Talk:American board games, 1843–1935

Merge Proposal
I see no reason why this has a page of its own. It looks like a sub-category of Board game, yet there is no similar pages regarding board games. There is little information that cannot be added as a paragraph or two. Yserbius (talk)


 * This article failed to be "good", comes with a dubious edit history, and (as mentioned in an entry below) is currently strapped with a weirdly-specific title*. But in principle, it is beginning to do just what should be done: Board games should not be asked to carry the level of historical detail that a narrower-scoped article like this can appropriately provide. Hopefully in the future there will be articles like "Precolumbian American board games" or "Modern French board games" to make this article less lonely. I think a name change is reasonable -- presumably to just American board games assuming that "American" is understood as the nation not the geography. Both Board games and American board games, 1843–1935 require a lot of improvement... but I don't think that combining them helps.
 * * Regarding the dates, I don't know what 1935 signifies; perhaps the editor intended to get up to the "official" birth of Monopoly (game), which is in a sense the beginning of a new era. But 1843 is actually a meaningful date; it is virtually the beginning of game publishing in America (notwithstanding a couple of earlier examples that did not seem to make a lasting impression). Before that, board games on this continent were either European imports or Amerindian games. So the concept of "American board games, 1843-1935" may in fact be an historically useful one -- but I still suspect it would be better as a section within the article "American board games". Phil wink (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Quick-fail GAN
I am quick-failing this GA nominee for the following reasons:
 * 1) Half the article is about similar games, and not the topic itself.
 * 2) Only one reference is provided, and it is for a similar game.
 * 3) The main section contains a complete quote of the game's rules, which is both not needed (per WP:QUOTE) and, even if rewritten into prose, is a how-to guide, which is not included in Wikipedia's scope.

I did see the recent removal of the "context" section and the references which were removed with it, and took that material into consideration before the review. However, I agree with the remover that the material has little to do with the game and so should be placed somewhere else on Wikipedia.

If you believe that this article was quick-failed wrongly, feel free to start a discussion at WP:GAR. I have also reassessed the article to Start-Class for the reasons outlined above. I hope all goes well with improvements! -Drilnoth (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources?
Why such precise dates? The article reads as if it has relied on some source which is not stated. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)