Talk:Scythe (board game)

Original Research
Recent additions to the article regarding Scythe's digital edition don't appear to be backed by reliable sources, and even these unreliable sources don't support some of what is being said here. As such I will be reverting these edits unless reliable sources are added here shortly. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Source Number 14 (Ludopedia)
The previous source was from BGG, an unreliable source as per the Wikiproject. The only other source I can find for this is a somewhat obscure source named Ludopedia in Portuguese and ranks around 200,000 on Alexa. I am unsure about whether this source is reputable, so if anyone could find a better one that would be great- VickKiang (talk) 07:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @VickKiang Did you try asking at WT:PORTUGAL? I can help with Polish sources if you run into any questions there. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestion and help! This was posted four months ago, I have deleted the source and replaced it with better refs, so no worries. But thanks for your reply to the post. VickKiang (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Merge from Scythe: Digital Edition
As far as I know, Scythe DE is a faithful version of the board game. (Compare gameplay sections) Do we really need a separate article for such entities? It's like having an article about a (particular) book and and its ebook or audiobook version. Or about VHS and DVD movie versions. Of course, I understand, such comparisons are not ideal, but IMHO the SDE is not separately notable from the physical version, and that's true for most other board-to-video game adaptations, of which there are many. I suggest we merge information about it to a separate section here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral to Weak Oppose This is a nice suggestion, and I am open to the consensus of other editors. This stand-alone article is probably notable, especially the four reviews (two are very high-quality), but the gameplay sections are the same. It does not meet the merging criteria for duplicate, short text, or context, but could be for overlap. Comparing the two articles, 156 of the 322 words on the same, slightly less than half of the full article, showing a large overlap.


 * But I also have concerns about merging. The existing Scythe article contains 1439 words. 482 (almost one-third) of the article covers expansions or re-implementations. That is reasonable to me- the expansions are too minor (except for Rise of Fenris perhaps) and don't need separate articles. But merging would add possibly too many topics to the main article. Overall, I feel that both merging and not merging would be fine for me. Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose Sufficient reviews on Metacritic to prove standalone notability. A board game is not a video game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support metacritic only provides just a few reviews that barely make it notable to stand on its own. However, even though an article can be split apart and barely hold notability, it it's not always best to split it and make an inferior article.

I've looked into this to support the split in the past and couldn't find enough development info without making the content superfluous and stretching basic information. So if there's no hope for this article to ever become GA, then I think it should be merged back.

My mind will change once more development info can be found.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your vote! As I created the article, I do agree that "there's no hope for this article to ever become GA"; at best, it could be a C-class article, though that's the case for likely most of the start and stub class articles in this wikiproject. The gameplay section is essentially the same, except for the tutorial and the 3D interaction, but the reception section is all right to me, but the three reviews and another news article are just notable enough to definitely survive an AfD, but no more. VickKiang (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "No hope to become a GA" is a very arbitrary criteria for something being a standalone article. Most articles on Wikipedia will never become Good Articles. There is no policy stating that articles should not exist if they cannot be made into the highest quality articles. WP:GNG simply says that an article requires notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * GNG is a good template to start the discussion for splitting an article, but I don't believe the GNG is criteria the end-all/be-all for keeping articles split.


 * Not able to meet GA is a good criteria if a lot of the information is going to be duplicated except for the reception of the article. If we're not striving for higher quality articles, than what are we striving for?


 * Look at Lumines: Puzzle Fusion, each port of the game had multiple reviews enough to technically create a stand alone article, such as the mobile phone port, ps2 port, and pc port.


 * In my opinion the digital edition is a form of port or adaptation of the same game. Im curious why you feel the need to keep them split even knowing it wont have a chance of being a high quality article .Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 06:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is my logic. Even when a game is a direct translation of the board game, it still has its own aspects worthy of consideration. You cannot set up the real life board game and play against an AI. Its graphics and music may also be poor or good. It is not the same as, say, a second edition of the same board game. I can understand folding it into the article if the game barely got any attention. But a video game is almost never "only" a 1:1 translation of a physical game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't believe we should keep the articles split just to prove there are minute differences that come in every video game. There should still be enough content to be a quality article of its own.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per Piotrus. Like information wants to stay together and I don't see a compelling WP:SIZESPLIT reason to split. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Both options are equally viable. The digital edition article itself is technically beyond stub length and there are three sources mainly about it which gives it unique notability, but at the same time, it just feels like the main board game article is so... not long, if you will, and the digital edition article so short, that it just feels like there should only be a multi-paragraph section about the digital edition. User:HumanxAnthro ( Nina Cortex x Coco Bandicoot ) 20:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Concern on File:Scythe-gameplay.jpg
IMHO I need help with this image, File:Scythe-gameplay.jpg, as I'm not that familiar with Commons, per the GA review at Talk:Scythe (board game)/GA1. But there's issues with n.a. entries. I'm pinging and, who've contributed significantly to this article recently. Many thanks, this seems to be done now! VickKiang (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The N.a. was auto-generated when I submitted the image. Sorry about that. I filled in the respected clauses.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for your help! VickKiang (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , thanks for doing that. Surely the copyright holder isn't you, though; it's whoever owns the copyright on the game itself? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)