Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Board and table games (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the quality scale.
 

Naming convention suggestion[edit]

I don't know if you've discussed this before elsewhere, but, I've seen a variety of styles for naming games. I'd like to recommend the adoption of David Parlett's system as easy, rational, consistent, and explanatory:

Proprietary games, like Monopoly, Diplomacy, etc., are customarily spelt with a capital initial, and traditional games, such as Chess and Draughts, with a miniscule. In this book, however, I follow my usual practice of capitalizing all game names regardless of their status. ... Capitals have the advantage of simplifying questionable cases like Ludo and Snakes & Ladders, which in course of time have passed from 'trade' to 'trad'. They also obviate the sort of confusion exemplified by the difference between Losing Chess, which is a game, and losing chess, which is a disgrace. The practice need not, however, apply to derivatives. Thus a chessboard and chessmen do not need capitals, as both can be used for playing games other than Chess, and are therefore generic rather than specific. I also use '&' for 'and' in such games as Snakes & Ladders, Hare & Tortoise, etc., in order to prevent one game from reading like two, especially in a list.[1]

Thus,

  • Monopoly, not "Monopoly", Monopoly, or of course monopoly, but also
  • Chess, not chess. Furthermore,
  • One plays the game Checkers, while (quite ahistorically) Backgammon is often said to be played with checkers. The pattern can hold true for all games, so that
  • One might form a pool if betting on Pool. And finally,
  • Snakes & Ladders, rather than Snakes and Ladders.

References

  1. ^ Parlett 1999, p xiv.

Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Not the common practice in the vast majority of sources. Games like chess, checkers and such are not capitalized in English. Regarldless of what one author trying to make all games seem special wishes to do. oknazevad (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Race for the Galaxy[edit]

I edited this game's page a bunch so it's more helpful. Still some cleanup that could be done but I think the content is pretty good now. Is it still C-class, you think? I'm interested to hear what you think. Ungulates (talk) 07:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ungulates: Thanks a lot for all that work! It may indeed be useful to further compress the gameplay section so that it fully satisfies the Gameplay Guidelines. Another idea would be to compress the Expansions section to a more general overview of the expansions for the game. I understand full well that the information that is currently there may be important to fans like us, but Wikipedia's focus is much more global. For this reason, it would be better to only include explanations that mean something to a general reader who has never played the game.
E.g., "The set further extends takeover options: the Interstellar Casus Belli development can allow attacks against anyone, and the Imperium Planet Buster can destroy enemy worlds outright" could be rewritten as "adds more options for mechanics introduced in the previous expansion". When rewriting the section in this way, you will notice that the different expansions will probably no longer warrant separate subsections. Instead, there could be a general text that describes the direction the expansions took. Such a view is more encyclopaedic and is relevant for any game expansions: some merely add more of the same, while others introduce unexpected twists and new mechanics (e.g., the Dutch deck in Agricola vs. Catan's Cities & Knights).
I hope these suggestions will be helpful. And again, thanks for taking time to improve wiki's take on board games. JudgeGregg (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Castles of Burgundy[edit]

I have just written a gameplay section for Castles of Burgundy. I'd greatly appreciate any comments/edits. I'm mindful that I may have gone too in depth, stepped on some copyright or been unclear. Let me know Shayday~enwiki (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Shayday~enwiki: Please see my comment for Twilight Struggle below. I've also recently updated the project's Gameplay Guidelines to include this information. Thanks for your help and enthusiasm for both Wikipedia and board games! JudgeGregg (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Twilight Struggle[edit]

There was a note on the article that the Gameplay section was too long/overly detailed. I have rewritten it but it is still reasonably lengthy. I would appreciate if anyone could take a look. I'd welcome any comments/edits. But if it is alright, is there a case to be made for removing the note? Shayday~enwiki (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Shayday~enwiki: Hey there! Thanks a lot for the contribution. I'm afraid though that the result is still pretty far from what is prescribed in the wiki guidelines: please take a look at WP:GAMEGUIDE. It talks about videogames, but what it says is also very relevant for board games. What is important in a gameplay section is to highlight the defining features of the game — without going deep into a list of possible actions and turn-by-turn options. The Agricola page for example has a fairly decent amount of information in the gameplay description. It describes the main idea, the goals, and the main restrictions that make the game so fun to play. It also includes several sources. I know it's very painful to cut down your own work, but I'd suggest rewriting Twilight Struggle's Gameplay in a similar fashion. In fact, this project's page could use a style guide for such sections so that future editors don't fall into the same trap. And thanks again for taking time to improve that article! Personally, I love Twilight Struggle. JudgeGregg (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll give it a go. Unfortunately, if you don't cut the section back enough, if becomes a bit of a Christmas tree. More and more gets added to it until it's back to where it was before. Shayday~enwiki (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Shayday~enwiki: Great! I agree, this is definitely an issue for popular games. I hope to gather some new forces around this project to help maintain balance. (Btw, did you know that you can use {{replyto}} or {{yo}} to notify other users about your comments on talk pages? Another handy trick is that you can use ":" in the beginning of paragraphs for indentation, this helps structure comments in an easily readable way.) JudgeGregg (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately a quick glance at the edit summary reveals that JudgeGregg has just expanded those Gameplay guidelines considerably to reflect his own somewhat questionable interpretations and preferences.
You need to ask yourself what you are seeking to achieve here - are you looking to share knowledge, or just to invent policies and guidelines in order to enjoy enforcing them, even if that means throwing away material which has been stable for years. In "serious" articles, when people want to start deleting stuff (unless it is complete crap) it's usually in my experience almost always ignorance on the part of the person who "doesn't see why that's important", and lately I've even see a few deplorable cases of obviously spiteful hacking at an article by somebody resentful that a better-informed editor got there first and took the article beyond the point where he can contribute meaningfully towards it. I sincerely hope that's not the case here. Twilight Struggle is a (relatively) complex game compared to draughts and it has (relatively) unusual game mechanics compared to other wargames. Clearly it would not be appropriate to list every single card or the point value of every single space on the map, but that doesn't mean than it is necessarily inappropriate to "highlight the defining features of the game" in greater detail than you would, say, a game like Agricola.
The other issue is what people are actually going to come looking for - in this case a heads-up about what a non-trivial game is actually about. Chess, draughts, poker, backgammon and Go all have entire families of lengthy articles devoted to them, in every case tipping well over the line into being an "instruction manual". I presume those articles are looked after by small groups of enthusiasts and if somebody were to start lecturing them that it is "fancrud" or "an instruction manual" or whatever they would be told to sod off. Quite right too, as they look like decent work and must be very useful to a lot of people.
Describing the contents of game rules is not "Original Research", as JudgeGregg claimed in his recent changes to the policies. Writing about game strategies, unless they are blindingly obvious inferences from the rules, or listed in the Designer's Notes or a published secondary source, is OR. The purpose of the rule against Original Research is to stop people posting "facts" which cannot be verified or their own misunderstandings or crackpot theories in "serious" articles. Describing the rules or course of play of a game is no more "Original Research" than outlining the plot summary of a film - the source from which the information can be verified is blatantly obvious, so it does not need to be cited to what secondary sources.Paulturtle (talk) 05:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The Gameplay is now too long and wandering, with too many bulleted lists. Take a look at Grand Theft Auto V or Dishonored for how to handle a gameplay section. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Pascal Stil[edit]

I am wondering if someone from this WikiProject is familiar with Pascal Stil and can help assess whether he is notable enough for an article.I did a quick Google search and was not able to find anything that represents significant coverage, but I am not familiar with what types of sources are typically used to establish notability for those who play draughts professionally. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey @Marchjuly:! An article about this Irish gentleman would fall under the category of Biographies of Living People. Such articles require even stricter compliance with the Notability Guidelines and other wikipedia policies. You would need neutral verifiable secondary sources to write it. Unfortunately, I don't see any press coverage for him, nor does Google Books yield any results for that name in combination with "draughts". It seems unlikely that an article about mr. Stil would satisfy the relevant wiki policies. Hope this helps. JudgeGregg (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback JudgeGregg. I reached a similar conclusion a little while back and the article was dicussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pascal Stil and the result was to move it back to the draft namespace. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

This project is a ghost town, but we can change this (who's in?)[edit]

Hello everyone!

It's 2016 and board games are increasingly becoming mainstream. Settlers of Catan has become a staple for any book retailer,[1] game shops and game cafes proliferate in the cities of the West,[2][3][4][5] Ars Technica launches a separate board games section with weekly updates[6]. Games are everywhere. Yet the majority of board games are represented on Wikipedia by 20,000-word-long manual-like monsters that list game components and wallow in lengthy OR ruminations on the subject of rules and gameplay. These articles have been created and filled with content by well-meaning people who lacked access to proper guidelines. We could blame this project's page that's completely unusable and full of obsolete sections and lists, but I think that we should instead get together and revive (m.b. overwrite) the whole thing.

I'm willing to dedicate a sizeable portion of my time to this task, but I'd also like to see if anyone is willing to join. I see that a lot of people added themselves to the list of members since I've signed up, but this place doesn't really feel like an active community. We come, we make a couple of edits to our favorite pages, then we go. I've just archived dead threads from this talk page, and almost none of them received any comments at all.

Here's what I suggest we do:

  • Rewrite the project page so that it becomes a useful hub for maintaining the quality of game-related articles.
  • Come up with a new set of goals for the project (e.g., many games that appeared in the last 20 years have become household names — IMHO they deserve to be the first in line for high-quality articles; not in the least because they are now well-referenced in the press and game-related special literature; other ideas, anyone?).
  • Re-evaluate the list of articles by class/quality (e.g., the Munchkin page has been long listed as A-class while being full of unsourced cruft, it's A-class days long gone)
  • Ping, bring back, or find new active editors interested in making game-related articles the pride of present-day Wikipedia.

So who's in for some renovating? JudgeGregg (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Edited the Project's todo widget to include a list of notable BGG top 20 games that either don't have articles or have issues with their articles (most are suffering from extensive OR and cruft, list game components, etc.). JudgeGregg (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Or rather I thought I did. The widget still appears blank, although editing shows correct data...JudgeGregg (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
No idea why this doesn't show up there: UPD: It did get updated after a while. JudgeGregg (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
JudgeGregg (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Boldly edited the project page to include some of the ideas above. JudgeGregg (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

On Notability[edit]

I've been thinking about notability criteria for games lately. Exclusion criteria may be disputable, but I suppose we could easily determine at least some inclusion criteria. For example:

  • There are several major boardgame awards.
  • It could be argued that the winners of prizes like the Deutscher Spiele Preis and Spiel des Jahres (including Kennerspiel) are important Eurogames and deserve a mention on Wikipedia. These prizes have been getting more and more press coverage lately, so sources shouldn't be a problem. [7]
  • Not sure what prize is relevant for US games (probably not the Mensa list :), but Boardgamesgeek seems to be the go-to address for any journalist covering games today, so it would make sense if the 20 or even 50 highest ranked games from BGG had their articles as well.

Outside of this, we could simply follow WP:GNG (and, yes, remove a lot of games articles that lack sources). This way we'll ensure that important games are covered and project resources are not diverted to marginal games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JudgeGregg (talkcontribs) 17:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Epic Card Game[edit]

I started the article on Epic Card Game by White Wizard Games. Any suggestions for improvement? I've slowly been adding as I see new articles about the game. - Paul2520 (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Paul2520: Hey. I checked over the article. BoardGameGeek is not a reliable source, so that reference should be removed. With its removal, you have only primary sources on the article which is not good. You should try to integrate secondary sources, ones which are independent of the Epic Card Game. Without secondary sources, the article is at risk of being sent for deletion discussion. I found a few sources which I think are reliable: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. I can't guarantee they are all reliable as I don't often edit board game articles, but they appear reliable. --Odie5533 (talk) 09:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, @Odie5533:! Why is BGG an unreliable source? Thanks for the great links. I will find some time soon to try and incorporate them into the article. - Paul2520 (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
BGG is unreliable for Wikipedia because it's just random users editing it. Basically same reason you can't use Wikipedia pages as a reference. See WP:RS. BGG is, of course, a great resource for users (I love and use it regularly), but it's not a good source for Wikipedia. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Structure - What Is Notable[edit]

In the Structure section, the third bullet point conflates whether "the game is notable for its strategies" with "most noted features" and the "published strategic uses of those game features."

It seems that notable strategies is primarily a form of "player's notes" that should be handled quite separately from a game's notable features. I would suggest that the notable features are the more salient aspect as this would include not only innovations in game mechanics and physical systems design, but also content, marketing and cultural context.Wessmaniac (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Shogi substubs[edit]

Many one-line unsourced substubs about Shogi are being created. I don't think they are useful.Xx236 (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Bishop Exchange Fourth File Rook - a redirect rewritten into subsubstub.Xx236 (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)