Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Games/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Contents of an article

OK, let's get this going. What should be in an encyclopedia article about a game? In my opinion, the article at Checkers is a good model to start the discussion with. It gives the game's history, basic description, rules overview, major championships, variations, and a short list of famous checkers players.

Just as important is what should not be included in an article about a game. An article should not be promoting the game. Additionally, an extenstive strategy guide doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Both issues can be seen at Settlers of Catan. Some of the information there is alright, but overall the page seems like it came out of the developer's marketing department.

Any other thoughts? Gentgeen 08:35, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why the full rules of a game should not be included in an article. Checkers benefits from a simple set of rules, fairly typical for a massively popular, centuries-old game, but certainly not typical of the mass of games currently on the market. "Promotional" information on obtaining the game commercially may also be included, but strictly in the external-links section. I do agree with you that strategy guides don't belong here. (They do, however, belong at Wikibooks.) -Smack 20:20, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Look at the article for Axis and Allies. While the article could use some rules examples and overviews, a complete set of rules would overwhelm the article, as the rules are 32 8-1/2" X 11" pages long. Additionally, the rules given in the checkers article are just the basic playing rules. The American Checker Federation has many more rules for tournament play that are not stated in the article, such as time limits, how to choose who starts first, the specific rules about crowing a piece, the rules for a draw, ect. While knowing these rules is important for actually playing the game competitively, they are not needed to gain an understanding of the game, which is what an encyclopedia article should be attempting to provide.

I've asked the question about putting strategy guides over at Wikibooks:Staff lounge, so hopefully we'll get some encouragement from there soon. They already have a book for Computer Game Walkthroughs, which I think would just be a section in the strategy guide section of the bookshelf. Gentgeen 23:06, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(Responses on copyrightability moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Games#Copyright.

I guess it would be reasonable to keep only a pared-down copy of the rules, and move Stardust's text to Wikibooks. They do seem to overwhelm the article in minutiae. -Smack 19:45, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Strategy guides shouldn't be included, but a discussion of strategy is almost intrinsic to a discussion of gameplay, especially in games where specific strategies or types of strategies are both common and distinctive from one another.--Sean 01:35, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Rules for some simple games, sure, but complex games, for instance D&D, are multiple long books, and a copyright-free rewrite would be a huge undertaking, even for wikibooks. The encyclopedia is supposed to be about things, not the things themselves, and in a sense the rules are the game. Stan 07:42, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think it is great to look at articles on games with an eye to missing information that most people would want to know about a game. Also I'm in favor of some level of uniformity, like the infoboxes, which allow people to draw superficial comparisons, and find standard factoids in standard places. These are constructive aims of this Wikiproject. What strikes me as weirder and less constructive is the urge to move strategy articles from Wikipedia to Wikibooks. It would be one thing to say, "Let's collect all extant information about how to play chess well, refactor it, re-organize it, outline needs for further information, systematically expand the text, and make it a vibrant, growing wikibook, a bona fide course on how to play chess." But who is volunteering to head up that undertaking? Who has this vision? Without such leadership, the tendency becomes cheap and negative: "We don't think strategy guides are encyclopedic, so let's just cut them out and dump them in Wikibooks."

I'm a contributor to a few Wikipedia articles on gaming strategy. I see my efforts as scattered articles; I don't think any gaming guide on Wikipedia very book-like so far. If I wanted to write a coherent book, with sections and chapters intimately built on one another, I would start a wikibook. Someday I may use the articles I have written or contributed to as a springboard for a wikibook. But when someone who hasn't contributed to the past of an article and doesn't have a vision for its future as a book just wants to move it from here to there, I find myself bemused. I suggest we think less about definitions of what is encyclopedic or not, and think more about how information gets written down, expanded, corrected, and otherwise contributed to. When deciding where some information "belongs", think about who is going to make the chapter/book paradigm work. If it isn't you, please be extra polite in making suggestions to the people actually doing the writing. Zealousness in putting everything in its correct place won't necessarily inspire zeal amoung contributors to that information. On the contrary, it could alienate some contributors.

Here's hoping that the next person who says that the chess strategy and tactics information belongs in Wikibooks actually creates a book outline, and actually wants to lead the book-writing project. --Fritzlein 22:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Copyright

(Thread began in response to Gentgeen 23:06, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC))

Aren't the rules to Axis and Allies copyrighted, anyway? Anthony DiPierro 08:08, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes and no. Definatly any examples, clairifications, and illustrations in a game's rule set are subject to copyright, but I take it (IANAL) that the actual rules themselves are considered a procedure, and thus not subject to copyright. There was a long discussion about game copyright at Talk:Settlers of Catan, though I'm not sure if I buy all the arguments. However, in my experiance procedures can be patented (IANAL, but I am a scientist, and have been involved in filing U.S. patents for scientific procedures) so they still might have intelectual property protection. Gentgeen 08:26, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Apparently (IANAL either), under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, game rules cannot be copyrighted according to Wizards of the Coast - Q: Can game rules be copyright?. One problem though is that in many modern games, the distinction between rules and other (copyrightable) content can be nebulous. As Gentgreen said, they can be patented, for example Wizards of the Coast's patent on "Trading card game method of play". --Mrwojo 17:20, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• As I understand it, the wording of the rules is copyrighted, but the actual mechanics cannot. So, assuming there are no patents on Axis and Allies, nothing prevents someone from making a game that plays identically, so long as they reword and reillustrate everything. - Kevin Saff 21:25, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Infobox (gamebox)

Should we have a template for an infobox for game articles, similar to what is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles? Many projects have them, as you can see from Wikipedia:Infobox. Gentgeen 07:46, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea to me. We'd need someone knowledgeable to come up with the categories, though. --Smack 07:39, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• I don't think it's possible to draw up a taxobox that would be very informative for all games. Either it would have too generic information, like approximate year and location of origin, or too specific. Within certain families, like mancala, this might be useful, but in general, I don't think so. Even families of games resist heirarchical organization. Kevin Saff 21:25, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Take a look at Don't Break the Ice (game). I've put a simple taxobox up there. Here's what I was thinking for the info fields (some inspired by Game classification). Feedback is appreciated. Maybe we can make a subpage of this Talk to showcase ideas? -- Netoholic 01:54, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

done. Suggestions moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Games/Infobox. --Smack 19:43, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

{{SampleWikiProject}}

Settlers of Catan

I've included the infobox in the article and moved a picture of Mr. Teuber down a bit, but I could remember the age from which the game can be played. Would someone please fill it in and check my other infobox entries? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 09:24, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Magic:The Gathering

Know nearly nothing about this game, but it should include an infobox. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 09:39, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Improvement Drive

The articles Game and Mario are currently nominated to be improved by Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. You can vote for these articles if you are interested in contributing to their improvment.--Fenice 13:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

To-do list

Shouldn't this WikiProject have a to-do list? --Alex Nisnevich (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Any suggestion for what needs to be done? There was some discussion and activity lately over at WP:WSS as to creation and sorting of games stub sub-categories, but that may be largely done for now (aside from the huge numbers of unsorted CVG-stubs). Alai 20:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)-

Policy on game rules

Are there any copyright issues in adding the rules of a game to an article? Someone's just added the full rules of Hive to Wikipedia, almost to the point where an industrious reader could make and play the game from scratch. They appear to have been written in an original voice, the game's packaged rules being notoriously confusing, but is this still a copyright violation? --McGeddon 02:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Project Directory

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 21:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Wikipedia Day Awards

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 16:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use template

Back in December I proposed a merger for three fair use templates, Template:Game-cover, Template:Boardgamecover, and Template:RPG-artwork. I made an effort to publicise the merge on the villiage pump and various places that deal with fair use templates. After a lot of support on tfd and a lack of opposition elsewhere I attempted the merge on January 15. Post-merge I've had two objections, one of which said that I "should have brought up the merge with the various projects that manage those covers" (which I thought I was doing when I informed WikiProject Fair use). The merge has been reverted by the person who said I should have brought up the merge in more places. So here we go... IF ANYONE FROM THIS PROJECT CARES ABOUT THIS MERGE PLEASE VISIT Template_talk:Game-cover#Merge AND JOIN IN DISCUSSION THERE. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Template for talk pages?

Have you guys got a template to add to the talk pages of game articles? I think those things usually have options for rating each article by quality and importance. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is now a template for talk pages and this {{WikiProject Games}} is it. Also there is this template {{User WPGames}} for user pages.--Devin Murphy 00:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Variations

In the structure section, there's a suggestion to list "variants" of the game. As seen in a previous version of Connect Four, this can lead to an endless and ugly list of everyone's favorite house-rules. Would anyone case to recommend a general guideline for notability of variants? Charles (Kznf) 23:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

Resolved

Dan Harris (speedcuber) (via WP:PROD on 1 October 2007) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Toys project proposal

There is now a separate project proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Toys for all toys. Several of the things which are generally thought to qualify as toys, like Barbie, other dolls, action figures and the like, do not actively have any degree of focused attention to them. This project would seek to provide such attention. Any interested parties are encouraged to indicate their support there. Thank you. John Carter 21:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Notice of List articles

Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).

• List of basic game topics

This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 18:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Duel Master

Resolved

Duel Master (via WP:PROD on 6 November 2007) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Article for deletion: Mark Gottlieb

Resolved

Mark Gottlieb at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Gottlieb (2nd nomination) (10 November 2007 – 16 November 2007) Delete

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Fingerboard AfD

Hi, this article has rewritten, please consider revisiting the AfD discussion to see if your comments have been addressed. Benjiboi 23:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3