From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Board and table games (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Websites / Computing   
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Should this really be on wikipedia?[edit]

Does this really rate an encyclopedia article? This page seems to me to be a blatant plug. --Slashme 07:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It's probably borderline. 01:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I would say it passes according to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (websites), though I accept they're neither terribly precise nor gospel. It's certainly "A forum with more than 5,000 users" and it has "a verifiable impact beyond its own user community"—board game retailers and manufacturers link to it because it's the most authoritative and comprehensive English-language site on the subject—so it satisfies criterion 2. And its Alexa rank was 10947 when I looked, so it's damn close to satisfying criterion 3 as well.
And I'm curious what your notion of "blatant plug" is. Granted the page isn't Shakespeare, and it isn't even the best Wikipedia has to offer, but how does it differ from what you would expect WP to say about a website? —Blotwell 08:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't attacking the quality of the page when I called it a plug. I just didn't realize at the time that it was significant enough to rate a Wikipedia article, so I figured it was just someone plugging his website. --Slashme 09:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

For boardgamers, it's THE website. It's an encyclopedic database of every board game ever published, and so this entry seems like a very good idea. It's already been debated by the Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit here: Wikipedia_talk:Counter_Vandalism_Unit/Archive_3#HELP!, and they deemed it worthy of inclusion on other pages. (Full disclosure: I'm a board game designer, and much of my stuff is listed on the site. But so is every other designer's stuff.)--Mike Selinker 06:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I must agree that it is not a valid Wikipedia entry, and is more advertising a website than anything else. No-one really wants to find any information on BoardGameGeek, as it is just another website. We could go on and on if we listed every website on the internet as Wikipedia articles, which is just daft.Richard n 13:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Richard, have you looked at all of the Wikipedia coverage that has been given to other websites, not to mention the tremendous amount of content here is that is devoted to anime? It's generally presumptuous to claim that any given article doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia. That "no one wants to find information on BoardGameGeek" is not for you or I to judge. In fact, I wonder how you came to this discussion page if you had no curiosity on the topic. No one is suggesting that we list every web page in existence, but certainly a site that defines a particular hobby and involves thousands of users is worthy of an entry here. And if we are going to eliminate entries that might serve as advertising, BoardGameGeek pales in comparison to many, many organizations and companies that should and do have entries here. Jcbutler 18:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Searching Google for "boardgamegeek" (and excluding hits on itself) returns about 531,000 hits. That's a whole lot of "no-one". Jwolfe 08:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

An organisation with 200.000 members is significant enough in my book. I mean there are pages about small counties in Idaho, where 100 people live. BGG is not a small website or community. (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Hicham Vanborm

Sample Game Ranks[edit]

I think it's more than fair to list the top 5 or 10 games according to BGG. I know it's simple (and arguably more accurate) to just link to said rankings, but to give the article a little bit more practical information (and interest to read), I think it's a safe add. It's no more wasteful than listing every Emmy or Oscar nomination and win for every category and every year. 22:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Sean

I think the including the rankings is wrong. The article should be about the site itself. If people want to know the latest rankings they can go to the site. I would take it out but I have the feeling that someone would put it right back, besides it doesn't hurt anyone. Steve Dufour 01:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section?[edit]

Should this page have a criticism section? There are two issues I can think of: Sexism: Male BoardGameGeek users are often accused of being overly giddy over cleavage and general images posted that involve females, at one point even angering one of the subjects of these photos to the point of almost leaving the site. Bias: Many users of BoardGameGeek are biased against party games, and will often take points away from such games just because of their genre, often not even wanting to admit that they may have liked one. --Bobadot 23:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a more than acceptable addition if you's like. However, I'd encourage you to find BGG forum debates, or some other citation. Otherwise, it will appear like some bitter/vengeful person. Which I'm sure you aren't. Theprosperonight 03:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say that boardgamegeek users are no more sexist than society as a whole, and so your criticism seems a bit selective and unfair to me. Should we remove the entry for football because some of the fans are sexist? And as for bias, most party games have limited replay value and therefore compare unfavorably to more serious hobby games like Puerto Rico or Tigris and Euphrates (that said, I happen to enjoy such party games as Apples to Apples and Taboo, but I wouldn't rate them over a 7 or so). A more relevant point might be that BGG is biased in favor of adult games over children's games, but so what? This hardly makes for a bane upon society.Jcbutler 23:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the criticism about the low status of party games should be included in the community section or the introduction. It would make it clear the average Joe's idea of a board game is none too popular on the site. I know the low status of Life and Monopoloy shocks a lot of my friends.Gittes 09:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

BoardGameGeek link template[edit]

I created a {{BoardGameGeek}} template for linking to games on BoardGameGeek, based off {{MySpace}}. It works the same way the MySpace one works. For example:


Pimlottc 21:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't see there was already {{bgg title}}. Updated {{boardgamegeek}} and {{BoardGameGeek}} to redirect to that one. Pimlottc 22:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

War Game List[edit]

I think the addition of a war game top ten list would add more to the page. Plus The Burning Blue is no longer the number one rated game so if wanted I'll maintain the wargame section of the article.Gittes 09:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Possibly... but there are a couple of issues. The wargame list is highly volatile and therefore always changing. Are you willing to update it on a weekly basis? Also, because of the volatility of the list, the rankings are not as statistically reliable or useful as the overall game rankings. We don't want to mislead people into thinking that Burning Blue is the best wargame, when in fact it is (or was) simply the latest title to rotate to the top. I would recommend against a list of top wargames until there is some stability in these ratings. Jcbutler 15:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think a top 10 would be worth it. A top 3, or top 1 like there used to be seems good, as long as it gets checked up on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 10:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
Sorry for the delay in answering. I agree about the war game list being too volatile. Thanks for the prompt answer. Gittes 04:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for deletion?[edit]

What's the deal here? It's like someone has a personal agenda against this entry. If this is not encyclopediac enough, we better delete half of wikipedia! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 03:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Hey there. Please take the discussion over to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BoardGameGeek so that your opinion can be heard over there. --Brad Beattie (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


BoardGameGeek has been nominated for deletion on grounds of notability. According to Wikipedia:Notability, "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other." Here is a partial list of independent, online sources that mention or feature BoardGameGeek. To establish nontriviality, I have excluded personal blogs, message boards, and the like. Feel free to add to the list if you know a suitable source. --Jcbutler 22:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Aldie added a BoardGameGeek In The News section to the BoardGameGeek wiki on Friday. Coincidence? Jwolfe 05:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it. Though it's interesting that my list is more complete than the "official" one! --Jcbutler 14:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's a wiki, too, so we could always sync them if we really wanted to. Jwolfe 14:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Rankings removed[edit]

I took out the list of rankings, mainly because this is too much information for a WP article. If people want to know they should go to the site itself. This would be better for everyone, IMO. Steve Dufour 21:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I oppose this move. The rankings were highly informative and in fact, one of the central aspects of BoardGameGeek. I don't think they were too much information at all for a WP entry, and they certainly do not take up much space. The ranking section seems rather empty and pointless without the list. --Jcbutler 21:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
hmmm....IMO, an encyclopedia article should give the reader some basic information about its subject. But it should not make the reader feel that he or she now knows everything about it. It should leave him or her wanting to know more, in this case by visiting the site itself. Steve Dufour 00:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
OK... well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and "appropriate level of information" is a highly subjective issue. Nevertheless, it's not like the article was at risk of becoming overly long and complex. Furthermore, I'm not sure how removing the ratings is "better for everyone" as you suggest. Why am I better off not knowing the top rankings?
By the way, I noticed that the WP entry for periodic table contains the table itself and all the elements on it. By your reasoning, should we just explain the concept of a table and have people look up the elements elsewhere? --Jcbutler 04:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Although BoardGameGeek is cool and should have a WP article, it is quite a few orders of magnitude less important than the periodic table.  :-) Steve Dufour 16:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't the rankings always change? Steve Dufour 05:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article be about BoardGameGeek, not about games listed on BoardGameGeek? I support removing rankings. Rankings change. Also, there are various rankings, best board games, best card games, best party games, etc etc. DanBeale 10:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary or desirable to have an up-to-the-minute list of the top 10 rated games, but removing them entirely goes too far the other way. Listing several of the games that are consistently top rated would give the reader an idea of the types of games that are favored on the web site (i.e. not Monopoly). Jwolfe 17:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

all's quiet...[edit]

This is weird. It's been nearly a month since anyone has removed content or attempted to get this page deleted... I'm not sure a consensus was ever reached, but I guess I've gotten used to the rankings being removed. We should do something about beefing up that section of the entry though, as it is an important feature of BGG. --Jcbutler 17:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I spoke to soon! A dastardly anonymous editor has been busy deleting the BoardGameGeek link from German-style board game. Not on my watch, pal. --Jcbutler 02:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if that was a joke, but you should assume good faith on Wikipedia. --McGeddon 10:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm (mostly) joking, and I always try to assume good faith. ;) Best regards, Jcbutler 14:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Golden Geek Award?[edit]

'Golden Geek Award' (a link, for example, from Caylus (game)) redirects to this article, but this article has nothing about the awards? Natebailey 08:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Added BGG.con and Golden Geek Award[edit]

I added a section for BGG.con and one for the Golden Geek Awards. I feel that both are defining aspects of BoardGameGeek and warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. However, I'm not sure how much mention they need so I tried to error on putting in too much. If anyone wants to trim them down feel free. Bgplayer 02:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

GeekGold and Golden Geek Award : Advertisements?[edit]

Both of these sections read like advertisements, is that the intention? They don't cohere very well and seem irrelevant to a WP article. Karengpve (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't get "advertisement" at all from reading those sections. The writing could use some work, but I think that's true of the whole article. This article really hasn't graduated from the "everybody slapped in their two cents" stage yet. Jwolfe (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


Thumperward kindly provided this page with an infobox, but the sole image for this page is too small to be displayed properly within it. I reverted, he reverted back... Let's discuss the issue here instead. Should we have an infobox? If so, what image should go there? Maybe a pic from Puerto Rico or some other popular boardgame, and then the BGG image can be displayed later in the page? --Jcbutler (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I downsized the image deliberately when infoboxing it. If that's your only concern, this can be remedied by reverting to this version and increasing the specified image size to 350px from 200px. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There, I followed your suggestion, and I think it looks pretty good. --Jcbutler (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


Previously at BoardGameGeek, this article was moved to Geekdō with an explanation of "site has been renamed". The old site still seems to exist, though. What's the deal here - partially-incomplete rebranding, an alternate URL, a spinoff site, or what? I can't seem to see any obvious announcements on either site. --McGeddon (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I see it's explained as being a "parent site" in the lead, but given that all the sources refer to the site as BoardGameGeek, and that this seems to still be the WP:COMMONNAME at the current time, I think the article should probably be moved back. Any objections? --McGeddon (talk) 09:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
No objections. I renamed because I'm among those (apparently few) who call it by it's new "official" name. But as you point out, the name seems not to be sticking. AldaronT/C 16:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


Hello, I have been reading Wikipedia for a long time but this is my first time trying to interact and use it, so I hope this is the right place to discuss this edit. It states it is reverting some changes that were deemed Vandalism, and the User was warned not to do it anymore. Vandalism is defined by wikipedia to be:

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles."


"Even if misguided or ill-considered, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, although reinserting it despite multiple warnings can be disruptive, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article is not vandalism."

This edit added information to the article. The original article stated only that "a user" was banned, the edit helped to identify the user in question and put the banning into context. This seems like the very definition of a good-faith effort to improve the wiki. If the edit was incorrect from a factual point of view, that is a completely different reason to remove it. As a result, I'm going to revert the change which obviously does not meet Wikipedia's definition of Vandalism.

Thanks. Bridger15 (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Claiming that a particular person was banned in connection with posts that were "excessively hostile to individual members" is inappropriate without a clear and reliable source, under WP:BLP. In fact, without a reliable source, we shouldn't be reporting "controversies" on a subject at all, let alone levelling anonymous accusations of "censorship" - it's unclear whether this is a major issue in BGG's history, or a minor forum scuffle that some users were disappointed by. In the absence of any mainstream media coverage of this issue, I'm going to go ahead and cut the paragraph under WP:RS.
I agree that "vandalism" wasn't a very clear explanation here, though. --McGeddon (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. AldaronT/C 19:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Controversy section[edit]

All this says is, "some people like the moderation, and some people don't". Is the relatively mundane internal politics of a website really relevant enough to be included in its article? SWReeds (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it (again). I understand the motivation though: the site is very badly (really incompetently) moderated, but there's really no easily cited evidence that meets Wikipedia standards, so I don't think we can say much in the article. You're right that it's pretty mundane internal politics (what a shock: another Internet site filled with crap), but I do think it's a shock to people coming to the site for the first time just how poorly moderated it is. AldaronT/C 18:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)