Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games/Archive 1

message: One thing I'm concerned with is that, by nature of a PD game being PD, we could give a more detailed treatment compared to commercial games.  An example of this is Alquerque, an abstract checkers-like game.  Is this a good idea? kelvSYC 22:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say the WP:NOT guidelines apply equally to public-domain games; although the concern is partly one of copyvio, it's also one of quality of content.  Percy Snoodle 09:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also think it's just a matter of brevity being good style. The point of an encyclopedic article on a game (I claim) should be to give a good general idea of how it works, and of its significance (social, artistic, commercial, whatever). Exhaustive specifications are rarely necessary to achieve this, regardless of whether the game is in the public domain or not. Stellmach 17:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Guides to Public Domain games are certainly to be encouraged on WikiBooks, though. Stellmach 17:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikibooks has a no game guide policy last time I checked (in March).  They were all chucked out by executive edict from Jimbo. kelvSYC 20:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm, yeah, I can see that. It'd be nice to be able to have WikiHoyle without opening the door to a jillion WikiHaloHints, though (not that I have anything against videogames; they just seem to particularly attract half-baked articles). 66.30.205.65 21:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  So, to follow up on this I actually went and looked at the current state of WikiBooks. They do actually have some video game strategy guides, though they're certainly more prominently indexing non-digital onces in the Arts section. To me this seems to make more sense with WikiBooks' mission of building textbooks, in that non-digital games are much more the sort of thing you can actually sometimes learn to play within a curriculum. In any case, they've got strategy books on Chess, Go, Poker, Diplomacy, Reversi and such already in progress. -Stellmach 22:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, it was an executive edict, and any remaining game guides would be deleted soon.  The rationale behind it was something along the lines of the fact that not a single game has been in part of any known standard high school or university curriculum (even if games like Diplomacy or Axis and Allies were used to explain historical concepts...).  Wikibooks, however, is known to be full of bureaucratic nonsense, and hardly anything would get done there... kelvSYC 00:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are b:Chess, b:Go, and b:Backgammon wikibooks. See b:Category:Board games for more. —ptk✰fgs 01:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different treatment for PD games? 

message: This doesn't seem to exist at the moment — I assume it's forthcoming? Or should I create it? —ptk✰fgs 06:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just finished it. kelvSYC 06:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright. I've applied it to the talk pages of the tables-related articles I've been working on recently. A lot of them deal with historic games (i.e., games that haven't been played in hundreds of years), but they are relevant to the history of the category as a whole; I assume those fall under the scope of this project? —ptk✰fgs 06:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:BTGProject 

message: I just discovered that there's a Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering and added it to our list of similar projects, based on what seems like the general consensus of not asserting scope over prior WikiProjects.
There's also talk over on Talk:Collectible card game about organizing a WikiProject for that genre. I've pointed them to us until they figure out what to do. Hopefully I seemed friendly. Stellmach 18:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Collectible Card Games

message: So, it looks like at current count we've got 116 articles tagged as part of the project. Some, like Xiangqi and dice, are already excellent through no fault of our own, but a lot of them could probably use a lot of work. How to prioritize?
Offhand, I'd think of looking at a handful of the most significant traditional games, some mass-market games (some of which seem to have got surprisingly little editing attention) and some designer games (maybe recent Spiel des Jahres and Origins winners?). Maybe also about a game designer or genre? One or two articles in each category would probably be enough to start considering with just a few participants still.
Thoughts?  -Stellmach 12:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prioritization

message: I created a new project page that I'd like to see replace the existing one.  I removed some of the sections that didn't have information in them and made a lot of other cosmetic and functionality changes.  I wanted to give everyone a chance to look at it though since it's a major change. Ryanminier 15:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that major -- but we don't need the picture of Hasbro's Game of Life though.  Also, links to category pages should be like so: ::Category:Board game stubs kelvSYC 23:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Project Page 

message: The article Go (board game) is currently on featured article review, meaning it may lose its featured status if not significantly improved. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR listing of Go (board game) 

message: I've compiled a list of pages in WPBTG here. This makes it easy to use "related changes" to see list of recently edited BTG articles here. The list is not automatically updated (and I can't think of a way to do it without a bot), but I will refresh it from time to time. —ptk✰fgs 15:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BTG watchlist 

message: Hi everyone. Sudoku is currently undergoing a Featured article review. Please go here to leave comments and help us maintain its featured quality. Marskell 09:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Marskell, we deal with games here, not puzzles. (Although, obviously one might stretch the definition of game and include puzzles as single-person games.) Having said this, I am sure one can in principle construct a 2-person Sudoku game... JocK 18:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, table games based on Sudoku lagged not far behind its current burst of popularity. Stellmach 17:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. In that case the article Sudoku needs an overhaul. JocK 18:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I've seen 'em for sale (a quick search on funagain.com reveals several, including one by no less than Reiner Knizia) but I myself don't have any good references to cite (except maybe to show that they exist). -Stellmach 18:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sudoko FAR review

message: Should we use article assesments, like many other WikiProjects do? Some P. Erson 19:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the number of pages to attend to, it might help prioritize. Stellmach 14:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assesment? 

message: *In an effort to bring the Diplomacy (board game) article into line with policy and guidelines, I propose to remove the long section describing strategy and geographic limitations of each Great Power.  Several people have attempted to rewrite it to meet their own experiences, and each rewrite brings new original research with no cited sources.  Further, each rewrite brings its own oversimplifications and overgeneralizations.  This section is of no real help to understanding the game in an encyclopedic sense, it's "material of interest only to fans of the game".  If you have an opinion, please comment on the Diplomacy article's talk page.  If you want to debate the guidelines on strategy sections of game articles, please start a section here.  The draft for that topic on the project page looks like it's consistent with Wikipedia's general policies.  Barno 14:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diplomacy - Great Powers section 

message: I created a  template for linking to games on BoardGameGeek, based off .  It works the same way the MySpace one works.  For example:
::
I've only linked two games so far, feel free to link more!
Pimlottc 21:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hmm, we already have  (in addition to  and ); does this do something new? —ptk✰fgs 22:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops, I didn't see those; The few games I checked didn't use it and I only checked for permutations of Template:boardgamegeek.  Updated  and  to redirect to that one.   Pimlottc 22:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BoardGameGeek link template 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages: 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
*User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
*User:Badbilltucker/Science directory
and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory.
The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. 
It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 23:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Directory 

message: Chess is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 14:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Chess]]

message: Go, contract bridge, and chess, among others, have three fields - rules complexity, strategy depth, and random chance.  Each seems to range from Easy to Very High.  I'm kinda curious as to how these are calculated?
I ask because, in addition to being genuinely curious, I'm curious how canasta would rate.  Also, I don't suppose there exists lists of games, sorted by their strategy depth, rules complexity, etc, are there? TerraFrost 02:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could probably make such a list at BoardGameGeek; however, the existing ratings are just whatever the editor felt like adding.  I think they probably constitute original research and should be removed from the template. Percy Snoodle 09:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. I've had the same concern about the template for a while now. Some reviews provide these sorts of ratings, but rarely in that much detail, and never the same way from publication to publication. And I've yet to see an article that provided a citation for these assertions. -Stellmach 15:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  how is rules complexity and strategy depth calculated? 

message: *Based on something I noticed on another WikiProject, I thought it would be useful to add a link to the tool listing recent changes to the project page and each page which links to or from the project page.  It turns out to be the same as the "toolbox" section (left frame), "Related changes" link.  I put it first in "Resources"; is this good?  Should it have a bold italic link up at the end of the intro, instead of down near the bottom?  Barno 05:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent project-related changes 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards