Talk:Pirates Constructible Strategy Game

Merge Proposal:

• Pirates of the Crimson Coast, Pirates of the Revolution, Pirates at Ocean's Edge, and Pirates of the Caribbean PocketModels, all into Pirates Constructible Strategy Game

Since the pages detailing other expansions have since decided to not be notable enough, I propose a merger so that all information on each expansion is properly organized and in the right locations. Capn chris89 (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I think we should do a reasonable search for sources before a merge is conducted. BOZ (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay. It shouldn't be that hard to find additional sources for the articles in question. Capn chris89 (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Added sources from reputable news sites and from the company's main page where I could. Unfortunately info can be scarce but I've done my best. Capn chris89 (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• Cmnt: I think a discussion about these expansion sets would be better served at AfD: none have sourcing, no in-lines found, and little if any notability on their own. If they aren't merged soon, I think they'll be gone pretty quick. GenQuest ^"scribble" 18:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Fancruft

Hi, A7XfanBen (talk · contribs), the "incredible" information you restored is almost entirely unsourced. This is a violation of Wikipedia's verifiability policy, which requires other users to be able to check that information is true using sources provided. Furthermore, and more critically for this article, the information in question is fancruft, unlikely to be covered in secondary sources, and excessively detailed with no clear encyclopedic value. Jdcooper (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• A7XfanBen (talk · contribs), you said: "This page has been a gold mine of valuable information for players and collectors for years." In that case, you should put this information on a separate website. It is not encyclopedic detail. The "source" you added is highly unreliable (user-generated, non-independent, primary). Also, please respond to these issues here rather than reverting without comment, per WP:BRD. Jdcooper (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  I have already made my case. The page has been a go-to source of information for anyone interested in the game for many years. Deleting the information sourced through hard work of the community is a slap in the face to what they've done.

  The company that made the game has long since moved on from it, and they do not maintain official records of the information at their website. Thus, it has been up to the passionate community that loves the game to keep the information current and available.

  Just because there is not an "official source" for all the information doesn't mean it's not true. A7XfanBen (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  • But that's not what Wikipedia is for. If there is a passionate community that wants to compile knowledge about the game, there are a million more appropriate places to do that than Wikipedia. And no, lack of sources doesn't mean it's not true, but it does mean the information fails Wikipedia's verifiability policy, so can't stay on this site. Jdcooper (talk) 12:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)