Talk:List of board games

message: For what I understand, Are_You_a_Werewolf? is not a *board* game. Shouldn't it be deleted from this list?
Manuelcorrea 12:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are you a werewolf? 

message: I've noticed that Ludo appears twice in the lists; possibly other games do to. Is that OK, or is it not? In the case of Ludo, one of the listings is under the heading "Children's games", which from a systematic point of view is a silly category. I've just been around four adults who played a ludo turnament over several nights. While the rules are rather simple (though not as simple as in some far more difficult games), with four players, sometimes all just trying to win, but occasionally forming alliances to prevent one particular player from winning, it's not so trivial. Remember that whenever you have two pieces on the move (or one on the move, and a die roll of 6), you have a choice as to what to do with your die roll.--Niels Ø 08:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ludo - multiple entries 

message: Why is this on the list?  It's not a game.
Mozaic is a game. Produced in 2003 by Games Above Board. Hopuk (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mozaic? 

message: With the category system in full swing, I'm seeing some disparities between this list and the category listings...  I don't know enough about most of these games to place them in the list.  The real question is, will the category system make this list (and perhaps others like it) obsolete?
Dan 04:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This list vs. the board games (and board game stubs) categories? 

message: Both "Serenissima" and "Vernissage" linked to entirely irrelevant pages. I've deleted the links, but maybe some checking should be done to see if they really are board games. Jon Rob 14:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad links 

message: should we have another list: List of spinoff board games? Ragnaroknike 02:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: new list?

message: This page has no provision for single-player board games - such as peg solitaire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peg_solitaire  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.225.92 (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Peg Solitaire - single-player board game

message: I notice that a lot of the games listed here are red links.  Generally in articles like this that are just lists, red links are discouraged (the article should be created first then the link added).  Sometimes there are good reasons for leaving red links in so I thought I'd check to see if that's the case with this article before deleting all of them. SQGibbon (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a week so I deleted them. SQGibbon (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red links? 

message: Why is Cluedo currently listed twice, both under "Multi-player elimination games" and "Multiplayer games without elimination"? Can't be both can it? I think the confusion comes in when, per Cluedo's rules, a player makes an incorrect accusation: he cannot win the game but he still needs to continue participating in the game and showing his cards to other players making suggestions. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good timing. Looks like the duplicate was removed a few seconds before I posted this comment. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Cluedo listed twice? 

message: Should Hooop! be listed at List of abstract strategy games? I mean, it's a completely deterministic game with absolutely no random element, and players know the entire state of the game from one glance (provided they remember what cards they and their opponents have used, but this is public knowledge, as there are a limited number of cards and they are played openly, and anyway the cards are a very minor element in the game). The thing is that the article says "Two-player abstract strategy games" but Hooop! is for two to four players. JIP | Talk 20:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hooop! 

message: Shouldn't Don't Break the Ice be classified as a skill game, seeing that it is based around precision of physical motion?--96.240.11.231 (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't break the ice 

message: has been changing redlinked entries to plain text, i.e. removing just the wikilink but keeping the name in place. Before I do anything, I would want to ask the community's opinions on what to do with redlinks.
* Leave the article as it is, with the entries without articles as plain text?
* Revert Xcalleyfornia's actions, turning them back into redlinks?
* Remove the entries without articles entirely, to make the article contain only bluelinks?
JIP | Talk 08:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do with redlinks? 

message: Skip-Bo is listed in section Two-player games. I had once the game, and there are only cards, somewhat like Uno. Is there a reason why it is listed in "List of board games"? I also searched rules with Google, and found it is a card game for 2 to 6 people. The "Main article" List of abstract strategy games seems to have almost every game in the list, but somehow it does not include Skip-Bo. 109.240.219.96 (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skip-Bo? 

message: Having a list of board games is a potentially infinite list. What makes a certain game noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion? What's even the point of this list? Personally I think this should be deleted, but I'm open to hearing reasons for keeping it. Xx78900 (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this should be limited to significant games only. You can take it to WP:AFD and ping me there and we will see what happens, but I think a better solution would be just to decide on the inclusion criteria, like winning awards, or being described by reliable sources as 'significant/influential'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hasn't it been pretty hard to agree on inclusion standards for modern board games? Everyone agrees that Shogi and Monopoly should be on a list like this, but what about recent hits like Spirit Island and Root? Online resources tend to include BGG, publisher websites, and board game blogs which are less than ideal. Ungulates (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this list even encyclopedic? 

message: I don't understand the italics. Why are some games listed in italics and some are not? JIP | Talk 16:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics 

message: Two Player Board Games -> Wooper redirects to the Pokemon from Generation II.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.85.236.125 (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wooper 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: List of notable board games →  – User:I am RedoStone moved this article to "List of notable board games" without any discussion, claiming "That board game you made when you were nine years old will not be on this list". Now I feel this is unnecessary. It is already established that Wikipedia is not for things made up at school one day so it should go without saying only notable board games are included. It's not like other list articles have to especially claim they only list notable things either. JIP | Talk 20:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 26 November 2023