Template:Did you know nominations/Midgard (game)
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Midgard (game)
... that the medieval fantasy play-by-mail game Midgard allows battles in size from 200 to over 200,000 troops? Source: Wright, B. E. (March–April 1996). "Midgard". Paper Mayhem. No. 77. p. 24.
5x expanded by Airborne84 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC).
New enough and large enough expansion. Interesting hook, especially given that I had no idea there *were* play-by-mail. AGF on almost entirely offline sourcing. One question, @Airborne84: Is "Midguard" in the quote in the second-to-last paragraph an error in the quote itself (which should get a [sic] added to it)? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Greatly appreciate the review Sammi Brie! Yes, I think play-by-mail games might always be around at some level, even if the ones still around are mostly played by email nowadays, or even web-based (a version of turn-based gaming). I added the [sic]. I've seen that alternate spelling in a couple of cases, but I think it's just a misspelling since the publisher(s) haven't used it, so a sic is more appropriate than an alternate name in the lead. Thanks again! Airborne84 (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Airborne84 and Sammi Brie: this isn't, like, set in stone, but there's a rough consensus that WP:DYKSG#C6 applies to thematic gameplay in addition to narrative storytelling. Is there an out-of-gameplay hook to be ran? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Theleekycauldron thanks for the note. Even if it said something like "allows players to simulate battles in size from"? That involves the real world, although was implied, so you're saying there's a consensus that is insufficient? If so, I can look around for the next week or so, although it might take a bit. It's possible I might have to withdraw another play-by-mail nomination due to time and challenges with the hook as well. I think these are my last two for some time. But I will look if this is not allowed. Airborne84 (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Airborne84: I'm leaning towards no, since that would be akin to a movie hook reading
in <Movie>, viewers watch as <character a> does <fantastical thing>...
I mean, it's not exactly the same, but the spirit is similar. What I will say is that while this is my interpretation of the rule, I don't necessarily agree with the rule, so I would be 100 percent behind you if you went to WT:DYK and looked for a consensus the other way on gameplay/an IAR exemption for your hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC) 
returning this to DYKN for now theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Airborne84: I'm leaning towards no, since that would be akin to a movie hook reading
- Theleekycauldron thanks for the note. Even if it said something like "allows players to simulate battles in size from"? That involves the real world, although was implied, so you're saying there's a consensus that is insufficient? If so, I can look around for the next week or so, although it might take a bit. It's possible I might have to withdraw another play-by-mail nomination due to time and challenges with the hook as well. I think these are my last two for some time. But I will look if this is not allowed. Airborne84 (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Airborne84 and Sammi Brie: this isn't, like, set in stone, but there's a rough consensus that WP:DYKSG#C6 applies to thematic gameplay in addition to narrative storytelling. Is there an out-of-gameplay hook to be ran? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Greatly appreciate the review Sammi Brie! Yes, I think play-by-mail games might always be around at some level, even if the ones still around are mostly played by email nowadays, or even web-based (a version of turn-based gaming). I added the [sic]. I've seen that alternate spelling in a couple of cases, but I think it's just a misspelling since the publisher(s) haven't used it, so a sic is more appropriate than an alternate name in the lead. Thanks again! Airborne84 (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Per a discussion at WT:DYK, Valereee proposed a new hook, which I am copying below:
- ALT2 ... that a reviewer withheld top marks for play-by-mail game Midgard because of negative experiences with a gamemaster?
- Given the discussion at WT:DYK along with how ALT2 meets guidelines (sourced inline to an offline source) and how there seems to be loose consensus to move away from "size-of-the-number-of-players" hooks about play-by-mail games, ALT2 is now approved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Although for the record, I'd hold off on promotion until the nominator indicates their approval of the hook as well. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Would want to add "in 1996" as a caveat if used to note the period since the game is still active. However, I'd like to look around a bit more first to see if I can generate a different hook if that's OK. Thanks!! Airborne84 (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- As an alternative, I propose ALT3:
- ALT3 ... that a gamemaster in the play-by-mail game Midgard once provided a player with a siege report comprising four pages of maps and eight pages of typed text as part of a turn result? Airborne84 (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Pretty good! I think we could make it a little punchier:
- ALT3a: ... that a turn result in the play-by-mail game Midgard might span twelve pages?
- Although, when you put it that way, it does seem like we're just talking about the rules again, so:
- ALT3b: ... that a gamemaster in the play-by-mail game Midgard once provided a player with a turn result that spanned twelve pages?
- Hmm. thoughts? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- I do like concise theleekycauldron. ALT3b is pretty good. It omits some nuances, but I think in the end it's fine. The nuances are that the overall turn result the siege report was within was probably much longer (but the source doesn't say how long the turn report was). The other nuance is that a few PBM players probably know that the extinct PBM game Empyrean Challenge had turn results which could be 1,000 pages long. There's a photo here that I uploaded to show that. But that was computer generated. What was interesting about the eight text pages from Midgard is that the gamemaster typed it out personally. (Who does that?) Anyway, most people wouldn't know about the Empyrean Challenge thing, and I concur it's tough to capture the human nuance here concisely, so I'm fine with ALT3b or maybe adding "more than" before twelve pages. Airborne84 (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- As an alternative, I propose ALT3:
- Would want to add "in 1996" as a caveat if used to note the period since the game is still active. However, I'd like to look around a bit more first to see if I can generate a different hook if that's OK. Thanks!! Airborne84 (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Although for the record, I'd hold off on promotion until the nominator indicates their approval of the hook as well. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Personally I think one required link to provide context is sufficient. Once we need two, it's too much. Readers who aren't familiar with the subject are pushed away. Gamemaster + turn result is too much. Oh, and "turn result" is also in a section in which that term isn't even really highlighted? No. valereee (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Personally I still think ALT2 is the better hook. ALT3 and its variants seem to be too focused on the gameplay aspect of the game and thus feel more niche to me, whereas ALT2 has somewhat broader appeal and don't need an appreciation of games to like. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- OK. I only hesitated with ALT2 because I have no idea if the people who still run the game are a (very) small business like some other PBM companies still around today. On the other hand, as the saying goes, any publicity is good publicity, I suppose. If agreeable, perhaps we could caveat ALT2 by noting that the reviewer's comment was in the past as below?
- ALT2a... that a 1996 review withheld top marks for play-by-mail game Midgard because of negative experiences with a gamemaster?
- ALT2b... that a reviewer once withheld top marks for play-by-mail game Midgard because of negative experiences with a gamemaster?
- Thanks! Airborne84 (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Okay. Is everyone else fine with ALT2a/ALT2b? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- good by me! i'd prefer ALT2a, but promoter's pick. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, ALT2a/b are approved, final choice is left to the promoter. Just to clarify: none of the ALT3 variants are approved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5, apologies, but I'd like to make a minor change. I checked the source one more time and, although the reviewer described his story with the gamemaster for eight paragraphs over two pages, he eventually characterized it as a single negative experience, not plural. I adjusted the ALTs to the singular to match.
- ALT2a(1)... that a 1996 review withheld top marks for play-by-mail game Midgard because of a negative experience with a gamemaster?
- ALT2b(2)... that a reviewer once withheld top marks for play-by-mail game Midgard because of a negative experience with a gamemaster?
- Sorry for the mixup. Just want to be accurate. Airborne84 (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5, apologies, but I'd like to make a minor change. I checked the source one more time and, although the reviewer described his story with the gamemaster for eight paragraphs over two pages, he eventually characterized it as a single negative experience, not plural. I adjusted the ALTs to the singular to match.
- good by me! i'd prefer ALT2a, but promoter's pick. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- OK. I only hesitated with ALT2 because I have no idea if the people who still run the game are a (very) small business like some other PBM companies still around today. On the other hand, as the saying goes, any publicity is good publicity, I suppose. If agreeable, perhaps we could caveat ALT2 by noting that the reviewer's comment was in the past as below?
