# Talk:Lords of the Earth

The original version of this article was deleted in 2020 for "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" - if any remnants of such can be excised from this version, I will happily move to article space  :) BOZ (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it's good to publish now BOZ. Airborne84 (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Wow, awesome!  :) BOZ (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The 'Play-by-mail genre' section seems excessively long and detailed to me. That's a history of the entire genre, not information specific to this game. It's material that should be on the article play-by-mail game, not here. While a brief bit of introduction - maybe one paragraph - would be appropriate, it's currently about half of the article. I recommend heavily cutting down that section, to give only the context necessary to understand Lords of the Earth, not the entire genre. Modest Genius talk 12:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Modest Genius. This was addressed in the GA nomination above. Appreciate your interest. Airborne84 (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, the only mention in the GA nom was to do with name-checking in that section, no discussion of whether the section itself is necessary or excessive. Besides, a GA review is the opinion of a single reviewer. I think there's far too much WP:OFFTOPIC material discussing the genre, when this is supposed to be an article about one game. Modest Genius talk 11:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Modest Genius. It's the same section. The reviewer stated that the section you are noting "feels excessively long in proportion to the article to me". I addressed that specifically in my response, outside of the name-checking comment. In short, that section is FA quality to address the FA criterion of putting the article into context. The rest of the article is GA quality. As I noted, I'd prefer the rest of the article be brought to FA quality standards rather than reducing that section to the article's current GA standard. Airborne84 (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
OK I see it now. I'm disturbed by your response there that 'this section passed FA review as part of Hyborian War', which is a very poor justification. Unnecessary duplication of material among multiple articles is unhelpful to readers and imbalances the content. We have a separate article on play by mail games for a reason - the same information shouldn't appear on every article about games in that genre. We don't explain the concept of film or music genres in every article about specific works. The issue isn't whether the material is high quality (it is), it's whether it's appropriate to have an article about Lords of the Earth that spends half its length talking about a different topic (it isn't). Your future plans for the article aren't really relevant (the problem is present now), and even if it was expanded so the proportion of background was lower, 700 words would still be excessive. Modest Genius talk 12:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate your input. There appear to be differing opinions on this. You propose that it's unneeded context. But when I put the Hyborian War article through the FA process, the editors there wouldn't let it pass until I added these sections. When I noted that I had expanded the play-by-mail article and linked to it in the Hyborian War article to provide that context, they indicated that summarizing the information in the WP:FA nomination was preferred. So, I did it. I can understand either side of the position.
I don't agree that only the Hyborian War article should have context. I think serves readers well. And I typically customize the sections somewhat for each article.
The problem can also be described in multiple ways. You are describing a problem where the FA-quality material here is too lengthy related to the rest of the article. I would describe the problem as a need for editors to improve the GA-quality material, just as any article that is a work in progress. Again, thank you for your interest and input. I do appreciate it. Airborne84 (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

This article was first Begun in the BC/AD WP:ERA format. In addition, the game itself uses the BC/AD format. Russ3Z (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

It does seem reasonable to continue using those. BOZ (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Please review WP:BRD for guidelines on how to handle this. You edited, I reverted with explanation, and now we discuss if you disagree. Reverting starts an edit war.
See also MOS:STYLEVAR for why your actions are an issue here.
I disagree with changing to AD/BC. I wrote most of this article and chose BC/BCE. I don't own the article, but neither does the editor who started it. And the fact that the rules use BC/AD does not impose a constraint on those writing about it. Airborne84 (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Wow, even posted a veiled threat on my talk page of having me edit-blocked over this? I honestly thought this was a simple, reasonable change on my part. Your own link to MOS:STYLEVAR indicates "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." Given that the article was begun with BC/AD (via a quote from the introduction of the game's own Basic Rulebook, no less), and BC/AD is also used in the sources of your own bibliography section, I fail to see what your "substantial reason" could have been.
Regardless, I'm not looking to be involved in some silly "edit war", so do as you wish with this page and please leave me out of any future discussions. Russ3Z (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)