Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games/Archive 2

... a tabletop game gets AfD'ed ...

 * Actually this isn't under our scope despite it being a game played on a table... but see Articles for deletion/Beer pong. The topic falls under WP:NFT, but it's been "made up one day" so many times that reliable sources have discussed it.  Barno 18:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Template spamming
User:TnS has been adding a huge number of external links to MobyGames via a template that also links to the article about the site. The link I discovered was to an totally worthless page. Garbage like this should never be linked as it plainlu violates WP:EL and common sense. While no doubt some of the MobyGames pages merit links, it is improper to just add a link to any article just because a site like MobyGames or BoardGameGeek happen to have a page dedicated to a particular game. The external link needs to meet the merit external link guideline WP:EL. That concept is pretty straightforward but I wanted to post a message here so we try and head off any mass inappropriate addions in the future, especially involving a template. 2005 10:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Rules or History first?
Some board game articles have their Rules section before History (Chess, Mancala), and others are the other way around (Backgammon, Go). Should this be standardized? I prefer having rules first, because knowing the rules can aid an understanding of the game's history and development (see Chess) more than knowing the game's history helps one understand the rules. &mdash; Elembis 17:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would think that it's going to depend on the game. In the case of backgammon, the games that it developed from are significantly different, and it's enough to know that it's a dice-driven race before getting into the history. In the case of go, the overarching concepts of the rules are simple enough that no familiarity with them is needed to go into the history first. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 18:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

In general, if a brief blurb on the history in the lead section, then it's enough to skip to the rules and go into the historical details later. All those you cited are, however, classic games of their genre or geographical region (eg. Mancala is the best example of the mancala game genre, which is primarily played in Africa, while Backgammon is the best example of a dice-driven classical race game of European descent, while Go is the classic game of position played in the Far East, and Chess is an Indian game which serves as a classic war game). The reason why one might be before the other is perhaps the ubiquity of the rules (chess) leading a treatment of the rules as being more important (eg. the rules of Chess is more important than the fact that the 8x8 board had evolved from an Indian race game that was a distant relative of Pachisi, the simple sowing game mechanic common to all mancala games), while others have history as being the more important factor (eg. the anecdote about Zeno having a disastrous roll in a game of tables, the fact that Go was the game for the upper classes, etc). Having said that, the most important of the two deserves to be first - due to the fact that commercial games are also covered, it's invariably rules-first. kelvSYC 19:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Naming convention
I've noticed that many games like Niagara (board game) and Carcassonne (board game) end with "(board game)". Source of the nile (game) just has "(game)". I wanted to know if there is a naming convention before I rename it to Source of the Nile (board game). Val42 18:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no project-specific convention, and the guidance at WP:TITLE, WP:PRECISION and WP:DAB doesn't go into that level of detail. However, my experience has been that "Foo (game)" will often be assumed to be a computer game, so it's best to go with "Foo (board game)".  Percy Snoodle 19:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Category help
I'm thinking that a category like "TimJim games" would be useful. I wanted to know what the general thoughts were -- is it ok to make a category based on publisher (unlike theme, like 18xx), and also, how do you make a new category? --Keybounce 05:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Board game categories by publisher are fine, but remember each of the games in that category would need to meet wikipedia's notability guidelines. If the publisher's games are in general less-notable ones, you'd be better off creating "List of TimJim games" and populating it as a minor topics list in the style of List of Doctor Who aliens.  To create a category, add an article to the category as you normally would, then click the red category link at the bottom of the page to start the category's article in the usual way. Percy Snoodle 10:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use template
Back in December I proposed a merger for three fair use templates, Template:Game-cover, Template:Boardgamecover, and Template:RPG-artwork. I made an effort to publicise the merge on the villiage pump and various places that deal with fair use templates. After a lot of support on tfd and a lack of opposition elsewhere I attempted the merge on January 15. Post-merge I've had two objections, one of which said that I "should have brought up the merge with the various projects that manage those covers" (which I thought I was doing when I informed WikiProject Fair use). The merge has been reverted by the person who said I should have brought up the merge in more places. So here we go... IF ANYONE FROM THIS PROJECT CARES ABOUT THIS MERGE PLEASE VISIT Template_talk:Game-cover AND JOIN IN DISCUSSION THERE. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 20:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Up for improvement: Struggle for Rome
I've started an article on the latest Catan game, Struggle for Rome - I've added as much detail as one could possibly stomach, however, there's a lot to be desired:
 * The lead section is not good enough - it is a game "published under license from Catan GmbH", without saying that the English language licensor is Mayfair Games. (As a matter of fact, this is true for virtually all new Teuber offerings, Catan or not, so earlier articles may have to be changed)
 * I've also noticed that while Struggle for Rome is acknowledged to be the second game in Catan Histories, the Settlers of the Stone Age article should have a blurb saying that the only mention of it being the first game in the series is on the Struggle for Rome box and instructions.
 * The Struggle for Rome instruction states that the Kampf au Rom name was taken from one (possibly two) unrelated board games, and that the name was used with permission from those games' publishers. If they meet notability criteria, there may need to be a disambig or other resolution device there...

If anyone could help improve it, then it would be appreciated. kelvSYC 03:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Warhammer Task Force
The articles on Wikipedia concerning Warhammer and 40K are in relatively sad shape. Can we start a task force on Warhammer and 40K? N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9  T a l k 14:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I come with pictures
I have taken good pictures of the following games- HeroQuest, Battle Masters, Axis and Allies, LotR Risk, and several others. Unfortunately our antivirus software prevents uploading. Could have someone's email address so I could send the pictures? Thanks N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9   T a l k 14:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

References for BrettspielWelt article
I asked this in the BrettspielWelt talk page, but this might be a good place, as well. There was an article on the website in the Feb 2004 Games Magazine. I've long since discarded mine, so I'm not sure what it says, but does anyone here have it? It would be nice to be able to add that referece to the article.Chunky Rice 23:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox images
I'd like to suggest that it becomes project policy to put images of First Edition box art of commercially available games in the info-box, wherever possible as is common practice with books. It would seem to me encyclopedic and pictures of the latest editions could appear to be advertising. With traditional games (backgammon, chess), then the earliest historical examples of boards or game pieces would probably be confusing to the average reader - so the very generic examples are good. --Davémon 19:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure this is practical enough, or has a strong enough reason, to make it a guideline. Here are three reasons that apply here but wouldn't be nearly as relevant to images of books or software titles.  (1) Many of the most noted games had their first edition released only in German; there are a few whose first edition was only in French, or only in Dutch.  Since this is en.wikipedia content we're discussing, it would be confusing for most readers to see a picture of a "Durch die Wuste" box on a "Through the Desert" article, or a picture of an "Einfach Genial" box on an "Ingenious" article.  (2) Some widely-noted games had a limited-run, low-budget first edition whose box art was little more than block letters, but they later got picked up by bigger manufacturers.  In that case, an image of a newer mainstream edition would be much more representative of what people actually see in game stores, in magazines, and on third-party websites like BoardGameGeek and BrettspielWelt.  (3) Some noted games have been retitled (beyond simple translation), and in some cases the later name has been more widely noted than the first edition.  An extreme case:  "Adel Verpflichtect" (not spelled correctly) is identifiable (let alone spellable) only by the most fanatic of English-speaking gamers, while "Hoity Toity" (a newer US edition of the same game) probably gets a lot more Google hits despite being a worse name.  Barno 20:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Does this sound like a variant of Hearts to you?
Look at this game: Scabby Annie. Is it notable? Perhaps Scabby Annie should be briefly merged (or simply redirected) to Hearts? What do you think? Guroadrunner 13:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of it and my Google skills haven't turned up a good source. If someone can turn one up, then merge. Otherwise, I think it should probably just be a delete/redirect.Chunky Rice 16:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy it, this is textbook WP:NFT. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 04:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Muggins
Anyone have any improvements for Muggins (domino game) ? Guroadrunner 05:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It could do with more content that isn't rules, or else it may run afoul of the WP:NOT game guide guidelines. Percy Snoodle 13:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Miniature Wargaming
I was looking at the Miniature wargaming article and it has a cleanup tag. I'm probably not the best one to clean it up, but I would like to know how do I find out if the tag refers to the whole article or a particular section. Also where I could find guidelines about how to write it in a more encyclopedic format.

I'm asking this here since the talk page says it's part of this project.

Thanks Jack1968ES 13:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If a cleanup tag is in a section, it generally refers only to that section; if it's at the top of the article, it generally refers to the whole article. Guidelines can be found at the Manual of Style. Percy Snoodle 13:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. If I have more questions after reading I would probably coming back here. Jack1968ES 13:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Level of chance: Does it make sense?

 * What does a measure of "random chance" mean in sidebars for games? Is it even logically coherent without some kind of definition of units for chance and for skill?


 * If Scrabble expert A is just slightly better than expert B, player A will win a hair over 50% of the time. Does that mean the game is almost 100% chance?  Conversely, any tournament expert will crush an occasional recreational player just about every time.  Does that mean the game is 100% skill?


 * These labels are simply incoherent, like asking "Is Lake Tahoe deeper than it is famous"? There are no defined terms, and it's a ridiculous comparison to attempt anyway.


 * These labels are simply pulled out of someone's ass. We should do away with them.

J. Goard 09:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Ditto "skills used".  Percy Snoodle 10:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there are NPOV ways to answer "random chance". Bad examples are "low", "high"; good examples are "dice", "card shuffling". This should be a place to succinctly identify the random components of a game, not to make assertions about the level of influence those components have on the outcome. [Continues below]
 * Perhaps a field for "random elements" rather than "random chance", then? "Random chance" is likely to get assigned a POV value like "low" or "high".  Percy Snoodle 13:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think either "Random elements" or "Random components" would work well. Let's try not to break existing transclusions, though; there are quite a few. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 13:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Skills required" is also a helpful item, as long as it is answered carefully. Different games require different things: some counting, some trading, some bluffing, and so forth.
 * I think the problem with these two items is generally in the quality of the right column, not the name on the left. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 13:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Links to SpielByWeb, Brettspielwelt, etc.
Is it appropriate to include external links to websites that have online implementations of games? I would think it is, and doesn't seem to conflict with WP:EL as far as I can tell. Just wanted to double check here. Craw-daddy 19:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Having a link to one tends to attract links to others, and generally the later ones are of lesser and lesser quality. In the case of games traditionally associated with gambling, linking to any one site generally leads to a huge dump of online casino spam. In the case of games still under copyright, we should be sure that we're not linking to a work which infringes on the original.
 * In cases where there is a single, high-quality online implementation associated with a game (such as an official one for a licensed property), I think it might be appropriate, but I can't think of any examples offhand. A link to the Open Directory Project's category for a game will generally suffice and will lead readers to a place where there are many links to online implementations.
 * As WP:EL notes, Wikipedia is not a web directory, so we should carefully weigh the potential for pollution against the benefit of a link to an external site. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 20:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree, though it might be reasonable to mention in the body of the article that there are online versions as well as the physical version. For something like BrettspielWelt, you could include an internal link to that Wikipedia article, which in turn has an appropriate link to it's own site.Chunky Rice 20:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I'll try to read up on the links you mention. I'm most familiar with SpielByWeb (as a user, not as someone affiliated with it in any other way), but from what I understand all of their implementations are sanctioned by the game designers/publishers. They are also nonprofit, only able to accept (entirely voluntary) donations that cover their costs for running the website (i.e. website hosting expenses, etc). These games, being of the German-type, are certainly not gambling games. Based on my usage, I'd qualify them as "high-quality" myself. I suppose that it might then be appropriate to create articles for some of these websites, if they don't already exist. Thanks again. Craw-daddy 20:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Awards Listings
Is anyone verifying that a game has actually won the awards that are being listed for it? According to the article for Power Grid, it was on the Games Magazine's Games 100 list for 2005. However, if you follow the link, the game is not on the list. Am I missing something? Or has this award been misquoted for Power Grid? Wjcolion 19:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Games 100 consists of both category winners and nominees. That page appears to list only the winners. I no longer have that print magazine to verify, but it appears to be accurate claim that Power Grid was indeed in the Games 100.Chunky Rice 19:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Games 100 doesn't have nominees. All the games are given the same award, and then some category winners get a kind of "best in show" for that category.--Mike Selinker 19:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies. However you want to phrase it, I was just trying to explain the disparity between the list of 100 and the abbreviate list on the Games Magazine site, which is that the site just has the "best in show" winners as you put it, and not the rest of the list.Chunky Rice 19:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Xiangqi FAR
Xiangqi has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 15:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving Template:Future game
I've started a discussion about moving Template:Future game to Template:Future video game. If you're interested, please have your say at Template talk:Future game. Percy Snoodle 11:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Chaos Marauders
Any suggestions or help anyone can give on my Chaos Marauders page - thanks. --Davémon 19:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Fightball
The Fightball article has been given a notability tag. As one of the game's designers, I can't really mess with the article (I haven't touched it in two years). Does someone else want to try to bring this one up to standards?--Mike Selinker 19:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at it. Are you aware of any good secondary sources or awards to use for material?  I see a review at About.com, which has editorial oversight, so that's something, but not too much else.  Chunky Rice 19:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe this: . You can also look at www.fightball.com. I don't remember the game winning any awards, but it sold a bunch of copies, and it's still in print. I think it's as notable as Deadwood (game) or Bitin' Off Hedz or most of the other Cheapass Games with articles, though less notable than Button Men or Kill Doctor Lucky. But whatever works.--Mike Selinker 14:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Gave it a good once over, adding the two reviews, taking off the notability tag and doing some general clean-up. Still probably needs work, but I think it's a good start.Chunky Rice 18:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I felt a little uncomfortable bringing this up, so thanks for taking care of it.--Mike Selinker 19:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The conflict of interest guidelines say that you should avoid editing the article, but discussing potential improvements in talkspace is actually the recommended course of action, so I don't think there's anything wrong with it. I'll go ahead and copy this discussion to the article talkpage, in the interest of full disclosure.Chunky Rice 19:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Risk-in-popular-culture article is at AfD

 * The article References to the board game Risk in popular culture has been nominated for deletion. If you know of attributable sources supporting that article's contents, or if you wish to comment on whether to keep, delete, or merge the article into a section in the Risk (game) article, please comment in the AfD discussion at Articles for deletion/References to the board game Risk in popular culture.  Barno 03:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Components section
Why is there a warning about copyright infringement? I'm not aware of any risk here. I'm going to remove it unless there are objections.Chunky Rice 19:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not a copyright lawyer, but I've read about plenty of successful legal actions (as well as bogus ones like the copyright parts of SCO vs. IBM) that make clear that text repeating the main ideas (or rather, the expression of ideas) in too much detail can be a derivative work which infringes upon the copyright holder's rights. A very brief description of game components in an encyclopedia falls under copyright law's "fair use" clause in the USA, but a comprehensive detailed retelling may violate the law.  Please be aware that the big corporate owners and distributors of copyrighted content are trying to revise laws both in the USA and in other nations, specifically trying to weaken "fair use" provisions and tighten their ability to control distribution and protect their revenue streams.  I would recommend that you not remove that warning unless you get clearance from the Wikimedia Foundation, or at least from a consensus at the Village Pump.  There's a page Copyrights and some pages that are linked from that page.  Barno 19:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I won't remove it, but I think that not doing something becase of an incorrect interpretation of copyright law is a bad reason. Two writings describing the same thing are not violations of one another.Chunky Rice 20:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The more I think about this, the more it bugs me. I mean, it's just wrong.  There's no grounds for copyright violation simply from listing components.  I'll grant you that there are many reasons why we shouldn't, but that just isn't one of them.  How do you get clearance from the Wikimedia foundation, and why would they care about a random line in a Wikiproject description?  This isn't a policy change or anything.Chunky Rice 20:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's say you were describing a simple Napoleonics game. If you said there were certain types of units, and described how some types were strong on offense, some were strong on defense, and leader units improved morale so their subordinate units wouldn't disband or surrender, that would be encyclopedic.  (I imagine the descriptions that you would write, as a member of this project, would be at this level of detail.)  If you gave the combat factors of every unit, and described every rule in the rulebook with your own rephrasing, that would be the equivalent of copying their property, and would give the reader enough to make his own copy of the game.  In some courts that would be found to violate the publisher's copyright, regardless of whether WP's policies forbade it.  By the way, I don't necessarily agree with this interpretation either, but it has stood up in some of the relevant court cases. Separately, for most games there are no attributable sources (independent, not the rulebook itself) that provide that level of detail about the game components, making it original research.  Proposing to remove guidelines that support the WP:NOR core policy might be considered a "policy change", so our project's guidelines should support including only material that is properly attributable to reliable sources.  Barno 21:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Like every other article, boardgames articles should adhere to the WP:COPYRIGHT policy. But it should be enough to say that without adding sketchy speculation as to what may or may not include a violation.  The ability to recreate a game from information given is certainly not a copyright issue.  It might be a patent issue, except that boardgames are not, by and large, patentable.
 * Also, that's not what the original research policy statement says. You can use primary sources (like a rulebook) as a source and it's not considered original research.  I'll leave the statement where it is, but in my opinion, it's both inaccurate and detrimental.Chunky Rice 21:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * From No original research: "Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." We also have the general rule that content needs to have been discussed in multiple independent sources; one rulebook is neither multiple nor independent.  Those points aren't about copyright directly, but they argue against the routine use of rulebooks as the main source for a section.  On the other hand is this from Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "Why use reliable sources?" ... "To give credit to the source, to avoid the appearance of plagiarism or copyright violations. See Copyrights."  The copyright guideline doesn't currently say anything more specific.  Non-free content says that quoting extensively from a copyrighted work, at too much length for Fair Use under US copyright law, is not compliant with the GFDL and Wikipedia's stated goal; but it also makes clear that "Inclusion of brief attributed quotations of copyrighted text, used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea is acceptable under 'fair use'. Text must be used verbatim: any alterations must be clearly marked."  I think we should revise, not remove, the BTG guideline in question.  Here's a start toward a new version, in a section that might be renamed "Rules and Components"; please offer suggestions for improving it: Extensive quoting or paraphrasing a game's copyrighted rulebook, such as laying out every rule or every game component (except in the simplest of games such as Go), is unacceptable under Wikipedia's Non-free content guideline.  A short and basic description of the rules is acceptable, but must cite the game's rulebook where quoted or if the summary is derived directly from the rulebook.  Where available, descriptions of the rules should be sourced from independent secondary sources rather than from the rulebook.  User-posted reviews, even on websites that include fact-checked content in other sections, generally do not meet the reliable sources guideline. Barno 23:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's better. The part I object to is the same one I have from the beginning: that you can name every component and explain every rule without violating copyright.  It's only if you actually copy the language used in the rulebook that copyright is an issue.Chunky Rice 23:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So, let me get this straight: It is not allowed on Wikipedia to summarize the rules directly from the rulebook (a primary source), but it is allowed on Wikipedia to summarize someone else's summary of the rulebook (a secondary source)? It is also acceptable to quote from multiple "primary sources" that are not actual historical events but are "primary witnesses" to historical events.  In either case, Wikipedia becomes not a secondary source but a tertiary source. Val42 03:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

boardgame article at AfD
The article Noah's Ark, A Journey Through Faith Board Game has been nominated for deletion at the April 19 page of WP:AFD. The game is new, so there doesn't appear to be published material about the game yet. Judging from the creator's comment, there's probably nothing to add to that discussion, but if you've seen it mentioned in reliable sources, you might wish to note the fact at that AfD discussion. Barno 20:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The Price Is Right games
I am currently putting some finishing touches on The Price Is Right (US game show) article to submit for FA consideration, but the section on home games needs some help. This is not my area of expertise, nor do I have any idea what sort of reliable sources I should be using. I also feel that, even though it is a section of the article, that it should follow some of the standards by the board game community. If I could get a few eyes over there for some help it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! &mdash;Twigboy 17:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright/Fair use question for pictures of games
If I take a picture of a game in progress/set up and release it under the GFDL, is that okay under Wikipedia's copyright rules? I note that this is the rationale for the picture in the Settlers of Catan infobox. What if the cover is included in the photograph?

If it's not sufficient that I took the photo, then it should still be useable under fair use, as long as it's used to identify and critique/discuss the game, correct? -Chunky Rice 17:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, if you shot the photo (of a set-up game, not solely the box cover) and release it under GFDL (and tag it as such), then it's directly useable for the purposes you mentioned, and "fair use" doesn't come into play. Please avoid "fair use" images (or text) because the primary goal of Wikipedia is to produce a freely redistributable encyclopedia.  "Fair use" in copyright law varies widely among English-speaking countries, and is at the core of some current controversies such as whether the DMCA law and DRM technologies allow music distributors to deny citizens their "fair use" rights under USA law. Barno 00:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Great. I'll get started.  Based on your take on fair use images on Wikipedia, you think that it would be appropriate to replace fair use box-shots with GFDL set-up game shots? -Chunky Rice 01:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. The box cover shots don't add much if anything to the article; a set-up game can be more helpful.  GFDL pics are always preferred over fair-use ones.  Thanks for working on a part of the project that I'm not equipped for. Barno 13:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Sorcerer's Cave Boardgame at AfD / Notability
A recently created article on the boardgame The Sorcerer's Cave is up for AfD. The main premise of the AfD is a lack of notability. The game is from 1978 and despite it's popularity and subsequent influence, there aren't many reliable, non-trivial sources on the internet. If anyone can help provide notability references, it will hopefully survive AfD and the article will be improved. Davémon 16:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I sent a BGG message to the designer to inquire if he had any articles about the game that he saved. I don't know if he checks that inbox, though. -Chunky Rice 17:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the effort, but it seems that Wikipedia isn't ready for an article regarding The Sorcerer's Cave, as it has been deleted. Other than perhaps complaining about systemic bias in wikipedia, and bemoaning the lack of serious academic or journalistic enquiry into games and past-times, I doubt there is much to be done to reinstate the article for now. Hopefully the AfD discussion itself will be of use to anyone looking to propose notability guidelines for board-games. --Davémon 11:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The AfD for the Sorcerers Cave has now been re-opened (apparently because of an error last time). If anyone has anything they'd like to add to the debate before it is closed again please do so at theThe Sorcerer's Cave AfD. --Davémon 16:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)