Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Shortcuts

Potential biographies for industry people who are no longer with us

[edit]

I found a pair of threads on BGG several months ago that lists anyone involved in tabletop game design or art who has died: https://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/33218/gaming-icons-rip?page=13 (up through 2019) and https://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/350035/gaming-icons-rip-since-the-year-2020 (for 2020 and beyond). It is incredibly useful! It does list ordinary forum members too, as well as designers of non-commercial games, game and toy company executives (except for some cases with hobby game companies), game show hosts, chess players, poker and bridge and other card game players, go and backgammon and other board game players, authors whose books or directors whose films were adapted into or inspired games, and other people that are really outside of the scope of Wikipedia's interest in tabletop gaming. :) So maybe close to half of it does contain people we could cover if they are found to be notable!

(You may of course peruse these threads yourself to see if I actually did miss anyone worth looking at! I did skip a lot of people that designed only one or two games, or appeared to have other very short or incidental gaming careers.)

I went through the list and found quite a few people that do not have articles, so I am of course wondering if any of them *should* have articles. Can we find the sources to do something with any of these folks? I started at 1970 because, honestly the games I work with would not likely involve people who died before 1970, and also because 1970 in games is the oldest article in that set. :)

I mostly avoided people who are listed as only designing one or two games, unless those games were particularly popular and enduring over time. I also largely avoided artists whose work had generally been reproduced from other sources or through licensing arrangements.

Any blue links you see are just straight redirects. I have been working on my own project related to bio articles, trying to restore and build up abandoned drafts, redirected articles and deleted articles, but I did not include any of those here.

I know that most of these subjects are probably not suitable for articles, but I bet that a few of them are! Certainly they are not bound by any WP:BLP restrictions, although we do need sources for notability. What can we find?

BOZ (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ They are all deserving of a Wikidata entry, at the very least.
Sadly, I don't think we have enough manpower here to even thinking about starting work on them, sigh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:39, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is definitely thoughtful. :) I always have more projects in mind than I can keep up with, but if I ever do find the time I would be happy to do that much. BOZ (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, just imagine how many hours it took me just to put this list together... :D BOZ (talk) 11:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BOZ I can imagine. Respect :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably would take a lot less time to set up Wikidata pages than it took to put this together, maybe if I find the time to just do the ones that are redirects right now, maybe I will get into a groove and do the redlinks. BOZ (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Card games capitalization inconsistencies

[edit]

Is there a justification for articles like Poker, Pinochle, and Contract bridge to treat their subjects as common nouns, not capitalized but for Skat (card game), History of Skat, and Euchre to consistently capitalize the names of those respective games? In the same vein, I note that in some cases both the rank and suit of cards is capitalized, even inconsistently so within the Skat and Euchre articles, at the least: "Ten", "Jack", "Ace". I don't see that any of these should be capitalized when not at the beginning of a sentence. Should these all be changed? Largoplazo (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Largoplazo I'm not sure about card games, but at least for the cards themselves, I think we should follow the MOS of both:
that is, the ranks and suits should be lowercase Planettop92 (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use of templates or images in draughts pages

[edit]

Recently there has been a debate between me and @Ihardlythinkso over whether draughts pages should use a specially made template to show the board or an image. initially this discussion was had on IHTS's talk page but he strongly objected to it being held there and deleted it several times. So I, on the advice of @Bruce leverett have decided to move the discussion here. to read the previous discussion, see this page. PharaohCrab (talk) 11:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant pages include Checkers, Canadian checkers, Czech draughts, Tanzanian draughts, English draughts, Brazilian draughts, Armenian draughts, Malaysian/Singaporean checkers, and perhaps others. An example of the kind of change PharaohCrab has been making can be found here.
He has created a template, {{Draughts diagram 12x12}}, which allows him to specify the positions of all the pieces on a 12x12 board, in a simple notation, which is almost self-explanatory. He used an invocation of this template to replace an earlier diagram, which was a .PNG file. Invocastions of this template can easily be edited by Wikipedia editors, whereas .PNG files must be created using some other tool, I know not what. Moreover, editing the template itself, to create a template for 10x10 or 8x8 or whatever boards, looks straightforward, if tedious.
The problem is that, if you look at the "before" and "after" versions of Canadian checkers for this diff, you will see that the colors in the diagram have changed, in an obvious way. The dark squares are darker than one usually sees in checkerboard and chessboard diagrams, both in and out of Wikipedia. Of course, tastes differ, but these checkers-related articles have been using a lighter and brighter shade of green for many years, and understandably, Ihardlythinkso has complained.
In examining the template itself, I found that each square of the diagram is depicted using one of ten different .SVG files: dark piece on dark square, dark king on dark square, light piece on dark square, light king on dark square, dark piece on light square, dark king on light square, light piece on light square, light king on light square, empty dark square, empty light square. For example, dark piece on dark square is File:Draughts dd44.svg. These images are quite old (dd44 dates to April 2008), but until the recent changes they had apparently fallen into disuse.
It would be desirable to get the best of both worlds: to use well-designed templates to create diagrams for checkers and related games; but to use colors for the squares and pieces that are already in wide use. Any suggestions for achieving that? Bruce leverett (talk) 04:35, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be pretty easy for me to update the images to use the colors from @IHTS's images and I will do that as soon as a consensus is reached (assuming the consensus is that the colors should be changed). PharaohCrab (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some things to watch for:
  • The article Tanzanian draughts originally used a completely different color scheme, with blue and white squares, and black and red pieces. If this is how diagrams are generally colored in Tanzanian published sources, then we should be following it; but if it is just an idiosyncratic color choice by the original editor, we may not be obliged to adhere to it.
  • The article Turkish draughts should follow the Turkish draughts convention of using a monocolored board.
Bruce leverett (talk) 04:08, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
144 images is above MOS:ACCIM's guideline of 100 max 2600:8800:4000:20E:411A:F439:8798:4273 (talk) 09:29, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Templates may cause accessibility issues. There's an ongoing discussion about it with the {{goban}} template with it's large use of images not being screen-reader friendly. 2600:8800:4000:20E:411A:F439:8798:4273 (talk) 09:20, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is an interesting point but I disagree, the goban is significantly larger then any of mine and the 12x12 version of the template amount of images wont be that much of a problem (i hope) because 144 isn't a crazy amount bigger then 100 and the files it uses are all tiny with the largest only being 2 kilobytes. PharaohCrab (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will update here, am relatively inactive and do have a RL! Meanwhile, how am I expected to discuss w/ a user who calls me "Dude" (insulting), is sarcastic at me ("Happy now?"), apparently never read WP:BRD preferring to edit-war, posted multi times to my Talk after being clearly told not to post there, evidenced no understanding of the content of articles he changes (e.g. adding algebraic notation to checkers diags when those games use an entirely different notation system not algebraic), having no concept of esthetics (intruducing headache-producing colors saying in his opinion they are good, introducing unnecessary/non-standard thick black grid lines into board diag template using two colors for squares where, like chess, the two colors differentiate between squares), etc. You'll notice that this user attempted to create a 12x12 template using algebraic notation, apparently w/ intent to clobber Canadian checkers article w/ it, then abandoning same, apparently after being told by me that was wrong and misguided. Did this editor discover the list of my article creations on my Talk and then target them?! Why so aggressive and obsessed w/ templates. He answered there are "many advantages" to templates but his reasons given are questionable, for example ease of changing the position of pieces, but for an initial config diagram for a game the position of pieces never changes, ever. (Making init board config setups easily changed actually introduces a drawback for e.g. experienced numerous times at Raumschach, where the init squares for unicorns and knights have been incorrectly and repeatedly reversed by users who think they know something, causing repeated repairs by editors like me when finally noticing their alteration, meanwhile how many WP readers were unknowingly misinformed?) And how does algebraic notation on four board sides help anything in any way?! It doesn't, it's unnecessarily complex looking and distracting for no gain. There will be more to say, meanwhile Pharaoh has learned along the way so perhaps won't be needing to be rudely educating him further? We'll see. --IHTS (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its a bit weird how you are trying to make me look rude and the only example you can provide is a bit of sarcasm and being called "Dude" which I think is one of the least offensive thing to call someone who you feel is being unreasonably. while you have called me "Edit Warrior", "bully", and "fucker". Also just so you know, I am not targeting you specifically. the reason it looks like that is probably because you have created quite a few articles and some were inconsistent in my eyes with other articles (which something I value greatly). and you only see my edits on your pages. PharaohCrab (talk) 02:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion for template update

[edit]

Since the M: TG project only has a handful of active members I thought I would post this here as well since it is ultimately relevant to this project. I am copy pasting what I posted on the WP:MTG talk page:

I am inviting any and all input on a discussion that I have opened on Infobox Magic: The Gatherings set. I would like to update the set info to have some extra lines for the newer sets. We're missing A LOT of articles for sets since WOTC switched off of blocks and would like to make the Infobox more relevant. I am copying directly from my post on the talk page:

I would like to update this template to be easier to use with the new set format. I.e. include new optional lines for arcs (blocks being the other option), include lines for the commander sets because they are included alongside each set now, and a line for whether the set is Universes Beyond or Universes Within. Would appreciate any and all input, would like to have consensus before I add these lines. I do not want to remove any lines since they are relevant to the older sets still.

Thank you Snuggle 🖤 (talk) 03:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Snugglebuns Be bold, I say. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

[edit]

Hello, I am writing an article, Dorfromantik (board game), which is being peer reviewed right now. Would anyone here care to take a look at it? Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 13:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]