Talk:Small World (board game)

Expansion: Small World Realms
An official expansion entitled "Small World Realms" was released in 2012 but no mention is made in the article. Can someone with some editing experience add a section for this, please?

Source: http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/122316/small-world-realms

-Squingynaut (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Multiple issues
I tagged the article for a few issues, primarily failing WP:V for lack of third-party references and WP:NOT for excessive game guide/instruction manual material. I'll see if I can find the time to clean it up if nobody beats me to it. Woodroar (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. It looks a lot better now, although it could still use more third-party sources and probably a better section (in prose) about its awards. Woodroar (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Awards
I reverted a recent edit by User:Sir Hill Johnback and its reinstatement by User:Rray, so I'm coming here to explain why. WP:BTG does say we should mention if the subject of an article has won any major awards, which has broad approval across the project. (It's even part of many of our notability requirements, such as for bands and books and films.) However, award wins should always be referenced to a reliable, third party source: we sometimes rely on self-published and primary sources for trivial or non-controversial claims, but they should never be used for "unduly self-serving" claims, which mentioning an award inherently is. Beyond that, mentioning award nominations does not have wide support and really comes down to sourcing. BTG says nothing about it, for example. Generally, though, if something isn't forbidden by the project, then it's okay to include as long as we have third-party sourcing, something like Games (or another source if the award was given by Games). The same goes for minor awards and user-decided ("People's Choice") awards, which we shouldn't mention at all unless reliable sources have covered them. This seems like the most prevalent criteria for awards and recognition that I've seen across the project. Ultimately, WP:V and WP:NOR are core content policies, and we ideally shouldn't write anything unless it can be backed up by a source proportional to the claim. I hope this helps. Woodroar (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)