body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents
WikiProject iconBoard and table games Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the page attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Shortcuts

El Grande[edit]

@Piotrus: @BOZ: @Guinness323: @Mindmatrix: This is a very prominent game and a winner of the Spiel des Jahres. I've added a couple of easily accessible book refs and reviews, but IMO the (seven) references is insufficient and the reception section could still be expanded a bit. If it's possible, are there any reviews from older magazines (e.g., Pyramid (magazine), Arcane, or others listed RS per Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/Sources) you can find? Many thanks for your help! VickKiang (talk) 00:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have access to issue #148, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Games mentions that the game does get coverage there. BOZ (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No review in Rebel Times. Those may be reliable: https://polter.pl/planszowki/El-Grande-c15694 (pl:Poltergeist (polter.pl)), https://www.gamesfanatic.pl/2006/07/03/el-grande/ (Polish BGG wannabe portal, but I am not sure if this isn't just a forum/user review). In either case, the game is notable due to winning SdJ so it's not like it will be deleted. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Board Game Arena[edit]

Hello

This website has hundreds of thousands of people on it covering multiple board games and other types of tabletop games. I also feel I know next to nothing about writing board game articles. I'm surprised there is not an article about it so could I ask someone on here create an article on it as you probably have the best expertise? Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 19:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It might be notable, but yeah, someone needs to, well, write it. Unfortunately, my quick glance at sources (Google News) revelaed no SIGCOV outside a press relese. Maybe there are sources, but I don't think I feel like digging. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Difficultly north: This is a well-known website as you said, but my search found trivial mentions and routine announcements, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. However, the Vox write-up is decent, but overall we need more sources IMHO to pass WP:NWEB- can you or Piotrus find more? Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 08:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also see 1, 2, but probably not SIGCOV. VickKiang (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Games Portal[edit]

@Piotrus: @Airborne84: I'm not sure this is all right but I've updated the portals list to include a couple of GAs you worked on. I'm not really familiar with portal editing so feel free to revert. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not familiar either @VickKiang, but no issue! Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Go ahead, anyone can edit Portal. Although as someone who mainted Portal:Poland a while back, I'll note that Portals are pointless: nobody visits them, so any attempt to update them etc. is just for your own enjoyment. Check their viewership stats and think about how readers are supposed to stumble upon them... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Campaign for North Africa[edit]

This classic monster wargame appeared in the list of top read articles yesterday at number #41 with 72,845 readers – more than Billie Eilish, Prince Harry and Sex! I'm not sure why but it might be a spinoff from Morocco at the FIFA World Cup. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This Reddit post is probably the reason. Sam Walton (talk) 13:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy New Year![edit]

Hope you all are well. :) BOZ (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Curse of the Mummy's Tomb (board game)[edit]

Hi there! This article is pretty well built up already, but I was wondering if there were any more sources or reviews to improve it further. 208.47.202.254 (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear anon, I encourage you to create an account - it's easier to talk this way. Anyway, I think there may be some reviews in not-well-digitized magazines from that time. Stuff like Pyramid, etc. Hard to find/locate them :( Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reception section looks decent, but 1, 2 are unreliable (fandom wiki and site with little editorial policies?) I'll ping @Guinness323: who added the refs. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've removed the ref to an open wiki, which is obviously unreliable. Board Game Beast, while we are at it, does not appear very reliable, I guess we can at best allow citing it for reviews and facts but not for establishing notability due to indeed no evidence of having any editorial policies or reliable staff etc. It's no better than a random blog IMHO. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gorkamorka[edit]

This one could use a lot of work, it does have two reviews noted so hopefully there are more sources to improve it. 208.47.202.254 (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, I am having trouble finding anything good here, and it even had a video game. Ugh. Ping @VickKiang Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Enchanted Forest (game)[edit]

One more for now, I was looking at this one which does have a review and a major award, and wondering what else there is? 208.47.202.254 (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More reviews would be nice, but winning SdJ is considered sufficient for establishing notability, and least our SNG. Also, please consider creating an account, it gives you useful tools and makes it easier for us to know we are talking to the same person. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mississippi Queen (board game)[edit]

This is a stubby little article on what I think should be a fairly important award-winning game. I'm not so much looking to establish notability, but maybe if there are more sources that would be enough to build it up into something really nice? 208.47.202.254 (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now significantly improved by Guinness323. VickKiang (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear![edit]

This is actually a pretty well built up article already, but I am wondering if this one has any more to get into really great condition. 164.44.0.57 (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revolt On Antares[edit]

This one does have a couple of reviews on the article, but as a game by TSR, I was hoping there would be more out there to help build it. 164.44.0.57 (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vietnam: 1965-1975[edit]

This wargame won an Origins award and it looks like there is a review in a French wargaming magazine, but I am wondering if it has more sources to help build it up? 164.44.0.57 (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Middle-earth Collectible Card Game[edit]

I see a couple of reviews on this one, but it seems like this was big enough that there should be more; does anyone see anything else for this one? 164.44.0.57 (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article doesn't look terrible. Friendly ping to @Chiswick Chap Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks OK. It would be nice to have the reviews written up a bit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 01:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reviews noticeboard[edit]

In my unending quest to find reviews for existing articles on games, I have found quite a few reviews for games that do not currently have articles (either never started as far as I can tell, or deleted or redirected at some point). Rather than simply let those pass away into nothingness, I’ve been thinking about starting a reviews noticeboard for this project. In other words, list each game by name with a link to any review that I find. Once multiple reviews are found, someone can start the article and remove it from the noticeboard. Does this sound like a good idea, and do you have any suggestions for that? BOZ (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course it's a good idea :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK great.  :) I'm thinking of doing it in a format something like this, where we have a redlink to the game, date of publication, publisher(s), BGG link, and then link to the review(s):
How is that? It will undoubtedly wind up being a very long list, but I'm sure that's OK. BOZ (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The more I think about it, the more I want to build a table for this. BOZ (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm a little leery of the BGG links given that the site isn't a reliable source. DonIago (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not intending it as a source, just a "oh, that's what it is" reference so I don't have to actually write a description. :) BOZ (talk) 05:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I had a go at turning this into a table. What do you think? It's going to take a lot more work to change it once I start filling it in. :) Anything missing that I should include? Maybe other language Wikipedia links? BOZ (talk) 06:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tables are pretty. Also hard to edit :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, exactly. :D Do you think I should just stick with text then, for ease of use? That's ease for myself and anyone else who decides to partake in this. Mind you, I'm perfectly fine with that. BOZ (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Games
Game Year Publisher(s) BGG link Links to reviews Other languages
AC/DC (game) 1975 Ampersand Press [13] Games[14]
Contrat 500 1979 Jeux Robert Laffont [15] Jeux & Stratégie[16]
Dragon Hordes 1998 Corsair Publishing [17] Pyramid[18]
Elixir (card game) 1997 Asmodee [19] Backstab[20] French
Express Chess 1996 Blackbox [21] Pyramid[22]
Grunwald 1410 1992 Dragon [23] Magia i Miecz[24]
Mystery on the Nile (board game) 1996 Eurogames [25] Backstab[26] (as "Le Secret Du Nil")
Nile (game) 1967 J.W. Spear & Sons [27] Games & Puzzles[28]
Robin Hood (game) 1994 Sfera [29] Magia i Miecz[30] Polish
Shogun (1976 board game) 1976 Club Nathan [31] Jeux & Stratégie[32]
Speculate (game) 1972 Waddingtons [33] Games & Puzzles[34]
Whosit? 1976 Parker Brothers [35] Games[36]

While the text version is undoubtedly easier to edit - and I may be the main one adding entries - I think more importantly than looking good, the table is just a much easier presentation to read so I would rather go with that. I added a line for other languages, is it better with or without that? BOZ (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, in the absence of further input, I went ahead and started User:BOZ/BTG reviews noticeboard, and will begin adding new entries to it in my spare time. :) I broke it up into board games, card games, and wargames, and may do more to help organize it over time. I will make a separate page for RPGs since that will be a bit crazy as well. BOZ (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey all, I just want to share that I have made tremendous progress on this project. :) After looking at over a dozen magazine sources, I currently have only three left to go through (unless I find more). While this work has resulted in me creating an absolutely enormous list of games with one review each, the work I've done here (and the work I did in the months leading up to it) has also resulted in me starting or restoring quite a few articles on games after finding more reviews for them, including Eurorails, Lexicon (card game), London Cabbie, Ratrace (game), Sleuth (game), Stocks & Bonds, Tri-nim, and Lionheart (board game) among others! I expect to be able to finish this before the end of the year, and then add the noticeboard page to this WikiProject hopefully for all to be able to see and use. BOZ (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You rock :) I wish I had the time to add Polish rebel and other reviews. In either case, do feel free to ping me anytime to ask if I can find Polish reviews for any game on your worklist. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Restoring deleted articles[edit]

The last maybe 10 years or so (at best) have seen an explosion in WP:RS game websites to provide a wealth of sources to really make tabletop game articles sparkle and shine. I was reminded today that the 10 years or so before that are a much harder time to find sources for; game websites like we have now were still just developing into a thing, and the old reliable sources – games magazines, that is – were dying out. The second version of Pyramid from SJG was published online until 2008 and the third version after that did not review games from other companies; InQuest lasted until 2007; Dragon remained in print form until 2013; German magazine Envoyer ended in 2008; one rare exception is French magazine Casus Belli which (aside from ending in 2006 and starting again in 2010) has continued in production now for over 40 years. I can't speak to how long any of those continued to review games from other companies, but they all did for a substantial portion of their print runs.

I said all that to say that games made in the past 10 years should theoretically be easier to source than those from the early 2000s, in theory. To test my theory, I went to my games deletion list and picked out some more recently deleted game articles and drafts.

If you spot any sources that can be used to restore any of these, let me know! :) BOZ (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at those, I am familiar with Roll for the Galaxy. A quick Google (reviews+awards) suggests it is notable. We should probably ask for a refund of the draft. I'll do so now. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like it's ready for you to take over. BOZ (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Project-independent quality assessments[edit]

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to ((WikiProject banner shell)), which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to ((WikiProject banner shell)), and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass ((WPBannerMeta)) a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Games by number of players[edit]

I've just created this, was missing (we have Category:Card games by number of players but no parent categories till now). Enjoy populating :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles pending in Draft[edit]

There are a bunch of tabletop game articles pending in draft space, if you see anything worth working on I say see what you can do. :)

Here is a selection!:

BOZ (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am a bit behind the current hotness; from the titles I see I recall Lorcana being pretty talked about and being Disney's, I am 99.9% sure there's coverage too make it pass GNG. I will volunteer to rescue this from the draft, it may take me a few days/weeks (time/etc). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In September 2022 I did a quick web search for Lorcana material. This is what I bookmarked:
Preview cards for Disney Lorcana, the Mouse’s answer to Magic, Pokémon at Polygon
Disney Claims the Depth of Its New TCG, Lorcana, Is 'Unprecedented' at CBR
Disney Lorcana gives a first look at its cards for D23 at GamesRadar+
New Disney Lorcana card game is coming for Pokemon and Magic: The Gathering at GamesRadar+
DISNEY LORCANA Trading Card Game Is a New Way to Play with Your Favorite Characters at Nerdist
First Disney Lorcana Trading Cards Unveiled at D23 at GameRant
Most of these likely repeat details from the initial announcement (and some may not satisfy our sourcing standards) but may have interesting tidbits within. I haven't searched for new material yet. Mindmatrix 14:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mindmatrix There is lots of coverage, I think, and the game is not released yet. Highlights: controversy covered by Kotaku / Polygon, IGN and others. Other stuff that doesn't look like rehashed press releases (at least, not too much): Polygon on game rules/[49] Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Skull was fixed and published by User:BuySomeApples, thanks! Crossed out from above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, thanks, I love to see progress. :) BOZ (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No prob bob! BuySomeApples (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flesh and Blood (card game)[edit]

Hi, wanted to let you know that I have pointed the main contributor to Flesh and Blood (card game) in the direction of this WikiProject. I had tagged the article with "primary source" and "overly detailed"; editor reasonably wanted to know what I meant, so I have responded on his Talk page but also told him that I'm not very experienced with game-related articles so he might do better to ask for your advice in order to improve the article. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tacyarg Hmmm. Yeah, I see what you mean. It's likely notable but the structure is meh. Reception section is in the list format (not best practice), ditto for the second half of history. Too much reliance on press releases makes it look promotional. Organized Play section violates WP:EL and is arguably too detailed. If anyone wants more review, please ping me here or elsewhere. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Piotrus: @Tacyarg: I have boldly removed the excessively detailed tables that IMO are undue and indiscriminate. Please discuss if anyone disagree. Thanks VickKiang (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The editor has reverted my edits (and that of other editors), describing in their edit summary that Reverting back to pre-vandalized version of article. User deleted 99% of article content, citing subjective reasoning, with no discussion on talk page or suggestions for improvement before wholesale deleting content. (emphasise mine). Calling a good-faith edit "vandalism" seems sub-ideal- this needs some dispute resolution, but I don't have the energy to find an optimal pathway forward. VickKiang (talk) 02:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This article is, frankly, in a horrendous state. I fear that the primary contributor is too invested in the material. At worst, the account borders on advertising. The creator of the article also appears to take offense to the changes. Despite requests from multiple other editors, neither the creator nor the main contributor seem willing to cooperate in reducing the overall tone, size, or sources used in the article. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 21:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merger discussion for Metagaming (role-playing games)[edit]

An article which may be of interest to members of this project—Metagaming (role-playing games)—has been proposed for merging with Metagame. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should board game titles be italicized?[edit]

I've opened a discussion at the MoS page for titles: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles of works#Should board game titles be italicized?. Input very much welcome! Elli (talk | contribs) 23:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Advice wanted: Articles for deletion/Mahjong Competition Rules‎‎[edit]

Please take a look at the Articles for deletion/Mahjong Competition Rules‎‎ discussion and at the article itself, Mahjong Competition Rules‎‎. This article is very long and detailed -- perhaps too long for Wikipedia? The idea has been raised to move it from Wikipedia to Wikibooks. What does the Wikipedia gamer community think? How does this article fit with the other mahjong-related articles? Your advice would benefit this discussion.

Thanks, --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update on Force of Will[edit]

I'm thinking adding some basic explain about gameplay format, current available and upcoming Cluster and Expansion and basic types of cards for Force of Will TCG. Feel free to suggest any new ideas or feedback. DexFaqOrigin (talk) 09:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DexFaqOrigin It would be a good start to link the article in question. Force of Will? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah that's the one. I'm think it's time for a huge update on that like it's maybe 3-cluster late and many things have changed. DexFaqOrigin (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vital board games[edit]

See Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5#Board_(tabletop)_game_changes. Please note that Vital project is not very well attended (neither are we here). What I am saying is that this is not a call for votes but an invitation to suggest and discuss which board games (or board game concepts, or tabletop games and concepts in general) should be in that list. I sugget removing a bunch of ancient/historical/forgotten games and adding some more recent ones. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think there should be more attention given to the historical games! One of the frequent critiques of Wikipedia is that it's presentist, and choosing to not do research on older games is kind of a way of erasing them from our modern consciousness. I think board game culture benefits when we think of it as having an international and ancient past. On the other hand, maybe there isn't enough scholarly research to expand pages for individual pre-modern games (but Nine Men's Morris! It's a classic!). That said, I don't know how important it is for a page to be considered "vital" (does it actually encourage people to edit it?). Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right. Trouble is, very few people seem to be interested or have access to the sources. The situation for card games is better - we have a good selection of historical games and I've been adding and expanding the history sections of many others. It's surprising how old some are! I've recently found the earliest rules for modern Doppelkopf dating to 1899 and have pushed its full history back to 1811. The German Doppelkopf Association only knew of rules going back to 1941. But we now need to organise card games in the vital article list - that's way out of date. Bermicourt (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/Popular pages[edit]

Check back in few days to see this link turn blue and be cool like Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games/Popular pages, hopefully. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meeple[edit]

I've created a new article. High-importance or Top? Feel free to expand if you find something. The topic of whether meeples can be non-humanoid is interesting but not many reliable sources exist. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Professional Magic: The Gathering[edit]

The following articles: Magic: The Gathering Players Tour, Grand Prix (Magic: The Gathering), Magic: The Gathering World Championship and List of Magic: The Gathering Pro Tour events are in somewhat problematic states. While one is a list, the tags on the some of the articles are accurate. They, for the most part, rely heavily on primary sources. While that is likely fine for being objective on winners, prizes and such, some of them are stretching their worth.

Some of the content cannot be verified. You could probably find sources, but they are likely to be from Wizards.

There are some independent sources, like this one. But I hardly feel as though that would be enough. I think the subjects are notable enough, but then you read the Grand Prix article and find the history section has only one source, which is from Wizards.

The Worlds article is just extremely long with dozens of external links. It also suffers from other problems. Aside from the obvious errors, I think cutting the tables on the decks and particular cards would be a good start. Instead of having several tables and bullet points and information that isn't particularly important, we should just just have a table that goes year by year, stating the winner and winner's deck color.

I almost want to suggest merging most of these into a Competitive Magic: The Gathering article, but that's likely not necessary. I'll focus on just removing content that isn't sourced. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 14:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trying to source them would be good. Merge or deletion should only be considered if one cannot rescue them, which from what I read you think you may be able to do - good luck! For now, tagging such articles as has been done seems reasonable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think they can be saved. But I also think the tables and descriptions on the Worlds article need to be cut down heavily. My sandbox has more or less what I think would make the most sense, but I'm not sure. But I also think that listing and linking to every single card used is a little much. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Side note for anyone who cares, but Black Lotus (Magic: The Gathering card) needs an article, I am pretty sure it would meet WP:GNG. Right now it is a redirect to less famous Power Nine. I might work on it myself if nobody else jumps in first. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I saw your comment and was considering it. The material on Black Lotus compared to the other cards is night and day. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Refideas edit notice[edit]

Hello! :) I would like to make a notice here that as of this week, if an editor clicks "edit" on any article that uses the Refideas template on its talk page, they will see an editnotice above the editing window indicating that there are sources on the talk page that are not currently in use in the article. This would be especially useful for anyone with an active interest in improving that article, and it would also be useful in helping gauge the notability of an article. :) BOZ (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Campaign Trail: The Game of Presidential Elections[edit]

User:KangarooGymnast contends that a browser game of the same name as this GDW board game is "clearly based on the board game"[50] because it has the same title and focuses on presidential elections, even though the source that they provided does not mention the board game at all that I could see. Can anyone else verify that the designers of the browser game did base their game on the board game? BOZ (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have mentioned this matter at the entry's talk page. You're more than welcome to contribute there. KangarooGymnast (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I commented there, sadly I feel this OR. On related note, there is a newer, presumably much better game (I've played the new one, not the old one) that shares the name/concept: BGG entry (2019). It may be notable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Travel guide for board games[edit]

Now started at voy:Board games. Feel free to help :)

One thing we need is a "banner", an image that meets the following criteria:

Any suggestions? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The name of this WikiProject[edit]

We are called "Board and table games". But what is a Table game? That's a disambig that really just says this term is used for board games as well as Casino game. The proper parent term is tabletop games. And I note here is no WikiProject dedicated to card games (@Bermicourt). Should we rename this project to 1) WikiProject Board and card games, 2) WikiProject Tabletop games or 3) WikiProject Board, card and casino games? Considering the typology seen at tabletop, I think 2) (WP Tabletop games) would be best to represent what we actually are concerned about (afaik...). See also Category:Tabletop games. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Board/card games[edit]

Related to the above, I wonder about proper way to categorize "card board" games. Classic example: Uno (card game). Right now it is not under any category tree related to board games, as it is under Category:Card games that is sister to Category:Board games under Category:Tabletop games.

This is also related to issues with some category names related to mechanics. There are many issues, such as that the article Deck-building game and Category:Deck-building card games are not anywhere under Category:Card games by mechanism, etc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Family Games: The 100 Best[edit]

It looks like its sister volume Hobby Games: The 100 Best was already added to the 100 games articles from that book, but I made a list of the games featured in the Family Games volume as listed below, using this archived copy: [51].

A few of these already are making use of the book in the article already, but most are not. If you wanted to work on any of those articles, you now have one more source you can incorporate if it's not already there. :)

At this time, several do not yet have their own articles, namely 10 Days in the USA[52], Bausack[53], Buffy the Vampire Slayer[54], Condottiere[55], Dogfight[56], Easter Island[57], Faery's Tale Deluxe[58], For Sale[59], Frank's Zoo[60], Go Away Monster![61], Gulo Gulo[62], Halli Galli[63], Mystery Rummy: Murders in the Rue Morgue[64], The Omega Virus[65], Pieces of Eight[66], Strat-O-Matic Baseball[67], Thebes[68], Trade Winds[69]. If you think you could make something out of any of those, you now have at least one source to start with. :) BOZ (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Card games and User:Bermicourt[edit]

WP has amazing coverage of card games, thinks largely to User:Bermicourt. But he recently resigned suddently, when he got pushback from editors on his over-capitalized style. This is a great loss. I've been poking around at card games, motivated by fixing the over capping at first, but realizing what a huge thing he had in progress. Particularly, it seems he was recently most of the way through converting game categorization to use John McLeod's (pagat.com's) "group" taxonomy, as opposed to the earlier "family" notation of Parlett's various publications. So I'm trying to understand what makes sense to do there. Are we happy adopting the taxonomy of pagat.com (a great resource site, for sure!)? Or would we be better off sticking with something sourced to more publications with more editorial oversight? I'm not about to make any major changes myself, but I think that if we like the pagat.com system, we should have an article on it, and make it more clear where the "group" nomenclature comes from. Any other card editors out there, or others with ideas and opinions? Dicklyon (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dicklyon Sadly, I think Bermi was the only person who could comment on this :( I hope he comes back. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pyramid reviews and archives[edit]

See related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Role-playing_games#Pyramid_reviews_and_archives. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories