Talk:Evolution (board game)

	Games portal 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.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Creation of page[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.
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.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]