the sample size is fairly big. They are however subject to certain biases. For example there is a kickstarter bias where they get inflated before the game is even out and so on. So in many cases I would discount them. But when they have been holding a top ranking for a substantial amount of time, then I would say that means something. Slimy asparagus (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

This isn't reassuring. One could just as easily argue that if a film has held a top ranking for a substantial amount of time at IMDb that that means something, but we don't use IMDb ratings in film articles because they aren't considered reliable. As per MOS:FILM: "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database, Metacritic, or Rotten Tomatoes (including its "Audience Says" feature), as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." I fear BGG rankings have the same problems. DonIago (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah they probably are subject to a similar range of problems and probably should get similar treatment. I think they do sometimes tell one something but I guess if we try to make that judgement call we're doing original research. Slimy asparagus (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Though, if a reliable secondary source mentions a game's rating at BGG, then that would be a reasonable way to bring it up, if that's any help. DonIago (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

No I think if it is worth mentioning at all, one might as well go to the source. Saying "the BGG ranking of game X at time T is P" is an objective statement. The question is, "Does it mean anything?"

The question BGG ratings are trying to answer is "What do board game fans think of a certain game?" That is a perfectly fair question. But it has enormous problems. What even is a "fan"? Slimy asparagus (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Dead Link on Origins Game Fair

I have been cleaning up the bare URLs in references here. One [5] (currently ref 31) appears to be permanently dead. I don't think it is really needed so I would like to just remove it. Any objections? Slimy asparagus (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Awards and Wikidata

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

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

Proposed deletion of Embassy chess

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

I cannot find reliable or even independent sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Slimy asparagus (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Name of the Uno Flip article

The game is actually called "Uno Flip!" Uno Flip! at BoardGameGeek. There is another 2009 game called "Uno Flip" Uno Flip at BoardGameGeek which uses dexterity. I think this should be moved therefore. However there is already a "Uno Flip!" which is a redirect to Uno (card game)#Video games. Looks like a bit of a mess to me. For the actual product page (so we are not relying on the unreliable source of BGG) of "Uno Flip!" see [6] and for the instruction manual for "Uno Flip" see [7]. Or compare these geekhobbies pages [8] and [9].

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

Proposed deletion of Unashogi

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

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

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Slimy asparagus (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cannon shogi

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

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

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Slimy asparagus (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Starweb

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

Sequence (game) - avoiding a revert war

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