Talk:Havic: The Bothering

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magic: The Gathering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Magic: The Gathering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Magic: The GatheringWikipedia:WikiProject Magic: The GatheringTemplate:WikiProject Magic: The GatheringMagic: The Gathering articles

Board and table games Low‑importance

	Games portal This article 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 article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed deletion of Havic: The Bothering[edit]

This problem has been resolved.Nicholasweed (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Game Play: copyvio image[edit]

The image in the InQuest magazine is historically important as a source of commentary. The game of Havic: The Bothering as well as InQuest magazine are both out of print. I had the proper Fair Use arguments attached to the photo.Nicholasweed (talk) 17:43, 09 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the image does not pass our WP:COPYRIGHT guidelines. We can use copyright images if text cannot convey the content, and the only meaningful content of the copyright image would be the text. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image of the advertisement in InQuest shows that Havic:The Bothering was marketed as its own game. It went beyond just creating a parody and that is why Wizards of the Coast cracked down on it. Havic: The Bothering would have been possible competition. That is why this article is just not a footnote in the history of Magic: The Gathering. Havic: The Bothering belongs in the category of collectible card games with all the other card games printed during the 1990’s. I am going to tyr and creat a marketing area of the article.Nicholasweed (talk) 21:56, 09 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While it is merely a footnote, that is irrel. You need to make yourself familiar with our policy regarding the use of copyright mateials. This is an unacceptable use. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

original research or unverified claims[edit]

Reliable, third party sources have been added to improve the quality of this article to meet the requirements to be a stand alone articles here on Wikipedia. Still some infromation about this subject needs to be sourced from third party sources that only have second party sources. “Citation Needed” along with the second party sources have been added for now so that the reader of the article is informed that better sources need to be included. These two different second party sources state the same information but third party sources will replace them when found.Nicholasweed (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the reliable third party sources. However, under no circumstances do we let non-reliable sources remain in the article. Wikis and self published webpages are not allowed as sources as they do not have a reputation for reliability and fact checking/editorial oversight. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went and read more information on the “Wikipedia:Reliable sources” page and it did not say that second-party sources could not be used. In fact it did state that “reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations.” It said that “Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources.” This article does in fact rely primarily on third-party sources.

The email that is dated Sun, 2 Aug 1998 which was a personal e-mail from Peter Gray of PGI Limited has been posted on a part of the Wizards website. Wizards of the Cost is a reliable source because it has largely published information in reliable third-party publications. The Wikipedia Reliable sources rules state, “Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used in limited circumstances, with caution: • When produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. • As sources of information about their author, especially in articles about their author, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field. This usage is subject to specific restrictions outlined at WP:SELFPUB.” So, the email from Peter Gray falls within the limited circumstances exception to the rules. I will be readding it as a source to this article.Nicholasweed (talk) 17:32, 01 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cult?[edit]

Has anyone taken to playing this parody game? It seems to have all the essential elements of a game of this type; apart, obviously, from the requisite faux seriousness and self-importance such a cult naturally attracts and/or generates. Nuttyskin (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]