Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games/Sources

Let's discuss

1. Board Game Quest [1]
2. GeekDad
3. Meeple Mountain [2]
4. TableTop
5. The Dice Tower

Let's start with these 5. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

IMO, I am inclined to consider sources 1, 2, 3, and 5 as unreliable. Could you please tell me on your views after reading my replies, and I believe these are probably all marginally reliable to unreliable, though I could ask at RSN if there are debatable sources.

Ref 1. In Archive 371, I did a discussion, which had input of two/three editors (including me) on the reliability of the first ref. I believe this to be unreliable (Option 2-3).

Ref 2. GeekDad is equally well-known, and won several awards for best blogs. But it's about page doesn't have much info of any editorial process as far as I am concerned. The website design too feels to me outdated, though some reviews are very in-depth. Considering that it's well-known, I think that it's probably marginally reliable to generally unreliable (Option 2-3).

Ref 3. On the editorial page, I could see several editors, but there are no specific info on the editorial process or whether the editor-in-chief has appeared in RS. I further couldn't see expertise among the associate editors, including one who is a "stay-at-home dad". Their reviews, though, are well-written, but I don't see much evidence to consider this better than a self-published source (Option 2-3), that could be used occasionally, but it is not notable.

Ref 5. This is a Youtube channel and podcast that I think I subscribed to some time ago (probably?). I'm not familiar with this, but it's very popular on BGG. Just looking at the website though, it's very outdated in design, and there isn't much editorial policies that I can find. It also reviews thousands of games, many of these not notable. IMO it is probably Option 3, since it seems to be self-published, but their reviews are quite popular.

I don't really know much about the fourth one, would need to have a deeper look. Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 05:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I mostly agree although I do wonder is sources at WP:VGRS are not held to lesser standards? In either case, I suggest adding unreliable sources to an unreliable section here, just like at VGRS. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Should we differentiate between game reviews and news? The former requires very little fact checking, and only a reading of the game's rules. The latter requires fact checking and possibly further investigation. For gameplay, I think sites such as Board Game Quest and Meeple Mountain meet the reliability criterion (especially when used as supplementary sources) as they seem to be independently operated, but other types of articles on those sites may not meet that criterion. Mindmatrix 19:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Most board game news are announcements that are not like investigative journalism, although I would think that they are needing as much fact checking as reviews. But I disagree on the reliability of Board Game Quest and Meeple Mountain. They review lots (see an example) of non-notable games, without many supplementing sources. IMO consider the lack of editorial control, I would support considering the refs as marginally reliable for basic information, but does not contribute notability and should be generally unreliable for other information that would require better-quality refs (e.g., two reviews from Board Game Quest and Meeple Mountain could support uncontroversial game information and designing credits, but if they give positive reviews, the reception couldn't be said to be generally positive as they are too unreliable for insiginficant claims). Still, I don't think that these self-published like refs should be considered generally reliable, and even at best (i.e., if the article is written by more reliable contributors), considerations still apply. Also, if an article is assessed to be C-class or above, I would support these refs be removed, they should only be present in start or stub articles, and does not show notability IMO. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: @Mindmatrix: Would it be all right if I add refs 1, 2, 3, and 5 as generally unreliable? If you disagree, please state your opinions (generally reliable, additional considerations apply/marginally reliable, or generally unreliable). Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 04:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd prefer to classify GeekDat as reliable or in between. As you say, it won awards, which IMHO makes it a website written by recognized content experts. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: All right, will add Meeple Mountain and The Dice Tower as generally unreliable, Geekdad as marginally reliable (I said that it is "Marginally reliable to generally unreliable blog, with no clear editorial policies, but also won several awards. Reliability depends on the expertise and background of the author" on the source page). If there's only one Geekdad article, I don't think it determines notability, but could you comment if you agree?VickKiang (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I missed The Dice Towers. Didn't it win some awards as well? I mean, they are well known, popular, and give out their own awards: https://boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/The_Dice_Tower_Gaming_Awards . To consider them unreliable just like some minor blog would be again puzzling. I'd classify them just like Geekdad. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Thanks! Do you agree with the following:

The Dice Tower is a popular Youtube channel and online blog. Their coverage is considered routine, generally unreliable and does not indicate notability, but their gaming awards are considered as marginally reliable.

DT covers thousands of games. If we consider it as situational, then many stub articles could be created. Plus, most are just (opinion?) videos, the web content isn't really good enough, without editorial policies. But their awards are all right, they could be included as it's quite significant. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 08:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, no. Although I consider myself more of a deletionist than inclusionist, I think we need to be more open to new media in some venues, and coverage of board games is one of them. I don't think their coverage is "routine, generally unreliable and does not indicate notability". They do cover most high profile games, not sure if this is "routine" or not, but their reviews are considered reliable as far as I am aware, and indicate notability (if a game has been covered by TDT, it is a good sign for those familiar with the board game scene). I'd say instead: " Their coverage is considered routine, and jut like their gaming awards is considered as marginally reliable." If you disagree, I'd suggest asking at WP:RSN, see if we can get a WP:3O (or more) there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I totally understand (and mostly agree with) your point. WP is restrictive in its inclusion of board game refs. Consider the article I asked for Ark Nova, probably the most popular game of the year (ranked 7th! on BGG), which is only a start article, but it's very significant IMO. Like said before, I subscribed to DT, SUSD and Watch It Played, and like these, they are just not really reliable, especially when other refs exist. But considering the lack of refs for the BTG Wikiproject, would it be needed for us to lower the bar on board game related refs in general? Otherwise, I don't think much articles for 2021 and 2022 board games could be created. Still, DT and Geekdad is still far better than most blogs, and the former is popular and influential for board game reviews. IMO, DT is Option 2-3, and so is Geekdad, but I lean slightly towards the latter, and there are lots of niche coverage (see here for a game without any reviews elsewhere). Though, IMO a discussion of RfC on the RSN is preferred. Also, should we have a unique notability guide for BTG? Many thanks for your insight and replies, please reply on which format would be needed for a better discussion. VickKiang (talk) 08:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Lowering the bar is tricky, but subject-specific areas do have their own criteria. Sometimes they can be challenged by the community, sometimes not (for an example of unchallenged criteria, I can think of WP:ACADEMICJOURNALS, where we accept catalogue entries on many journals as long as they are well-indexed) . Although as I said I am more del then inc these days, I'd support being a bit more accepting for the "best" blogs/video reviews in the Board Game Scene. Another reason is that in the past, we had more print media, which often went out of business these days. For example, in Poland we had Magia i Miecz, these days we just have online blogs and like. I'll ping User:BOZ and User:Guinness323 who often work on articles on older games and reference them with those old magazines, for their thoughts. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: @BOZ: @Guinness323: I have pinged some editors to ask on their input, but I agree that determining reliability in borderline cases or lowering the bar requires a whole discussion on the RSN or even an RfC, so do you think we should have one? A lots of past great board game refs are not active now (though the recently created Dicebreaker is excellent), and Ars Technica, which used to have a lot of coverage, isn't really active for its tabletop coverage now. So a possible solution is to allow less reliable ones for uncontroversial details (gameplay or release details), and I could see GeekDad (or possibly even the Board Game Quest) do so, though, I don't feel as well with DT, and they can't decide GNG IMO. So should we have a RSN discussion or RfC? VickKiang (talk) 09:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

We probably need to distinguish sources we accept as reliable for content and sources that demonstrate notability. For the latter, I'd have a higher bar. WP:VGRS is a good model to keep in mind too. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, though IMO a further query on general reliability is probably better for Geekdad and DT, if you agree, I will add a further discussion. I am personally proposing this, but it's subjective, so an RSN might be needed if we disagree:

The Dice Tower is a popular Youtube channel and online blog. Their coverage is considered routine and usually does not indicate notability. Their reliability varies, and they are marginally reliable for mundane claims about the game's rules and release (though the official rules may be cited instead), but other reviews are subjective and generally unreliable, but could be used provided that there are few, but enough refs to show notability, and it is not the only reference present. The gaming awards are considered as generally to marginally reliable, and are quite significant. VickKiang (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd agree with this with minor tweaks to the language here and there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I’ve added DT both in the situational section (for mundane details and awards), and generally unreliable one (for subjective reviews and opinion), like some other entries at RSP. Please reply on whether you think that’s all right, thanks! VickKiang (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@VickKiang I think double listing is confusing. Why do you think DT should be in both, but GeekDad only in one? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:20, 4 July 2022

@Piotrus: Will put GeekDad in both also. Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep both in just one. We could really use a wP:3O here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I merged these in one but... oops- I used another slow mobile device, and tried to rm the info in the generally unreliable section into the situational one, but the device lags, so you might see a couple of incorrect edits. Applogies again for my mistake. VickKiang (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Further discussion on refs

@BOZ: @Piotrus: @Guinness323: @Mindmatrix: What do you think on whether these sources (which are listed as needing discussion in the source section of Wikiproject BTG) are RS?

1. CBR (Comic Book Resources)

2. Pyramid (magazine)

3. Arcane (magazine)

4. Techraptor

5. Abstract Games

Note: I am pinging participants of the previous discussion, and also BOZ and Guinness 323, who I believe have access to older magazines that will be discussed. Many thanks for your help and time! Also, I listed Dicebreaker at RSN due to a dispute, some editors have already commented, if you could do so that would be great! VickKiang (talk) 06:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

IMO (I am not familiar with ref 2, 3, and 5, as I don't have subscriptions, will cover ref 1 now and ref 4 later.

Option 2 for CBR. the editorial policies are middling, and articles are poor. The about us page relies on several editors, but the managing editor only wrote 1 article, I couldn't find him writing in RS. The correction policy and fact-checking are okay, but I am concerned by this: Interested In Being A Writer For CBR? We are always looking for strong passionate writers who are motivated to develop and write engaging content. We are looking for writers who can produce in-depth premium content with expert knowledge in one or more of CBR’s featured categories. So the requirements to contribute isn't clear IMO. Note the publisher is Valnet Inc, owning the marginally reliable Screen Rant. Its content is to me superficial, such as this one, it describes Scythe Rise of Fenris as The Rise of Fenris changed everything by including an entire campaign in the box for gamers to play through, complete with secret boxes to open and huge surprises. Players were extremely pleased with expansion's modular content and it is now one of the highest-rated board game expansions to ever be released, which reminds me of Screen Rant and Game Rant covering movies based on IMDB scores. Another one on board games also seems poor IMO, with sensational headlines (Adding a twist to media adaptions, popular video games are transforming into table-top experiences sure to excite long-time fans and newcomers alike). I think that these isn't matching their editorial disclaimer: We do not post clickbait. Our headlines might be bold - but we don't throw out broad statements just to sound bold. It has to be accurate and fact-checked, I am sure there are more examples. Overall, I find lots of the lists possibly positively biased. Other news articles (such as this) are all right, but I don't think their "top ten" lists are useful or reliable. Though, it won a couple of awards, but I think the issues are too much for this to be Option 1/generally reliable. So IMO its news articles are Option 1-2, but their listicles are poor and probably Option 2-3. VickKiang (talk) 06:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment: @VickKiang I concur. This was rather short, but I think we should distinguish their normal articles, passable, and the concept of listicles, which are much less so. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: IMO, their news are Option 1-2, but listicles are at best Option 2. CBR's news are decent at best, but I don't think the listicles are much value, they are at best sesnsational and doesn't add much value. VickKiang (talk) 08:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I would check with the comics wikiproject on CBR, as I believe they have already resolved that. I would expect that Pyramid and Arcane are RS for games - Arcane is an independent publication and Pyramid should be independent for any games not published by Steve Jackson Games. BOZ (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Arcane was an independent UK magazine published by Future Publishing, with no ties to game companies. It is a valuable RS for information about role-playing games, fantasy fiction and the RPG world of the mid-1990s. Pyramid is a publication of Steve Jackson Games (SJG), and was started in the era when the house magazines of all RPG publishers freely reviewed and commented on other publishers' publications. It is also a valuable RS about board games and RPGs, obviously with the exception of articles about SJG products. I am not familiar with the other two three publications. Guinness323 (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree that the listicles are only ok and usually not good, but when they do an analysis of a series or something, the articles can be good, although that doesn't happen that often unfortunately. Historyday01 (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@BOZ: @Guinness323: Thanks for your replies! So do you agree that Arcane should be considered RS, and Pyramid also except for Steve Jackson Games? If so, should they count towards GNG (do they meet the indepedent criteria)? If possible, could you please also link me the discussion on CBR in the comic WIkiProject? Many thanks for your time and help! VickKiang (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know when (or admittedly if) the comics project may have discussed CBR, but they do have an archive that may have that info. BOZ (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@BOZ: @Guinness323: @Piotrus: I've added Pyramid to generally reliable, with the caveat: Pyramid is a generally reliable source for board games, card games, and RPG related content. Apply additional considerations for games related to Steve Jackson Games, as Pyramid is not indepedent and possibly biased to the publisher, could please clarify it if needed? I've added Arcane, but I think there needs to be more discussion on CBR. Where do you think it should be (possibly situational)? Many thanks for your time and help! VickKiang (talk) 02:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

As for CBR, I would either post a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics to see what people there have to say about that source specifically, or just post a notice there to point people back here to this discussion. As for Pyramid, I think that's a bit too verbose on the last sentence, you could simply tack something like "it is not an independent source for any games published by Steve Jackson Games" on to the first sentence and skip the second sentence altogether, since we know that automatically as they published the magazine as well. Pyramid should be a reliable primary source when talking about SJG publications (basic descriptions, publication information, etc) but it does not help for notability on their own games. BOZ (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@BOZ: Done. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• CBR: pre-August 2016 content is reliable, post-August 2016 content should be avoided or treated with care. The site was formerly known as one of the best comics-focused websites on the internet before they were acquired by Valnet and slid into churnalism. So I'd say that anything published prior to the Valnet acquisition is reliable and anything after it should be taken with a pinch of salt. JOEBRO64 06:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I do have a concern regarding Pyramid's "capsule reviews". They seem to be very short, snippet length, and as such, may fail wP:SIGCOV. I have seen such short reviews in other contexts; has this ever been discussed by other projects? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Noted, will add it to summary also. In another article, I think I saw a couple of very short capusle reviews from older magazines. Not sure about Pyramid as I don't have subscription, but I will add your comment as a caveat to generally reliable. Many thanks for your help! VickKiang (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

On CBR's reliability

@BOZ: @Piotrus: @TheJoebro64: @Historyday01: So far, lots of solid discussions, is there agreement that CBR is a situationally reliable source, with their reviews being generally to marginally reliable, but careful consideration must apply to: a) listicles (which are generally unreliable), b). post-2016 content? VickKiang (talk) 08:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes re listicles, no opinion on 2016. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I've added this:

Comic Book Resources (CBR) is considered to be marginally reliable. There is consensus that reviews and news from CBR are generally reliable, but more reliable secondary sources should be used if possible. However, the listicles are usually short, superficial, do not count towards Notability, and is marginally reliable to generally unreliable. Some editors also suggest additional caution for post-2016 content, please clarify if possible. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I don't rely on post-2016 CBR for anything other than reviews or content by Brian Cronin. Any editorial/news content they carry can be found elsewhere. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

CBR is not listed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, but its sister site Screen Rant is there. Both work similarly, so the same thing would apply to both. "There is consensus that Screen Rant is a marginally reliable source. It is considered reliable for entertainment-related topics, but should not be used for controversial statements related to living persons." Cambalachero (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

What happened in 2016? Cambalachero (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The website was founded by Jonah Weiland in the late 1990s and was a high-quality news source that won several industry awards. He sold it to the parent company of Screen Rant in 2016, and it quickly switched to click-bait material and top five lists. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks, I think there is consensus for caution for post 2016 content, many thanks!VickKiang (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Reliability Dicebreaker

@Piotrus: @Sam Walton: @NeverTry4Me: I updated the entry for Dicebreaker. The first discussion had a clear consensus that it's generally reliable, but the second discussion is less so. One considered it generally unreliable, two considered it to be generally reliable, and one said it was generally reliable but with a caveat (and sometimes could be situationally reliable). So overall, I put its entry in GR still, but with the following caveat: However, some editors expressed concerns on Dicebreaker for exceptional or controversial claims, and due weight should be considered. I think that this is a fair assessment of the latest RSN discussion. VickKiang (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Merge with Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/Reliable sources

And use the "reliable sources" as the name of the merged article. I.e. what we have here is better, but we should move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/Reliable sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I support a merge, but of course this version is better. Though, its awards section is interesting, I think we might need to discuss what's a "major award" and does a win of the SdJ, Golden Geek... count towards notability for board games? VickKiang (talk) 06:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@VickKiang Right. We also should discuss the sources under 'Online sources considered reliable', which frankly don't all look very reliable to me, at least at first glance. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Totally agree. The list has a dated looking Olympiad site, a publisher's site, Scribd (which the script from Headbomb says is generally unreliable) and an SPS that can't be opened. Which of these, or none, do you think are RS? Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 08:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Consider that not only is your newer page more robust, but it probably already has the correct name... since its ambition seems to be not only to list Reliable Sources, but also to list and evaluate other levels of sources all the way down to Unreliable. I say move a couple links over to your new page and make the old Reliable Sources into a redirect. Phil wink (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: @Phil wink: I've merged the article, many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 06:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@VickKiang I'd suggest we move Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/Sources (current page) to Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/Reliable sources (now a redirect). WP:RM, technical section, might be required. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

boardability

First we have the website of the Mind Sports Olympiad, boardability.com. The event is seemingly notable but niche, their website looks amateurish and about us does not provide any information about any editorial process. It is used as a source, for example: https://web.archive.org/web/20171009202048/http://www.boardability.com/game.php?id=entropy (seems no longer available live) for Entropy (1977 board game), https://web.archive.org/web/2/http://www.boardability.com/game.php?id=continuo for Continuo (game), https://web.archive.org/web/20170722193652/http://www.boardability.com/game.php?id=abstract_games for Abstract strategy game. Two pages (for individual games) link to Wikipedia, without saying whether it is a source or not. I'd say the website is reliable for claims about itself (its tournaments, and winners). As for the description of the game, hmmm. Common sense it is probably ok (if we assume its curated by an expert or experts), but I do worry about the possibility of them using Wikipedia as a source - but I have no proof this happened, so... AGF. Is being recognized by MSO an indicator of notability? I guess. Probably reliable if we agree MSO is a reliable, expert organization. Obvious COI related to itself, of course. Shame their website seems to be falling apart, most of the links we have need deroting.

PS. Pinging the two past contributors there (sadly, seemingly inactive): @Thesteve and Tetron76: _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: The reliability on this is probably debatable. It seems from the WP article that they have two websites, including a newer, better one. Sadly, the newer one doesn't have much editorial policies, but it has been mentioned a lot, and its article is probably poor on WP, but is C-class. I think the older website looks very amateurish and is probably less reliable. So I think the site could be used for claims about its tournaments, in which it's reliable, but I don't think a event of a game played counts towards GNG. I disagree with Shame their website seems to be falling apart, the older website is horribly dated (and probably marginally reliable to generally unreliable), but the newer one is... all right? But I don't think this should be generally reliable given the lack of editorial policies or fact checking, so it's probably Option 2 (marginally reliable), reliable for its claims on its own tournaments, but doesn't show GNG. VickKiang (talk) 11:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

studiogiochi

Italian website, owned or at least siginificantly related to this individual: Dario De Toffoli. Used as a source only a few times, and frankly, since it is in Italian, I don't expect to see it pop out much. Here's their about us, they have an extensive list of contributors although I can't find anything about their editorial practices. Borderline reliability, obvious COI related to Dario De Toffoli. Their website is also affected by link rot (some links we use as sources are 404 already). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• @Piotrus: Option 3. I agree with you mostly, but I find it to be worse than borderline notability. I'm confused by why these sites are added as reliable sources, perhaps these were somehow considered an RS back then? But looking at this now, it's a very dated looking site, with about us page looking questionable. The team of authors or editors looks okay, and the editor-in-chief, Dario De Toffoli, seems qualified and has an WP article, so is Leo Colovini, who is a well-known designer. But what about the others? The descriptions seem to me that the contributors don't have any qualifications, such as [meticulousness], versatility and seriousness have earned her a place in the enigmistic editorial staff. She uses to spoil the team with delicious treats… that's why she has become their mascot. I would probably put this at marginally reliable, but I am concerned by the articles (see 1, 2, 3), they are short (some of these has a single sentence, but sometimes they say it's playful journalism, see here, obviously flawed with COI, so most are ad-like are superficial. Per the arguments above, I don't see much use of this to WP. I would say generally unreliable, treat as an SPS, can be reliable for attributed comments about itself, but notability of the coverage must be considered. Many thanks for your help! VickKiang (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  I lean towards view that people hired as staff for such outlets, which can be seen as trade journals and can be assumed to have some standards (higher than blogs etc.), qualify as journalists for borderline reliability/notability. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

A-to-Z-of-Dice-Games

Some book by "Spellman"? Whatever it was, copyvio was removed froms Scribid and I can't even figure out what book was copyviod here. Since the original creator of this wiki resource coulnd't even provide a properly cited reference, just forget about it and move on.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Mia

Dead website: [3]. Rules for some dice game? https://web.archive.org/web/20100626031622/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/dice-play/Games/Mia.htm . No evidence of reliability, obviously whoever added this didn't fully grasp the point of creating a resource for RS. Not reliable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I agree that it’s very clearly unreliable, it’s dated, defunct, and lacks any editorial policies, so I would put it at generally unreliable (but given its obscurity should it be added to the frequently used sources list)? VickKiang (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we have to mention it anywhere except this mostly pointless discussion :P _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Notable Games Awards

Section split and moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games/Notability.

Is Lautapeliopas an RS?

@Piotrus: @BOZ: @Guinness323: Pinging previous discussion members. Is Lautapeliopas this an RS? Its prose seems above average (see 1, 2), it is fairly comprehensive in its coverage, and its about page is... probably reliable (or marginally reliable) but not the best. The editor-in-chief appeared in lots of refs and seems qualified, but the assistants are questionable, but it has detailed policies. I guess this is probably generally or marginally reliable, and if it is an RS, then it could be used for lots of articles, but I am not sure if it counts towards GNG. Note in a previous AfD discussion it was closed as keep, and this seems to be one of the better refs. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 07:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd say it's reliable. Let's add it. Not that I expect it will come up much, beeing Finnish. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I've added this: There is weak consensus that Lautapeliopas is generally to marginally reliable. Its editor-in-chief appeared in other publications, and it has some editorial policies. Nevertheless, more reliable secondary sources are preferred whenever possible, and cation should be applied for exceptional or controversial facts. Reviews for games should preferably be accompanied by other more established references, and due weight should be applied. VickKiang (talk) 08:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Books online

In case it's useful: a quick list of books available at Internet Archive. I've only included RS's that include a broad survey of games. These of course mostly cover historical games, which may not be your chief focus. Still, maybe nice to have links. I've included personal observations on a few.

• Bell, R. C. (1979). Board and table games from Many Civilizations (Revised ed.). Mineola, NY: Dover. ISBN 0-486-23855-5. Definitely a RS by Wikipedian criteria, but note that the years have shown this to be much like Wikipedia itself: a good place to start, but you should back up anything you find here with another source. Beyond the fact that knowledge grows over time, Bell's aim is often to concoct a playable game, which can conflict with the transparent presentation of his source information, which is what we might have preferred. Also note that since this is a republication of 2 separate volumes without re-pagination, all page references must also specify volume (e.g. Vol. 1, page 63).
• Culin, Stewart (1895). Korean Games, with Notes on the Corresponding Games of China and Japan. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania.
• Culin, Stewart (1898). Chess and Playing-Cards. Washington DC: US National Museum. All of Culin's books are old but still foundational. They consist chiefly of ethnographic descriptions, still of use. On his elaborate and somewhat philosophical historical speculations, however, note that later scholars have called into question our ability to assign historical precedence among randomizing activities such as divination, impartial decision-making, gambling, and game-playing, and that elements of his monolithic genealogy of games have been called "absurd".
• Culin, Stewart (1907). Games of the North American Indians. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.
• Finkel, Irving, ed. (2007). Ancient Board Games in Perspective. London: British Museum Press. ISBN 978-0-7141-1153-7.
• Murray, H. J. R. (1951). A History of Board-Games Other Than Chess. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Parlett, David (1990). The Oxford Guide to Card Games. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-214165-1. Many more of Parlett's books are available from the Internet Archive; these 2 are almost certainly the most significant and useful for WP purposes.
• Parlett, David (2008). The Penguin Book of Card Games. Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-103787-5.

Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Phil wink Thank you. That would be good to add to the main page (instead of talk page). Can you move it there? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Can do. But given the discussion above, do you want it at the old Reliable Sources or your new Sources? (Per my own note above, I'd be inclined to keep it at Sources.) Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Phil wink Both pages will be merged shortly, so I don't think it matters where. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Shut Up & Sit Down

@Piotrus: @BOZ: @Mindmatrix: Pinging previous participants. What's the reliability of SUSD? Like The Dice Tower (DT), it's a Youtube channel turned website without editorial policies, but is well-known, and was apparently cited by NY Times Wirecutter: [to] get an idea of what makes two-player board games successful, I reviewed lists and articles from board-game review sites like Shut Up & Sit Down and Dicebreaker. I think this one would be frequently used and suggest we put them in situational or unreliable like DT. VickKiang (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I do hear it mentioned every now and then. They have some visibility, yes, but they have any editorial policies? I can't even find their 'about us'. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Yes, that's odd, and technically except for a terms and conditions, there's no about us. So generally unreliable or situational? I might prefer the first one, but given the low thresholds for BTG related refs due to a lack of them, the second is also one I proposed. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 08:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd be fine attributing their reviews, but given the lack of 'about', I'd say no for establishing notability. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Rebel Times

I stumbled upon what seems like a good source (2O needed). Rebel Times was a magazine published (for free) by the Polish board game company, pl:Rebel. It was printed but entire archive is digitized ([4], hope the link doesn't rot). Sadly, it does seem the publication ceased with the linked issue 147 in 2019, after a decent, ~10 year long run. For reliability, as a magazine, it had (in the issue) information about the editors. It published many reviews of board games, and I think the reviews are reliable and probably an indicator of reliability (although note Rebel is a board game publisher, so there's the issue of them being possibly biased towards games they published). Thoughts? Ps. Since it's in Polish and in pdf, to read it in English I recomend feeding the pdfs to Google Translate, which offers pdf translation service. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

From a quick glance, this seems RS, and I translated snippets of text, it looks all right, but I would probably need a further look. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Historical card game websites

I thought I'd float these 2 or 3 (depending on how you count them) sites:

• McLeod, John. "Card Games". www.pagat.com. Retrieved 20 July 2022.
• Parlett, David. "Historic card games described by David Parlett". www.parlettgames.uk. Retrieved 20 July 2022.
• Parlett, David. "Skat introduced by David Parlett". www.parlettgames.uk. Retrieved 20 July 2022.

pagat.com

John McLeod (the site's editor) is a published expert on historical card games; beyond several articles in The Playing-Card; he is the coauthor, with Michael Dummett, of the magisterial History of Games Played with the Tarot Pack (Volume 1 at Google Books and Volume 2 at Google Books). His site, has an editorial policy, though not to my knowledge a board of any kind. David Parlett, writing in a RS, has high praise for the site and its editor (2008: xii). Personally, I think the site should be considered to be as reliable as any printed "Hoyle" -- with 2 exceptions: 1) all pages falling under the directory Invented games should be explicitly blacklisted as definitely unreliable sources. 2) Because McLeod's goal is essentially to document all card games (my words, not necessarily his), this may forfeit its use in establishing notability. Phil wink (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Parlett's sites

Parlett describes his Historic Games pages thus: "These pages, covering timeless classics and treasures now forgotten, present (a) histories of classic games such as Poker and Euchre and (b) details of historic games, such as Gleek and Quadrille, that are now only museum pieces. [...] Some of the descriptions first appeared in my Oxford Guide to Card Games (1990, republished as A History of Card Games in 1991), but I've since been revising them in the light of further research and discoveries." That is, they are in part based upon, and in part supplementary to, a RS that he himself wrote. To me, this argues for these pages being reliable themselves. Obviously they have gone through none of the review that a book published by Oxford University Press would (but how many statements of fact did that review really alter?). On Parlett's Skat pages: Parlett is founder and current President of the British Skat Association. Phil wink (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)