Category talk:Board games

Board Game Geek links
I created the Careers (board game) article as a stub, hoping to fill it in later. I was looking for the template for a board game stub when I discovered that there are some other stub articles that don't have the tag. I eventually found the stub template and also found a link to the Board Game Geek entry for that same article. I figured that since I was going to check each and every board game article for "stubness" (and add the appropriate template) that I should do the same for the BGG entries.

Well, what I did was interpreted as vandalism. Once the person who spotted it explained his reasoning, I understood. That's why I'm starting a discussion here about BGG specifically, and external links in general.

What criteria should be used as to whether or not a Board Game Geek entry be added to a board game article? Should it be added to every article (as I did)? Should we be more selective and only add those that have more information than the Wikipedia article itself? What do we do so that we know if the BGG entry gets expanded past the tipping point? Are there some more questions that we should ask?

Let's discuss. Val42 18:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As I now understand the site, I have no problem with links to it being added. That said, I feel that they are innapropriate whenever there is less information on BGG than on Wikipedia. Obviously this is a dyanmic stipulation, as both BGG and WP change regularly, and isn't the best thing to base policy on. NOTE: That's policy with a small P not WP:POLICY. It's too bad we can't add the BGG pages to a watchlist to track them. The advertising is a nuisance but it does seem to be a great resource. Somehow I feel less uncomfortable with it being in a references section than in an external links section. It seems less like promotion to me. That said, I will probablmovey go to BGG the next time I need quick info on a game. Anyway, that's what I think. WAvegetarian (talk) (email)   (contribs) 21:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That works for me. Add the link if it actually tells you more than the wikipedia page does, or if you based the article on it. --Mike Selinker 00:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * One reason that many (most?) BGG pages have content which isn't available on WP is that BGG has a much bigger archive of illustrative images. This is mostly user-added content from their large user base, but it also helps that they're not as careful with licensing as WP is.  —Blotwell 01:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)