Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Naming convention suggestion

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.

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

• Parlett, David (1999), The Oxford History of Board Games, Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-212998-8

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)

Partial support. Lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater. It is true that traditional games like chess and backgammon are usually (but not always) spelt in lower case, but most other games are spelt in title case and for the good reasons that Parlett points out: Skat is a game, a skat are the cards a player may exchange in several games; Hearts is a game, hearts is the suit; the same with Tapp and tapp; Cego and cego; Pitch and pitch; Put and put; etc, etc. That is common in most of the sources and not just Parlett. Bermicourt (talk) 08:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Race for the Galaxy

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

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

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

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?)

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)

• To Create: Caverna
• To Clean Up: Pandemic, Twilight Struggle, Star Wars: Rebellion, 7 Wonders, Puerto Rico, The Castles of Burgundy, War or the Ring, Power Grid, Eclipse, Android: Netrunner

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

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 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Epic Card Game

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

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

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)

A 'subsubstub' is conjecturally, any article of less than 14 characters, including template messages. Bishop Exchange Fourth File Rook isn't one, and by my inspection 1/28/17, is now out of the stub category. We now have an encyclopedia worth of articles on openings in western chess, so I can hardly say we ought to take some collective action with respect to the analogous articles for Shogi, substubs or not. Apparently, someone is working on them. I have my reservations about the propriety of copying tomes on Shogi, Xiangqi, chess, chaturanga, janggi, etc openings (and endgames, and combinations, and sacrifices, and innumerable other strategic and tactical maneuvers) into the encyclopedia. These are WP:GAMEGUIDE or WP:GAMETRIVIA, sometimes WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Even bare lists of them are WP:ALMANAC. It seems that almost anything is a valid page for the encyclopedia now, as long as the editor or someone can say at least a few sentences about it, and the editor or someone can cite a published reference for at least a part of it. These articles might, in the end, be properly outside our domain, and in the domain of game theory. We have dominion over the Shogi article (and at least 1000 other board game primary articles); let's focus on what we can. Sbalfour (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:GAMETRIVIA is re *video games*. WP:ALMANAC is a messed up essay (have you looked?). Re "copying tomes on [...] janggi", gosh, I've tried for years to find a book in English on the game, w/o success (so what are you talking about?!). --IHTS (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

There aren't any English books on Shogi, just as there aren't many on Go (game). The level of detail in these Shogi articles suggests someone is copying info out of a printed reference. I say "copying" loosely - I have no indication that there's a copyvio issue. This is the English Wikipedia - do these belong here? I'm not in a position to monitor these, as I don't actually play the game. Sbalfour (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Huh?! (*Loads* of English books avail on both shogi *and* Go.) Am aware Shogi has undergone vast adds recently, my nose hasn't been there so am not qualified to comment. I think your concerns are better brought up not here but at Talk:Shogi or WT:CHESS (shogi falls under WP:CHESS). --IHTS (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hex (board game) article not 'B ' class

This article was rated 'B' class before my extensive additions, referencing, and reorganization. It's still skimpy in content, has serious referencing problems and a big chunk of dubious original research (but might be able to be salvaged now that there's a book on the game to cite). In my opinion, the article is only 'C' class. Requesting a re-evaluation. Sbalfour (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Risk (game) article dice probability tables = game trivia?

In the cited article, there are 4 sizeable glitzy tables that rather swamp the article with what I consider to be game trivia, suitable for a game manual (WP:GAMEGUIDE), of interest only to competitive gamers. While they are authoritatively sourced, I just don't think that even if the article were to become FA in content, that these would be a necessary or reasonable part of it. In the GA review, two reviewers noted the same thing. Can someone corroborate that these can/should be deleted, possibly replaced with some more general statement about attack/defense dice probabilities? I think basically, him who has more troops has an advantage, while equal troops means attacker has advantage due to rolling 3 dice versus 2. That's all we really need. I don't think we need to say anything at all about Risiko!, because that version is not otherwise mentioned in the article. Sbalfour (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I've deleted the probability tables, and moved on. Waiting for the screams.Sbalfour (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Strategy related sections in strategy game articles

It may seem fatuous to suggest that high-level Strategy sections in strategy game articles are superfluous. However, I've just spent about a month considering and considerably condensing or deleting altogether, strategy sections in four game articles: Risk (game), Hex (board game), TwixT, and Stratego. In three cases, the sections were WP:UNREFERENCED and overwhelmingly likely to be WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. In the other case (Risk dice probability tables), the section was overrun with statistical minutiae suitable for a journal on probabilistic games, but not the encyclopedia. I didn't select these four games by any kind of search - they sit on my bookshelf, and I decided to take a look into the articles about them. It seems compelling, that those who can't or wish not to engage in scholarship and research for the encyclopedia, to regurgitate their personal predilections with regard to gameplay technique in wargames. I'm an expert in several of those games, having played them in sanctioned competition for decades, and can certify that much of the content was crudely elementary, or highly idiosyncratic. A proper treatise has not been written for any of those games, and we're not justified to write it into the encyclopedia just because there isn't one.

After that experience, I'm highly dubious that a strategy section for strategy games is a valuable or even plausible addition to an article on the game. Chess has a separate article Chess strategy for a game where clearly, there's a volume to speak about the topic, one expounded upon by preeminent players for hundreds of years. We have a guide to the content for strategy sections, which seems rather clear. I'd suggest that we need to add a separate description of what NOT to put in, including as examples, the things I encountered in the named articles: (Risk) computed odds, estimates, or valuations; (Hex and TwixT) diagrams of game positions or partial positions with evaluations, or detailing sequences of good or bad moves; (Stratego) describing setup configurations. There are undoubtedly more trivia or game manual type items of interest solely to competitive gamers. But these are applicable to many more games than just the four. Sbalfour (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Reliable Reference archive

I'd like to start an RS archive for WP:BTG similar to WP:VG's Reference library or WP:ANIME's Magazine archive. I had mentioned back in 2011 that I have a collection of offline magazines (Games magazine and a few others) that cover board games extensively and I would like to make those available from WP:BTG and to encourage others to add their own board/tabletop-game-related resources to the library. I just noticed that WP:BTG had created a "Resources" subpage and I thought I could add my collection of Games magazines to that either as a subsection or as its own subpage. Any thoughts? I'd love to get some input, but unless there are objections I intend to go forward with adding something to the "Resources" subpage. -Thibbs (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• I think it would also be a good idea to link to BOZ' library of Dragon reviews as well. And I have a number of one-off resources (random issue of Citadel Journal, books on various CCGs, etc.) that we could add to a "Miscellaneous" section (like this from WP:VG). Are there any other private magazines libraries or sources we could add into this proposed archive? BOZ, does this sound like a good idea? Would you be ok with listing your collection here? -Thibbs (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• Sure! I remember being asked about this before, and I remember saying it was OK to copy and paste the list... in fact, I thought someone did this already? Also, I want to say I have seen VG reviews in other tabletop game magazines, but as far as I know none of those mags had full columns dedicated to VG reviews other than Dragon. BOZ (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• OK, I see, yes, the VG project did make Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Dragon using my list. I thought I had made a list of reviews for at least D&D tabletop game reviews, but I can't seem to find a copy of that. Most of the reviews for tabletop games in Dragon were for RPGs, but I am fairly sure there were also games reviewed that would be more appropriate for the BTG project. BOZ (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
• One more thing, I do have the list of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/reviews list which should also give you an idea of what other tabletop magazine reviews are out there, and these would also have some reviews beyond RPGs as well. I certainly don't have the time to put such a list together at this time, but it is certainly a long-term goal of mine to tackle. :) BOZ (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, BOZ. Sorry I didn't have any time to follow up on this. I've just reworked the "Resources" subpage (linked above) and added an RS Archive to the end. I haven't yet had time to make an inventory of the RSes I could contribute, but I'll try to get to it soon and I will add those to the "Miscellaneous" section at the bottom. I guess I'll work on expanding this RS Archive section at a slow pace and then if it gets to the point where it is too big then we can split it into its own subpage. Thanks again for agreeing to be the contact for Dragon, etc. -Thibbs (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• • I also have access to White Dwarf and Arcane from the UK, and many issues of Space Gamer. In fact, I juuuuust started User:BOZ/The Space Gamer. :) BOZ (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

And Thibbs, in just six weeks see how much progress I have made on the Space Gamer list! And there are probably hundreds of more reviews to go... before I move on to Dragon, White Dwarf, etc! BOZ (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Wow, nice work BOZ! The kind of early RS sourcing you're doing is amazing. I know how hard that stuff can be to come by so your efforts are key to the survival of some of these articles on historic topics. Much appreciated! -Thibbs (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Glad you think so, Thibbs; I am going to put some work into User:BOZ/Ares Magazine as well. :) Might be more useful in general than TSG to the tabletop game project! BOZ (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

New Games - New Articles

I created a new article today for Scythe. Please come and contribute - it needs work, particularly in creating a gameplay section. Also, I've added a bunch of refs to the Draft: Gloomhaven and resubmitted it - please help with this as well if you have the time. It's crazy we haven't had articles for these! Nwlaw63 (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I also created an article for Near and Far and Wasteland Express Delivery Service. Please come contribute! Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

New article drafted

Hello, I recently created a draft/AfC for Draft:Legacy game, and have resubmitted it after finding a few more sources. Looking for expansion/input/etc. Thanks, _{th1rt3en.talk.contribs} 21:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move of Nine Men's Morris to Nine men's morris

There is an an open requested move to rename Nine Men's Morris and Three Men's Morris to Nine men's morris and Three men's morris. In mid-sentence all three words would be lower-cased. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Cannot edit two ten jack page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-ten-jack)

My edit is not allowed because of the suit emojis used. I am trying to add alternative scoring rules that we have been using in my family for more than 60 years.

Here are the alternative scoring rules edit:

2,10,J of Spades -10 points 2,10,J of Hearts +10 points A,K,Q of Spades -5 points A,K,Q of Hearts +5 points A,K,Q,J of Diamonds and Clubs +1 points

Total of 8 points per hand and the winning total is 100 points.

It seems all my formatting is lost as when I clicked on the link to report this error all my edits were lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timeisnotnull (talk • contribs) 00:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Michael McKenna (Scrabble player)

hi, the above player is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael McKenna (Scrabble player), thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

B-Class assessment requested

Hi, I recently submitted the tarot game article, Königrufen, for WP:DYK by expanding it from 6,000 to around 80,000 bytes in size, effectively by translating it from the 'good article' on German Wikipedia. The DYK process will run its course, but I wonder if someone here could assess it for a B-Class rating and let me know what it still lacks. Thanks. Bermicourt (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Tarock / Tarot and other European card games

Hi, I've recently joined this project, my main area of interest being card games native to German-speaking Europe. I've recently created (mainly by translation) or expanded the following articles:

Tarock/Tarot games

• Dreiertarock
• Droggn
• Hungarian Tarock

• Illustrated Tarock
• Königrufen - the leading Tarock game
• Neunzehnerrufen

• Point Tarock
• Strohmandeln
• Zwanzigerrufen

Other Central European games

• Bavarian Tarock
• Bieten
• Bohemian Schneider
• Dobbm
• Gaigel

• German Rummy
• German Schafkopf
• Kaiserspiel
• Mucken
• Officers' Skat

• Oma Skat
• Perlaggen
• Russian Schnapsen
• Schnapsen - Austria's national card game
• Tapp

• Viennese Rummy
• Watten
• Wendish Schafkopf
• Zwicker

Illustrated Tarock has also just featured on the Main Page as a WP:DYK article. In addition I've created Template:Tarot and Tarock card games and amended Template:Tarot Cards to deconflict card games from occult practices that use tarot decks, but not usually the same ones used for playing cards. Bermicourt (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Chess variants

A discussion of notability issues with articles about chess variants (including List of chess variants) is going on at Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Chess#Regarding_the_notability_of_chess_variants. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

"Winnipeg Table Hockey League" Wikipedia page

Hello WikiProject Board and table games,

I have been directed here to look for assistance. As the table game known as table hockey has grown over the years to the point where World Championships are held every 2 years, a new page has recently been created on Wikipedia called "Winnipeg Table Hockey League." Looking for assistance from the WikiProject Board and table games group to help fix the current issues found on the page and to make this page completely free of issues. One Wikipedia editor was able to assist a little when another editor came along and has decimated the article and removed a large piece of the article. Below listed are headings in the table of contents and the related content that were removed and what I believe should be re-added to this Wiki page for the reasons listed underneath each heading in bold:

1. Game

Various models of the game are used. Current models include Coleco, Super Chexx, Stiga, Munro, Carleco, Benej, Aristospel, Irwin Power Play 2, NHL Ice FX, Gretzky's Overtime, Cresta, Perma and Eagle.

Super Chexx, Stiga had citations associated with them linking them to their respective Wikipedia pages.

It is important to show the kind of equipment that is used especially when 2 of the games can be linked to other Wikipedia pages.

2. Rules

1. Players Code of Conduct 1.1. All players shall conduct themselves in a fair and sporting manner at all times. Table hockey is a sport to be played with proper consideration for fairness, ethics and respect. 2. Game Models 2.1. Various models of the game can be used. Current models include Coleco, Super Chexx, Stiga, Munro, Carleco, Benej, Aristospel, Irwin Power Play 2, NHL Ice FX, Gretzky's Overtime, Cresta, Perma and Eagle. 3. Matches 3.1 Matches last five (5) minutes. If the score is tied after (5) minutes the game will remain in a tie. 3.2. Time runs even if the puck is out of play but stops if the puck cannot be found within (5) seconds. 3.3. An audio timer should be used for all matches. 3.4. When play resumes after an interruption, both players keep all goals they scored during the interrupted match. 3.5. If any player retires during a tournament, he/she automatically loses all his/her remaining games, while the opponents add a win of 3-0 to his/her score. 3.6. During the playoff matches, in the event of a draw at the end of the five (5) minutes, there is an overtime. The overtime starts with a new faceoff at center ice. The winner is the one who scores the first goal (sudden death). 4. Faceoffs 4.1. All matches begin with a faceoff at center ice. Players of the match will determine who will drop the puck to begin the match if no referee is available. Subsequent faceoffs will have the player who was scored on dropping the puck. 4.2. If the puck falls out of play, all other faceoffs are made by dropping the puck at center ice. 4.3. Players must be sure that their opponent is ready before releasing the puck. If the faceoff is not made correctly the opponent is allowed to ask for a new faceoff. 4.4. All faceoff goals count. 4.5. If the puck is stuck in the “dead zone” behind the net where the defending player cannot reach the puck the puck shall be moved to the defending player’s defenceman of choice. 4.6. If the puck is in full rest behind the goalie and has not completely crossed the goal line, the defending player may call “faceoff” and a faceoff is made at center ice. 5. Scoring 5.1. The puck must stay in the goalie net for the goal to count. “In and outs” do not count. If the puck comes out from the goalie net the match continues without interruption. 5.2. In the case when the puck rests on the goalie rod completely behind the goal line, a goal is awarded. 5.3. A player may not “shove or tilt” the game causing the puck to move forward in order to score a goal. If that is the case a faceoff will occur with the player making the infraction dropping the puck. 6. Possession Rule 6.1. It is not permitted to retain possession of the puck without making any recognizable attempt to score a goal. This is regarded as passive play. 6.2 If a player determines that their opponent is retaining possession of the puck without making any recognizable attempt to score a goal they can say “delay of game” which means the player with the puck has (5) seconds and must make a shot on goal or a pass to the center player allowing the defender a chance to get the puck. If they do not follow this protocol a faceoff will occur at center ice with the player who made the infraction dropping the puck. 7. Interference 7.1. If a player notices that any of his/her opponent’s figures are raised up on the peg, he/she may stop playing and tap down his/her figures or ask the opponent to tap the figure back down on the peg. 7.2. Rough playing that result in shaking of the game and causing the puck to move is forbidden. 7.3. If any figure loses possession of the puck due to shaking of the game, then the puck must be returned back to this figure. 8. Interruption 8.1. If any major disturbance happens that is clearly evident to both players or makes normal play impossible for one of the players (e.g. broken gear, rod, figure or game support, lights go out, somebody/something clearly interrupts a player), the match must be immediately suspended. Any goal scored in such an instance does not count. If a minor disturbance occurs that is only evident to one player or only slightly impairs one player (e.g. rubber grip slips off rod, displaced goal cage, bent rod, slightly displaced game support), a player must suspend the game by saying “stop”, otherwise any goal scored will count. The match resumes when both players are ready again. 8.2. If a match is interrupted and significant time is lost then the lost time must be added to remaining time and the match continues. 8.3. Goals scored during an interruption do not count. 8.4. If a player had indisputable control of the puck before the interruption, the match continues with the puck in the place where it was, otherwise a new faceoff is made. 8.5. If the timer malfunctions, play must be suspended. It is then necessary to determine how much time (if any) still has to be played, so the total match length is as close to (5) minutes as possible, and to ensure that no goals scored after (5) minutes count. 9. Tiebreaker 9.1. Tie-Breaking Procedure for end of season standings - If (2) or more players are tied in percentage points, the standings of the players are determined in the following order: 1. The greater number of games won. 2. The greater number of tournaments won. 3. The greater number of points earned in games between the tied players. 4. The greater differential between goals for and against. 9.2. Tie-Breaking Procedure for end of tournament standings - If (2) or more players are tied in percentage points, the standings of the players are determined in the following order: 1. The greater number of games won. 2. The greater number of points earned in games between the tied players. 3. The greater differential between goals for and against. 10. WTHL Cup 10.1. Various tournaments are played on the WTHL Tour throughout the year. Since not all the teams play the same number of games, the champion is determined by the player who has the highest winning percentage at the end of the season.

Why is it ok to have the heading Rules on the only other Wikipedia table hockey page (ITHF table hockey) and not on the Winnipeg Table Hockey League Wikipedia page?

3. Season Structure

The Winnipeg Table Hockey League season runs from January 1 to December 31 of each calendar year. During the season, several tour dates and tournaments are scheduled throughout the year. Ties can occur during the round robin play of each tournament but sudden death overtime is used to determine a winner in the playoff rounds. Wins and ties are accumulated and each player earns a winning percentage for the season. Since not all the teams play the same number of games, the champion and winner of the WTHL Cup is determined by the player who has the highest winning percentage at the end of the season.

Why is ok to have heading Season Structure on the hockey Wikipedia page NHL and not on the Winnipeg Table Hockey League Wikipedia page?

4. WTHL League Records

The Winnipeg Table Hockey League has 10 records that it keeps track of. The list includes: Best Winning Pct., Season Best Winning Pct., Season Longest Winning Streak Longest Undefeated Streak Longest Losing Streak Longest Winless Streak Best Goals Against Avg., Season Best Goals For Avg, Season Most Goals, One Team, One Game Most Goals, Both Teams, One Game

At the end of the sentence (...keeps track of.) there was a citation linking to the Winnipeg Table Hockey League League Records page which showed pertinent information. Why is ok to have the hockey Wikipedia page (List of NHL records - individual) and not include (WTHL League Records)on the Winnipeg Table Hockey League Wikipedia page?

5. Sponsors

Budweiser is the league’s official sponsor of their annual tournament, the WTHL Challenge Cup and the WTHL Winter Classic game. Ticketmaster Custom Tickets is the league’s official sponsor of the annual WTHL Stadium Series games. Pizza Pizza is the league’s official sponsor of the annual WTHL Heritage Classic game.

Budweiser, Ticketmaster Custom Tickets and Pizza Pizza had citations associated with them linking them to their respective Wikipedia pages.

Why is it ok to have the heading Sponsors on the Wikipedia NHL page and not on the Winnipeg Table Hockey League Wikipedia page?

6. See Also

Currently under this heading there is only one item (International Table Hockey Federation (ITHF)). I believe the following should be put back as it gives the audience more of a source of information:

Canadian Table Hockey Association (CTHA) here is the link: (http://canadiantablehockeyassociation.com/) United States Table Hockey Association (USTHA) here is the link: (http://www.ustha.com/) Table Hockey, The Movie here is the link: (https://vimeo.com/160769897)

As you can see a lot of info was removed and I believe it needs to be added back to make the page more relevant.

Can anyone out there be of assistance as it would be greatly appreciated? Scapizzi (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8