Talk:Cartographers (board game)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in the board game Cartographers, players who fail to surround monsters on their map lose points? Source: "If an ambush card is revealed, all sheets are passed to a neighbor who draws a monster shape on their opponent’s sheet. Players will need to try and surrounded these ambush spaces with terrain or lose points at the end of the season." Cartographers: A Roll Player Tale Review

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/No Child Left Behind (song); see my DYK tracker

Created by Mindmatrix (talk). Self-nominated at 15:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC).

•  Reviewing... Flibirigit (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - ?
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - ?
• Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article created on November 19 and nominated within 7 days. Length is adequate and the article is neutral in tone. No plagiarism issues were detected. The sourcing is mostly good, but one paragraph is not cited. The image used in the article is freely licensed on the Commons. QPQ requirement has been completed. The hook is interesting, but I am confused by the source which says "Players will need to try and surrounded these ambush spaces with terrain or lose points at the end of the season.", rather than specifically surrounding a monster. Flibirigit (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Flibirigit: I've added a reference to the paragraph ( this one). Regarding the point of confusion, an Ambush card allows a monster to be drawn on an open space on a players card, which the reviewer referred to as an ambush space. It's the same thing. The rulebook specifically states "Each player loses one reputation star for each empty space adjacent to a monster space on their map" (see bottom of page 8). Mindmatrix 16:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• Do you mind adding the rulebook as a second citation for the hook? I think it would reduce the likelihood and anyone else asking the same question I did above. Everything else here looks good. Flibirigit (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Flibirigit: Done. Mindmatrix 00:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Citations have been added and I have no further questions. The hook is verified with the new source. Nomination approved. Flibirigit (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Flibirigit and Mindmatrix: given that a board game could kinda be construed as a fictional work, doesn't this kind of violate the "no completely in-universe hooks" rule? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 08:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I disagree. Describing how real world people would play a game is not in-universe. Flibirigit (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Hmm... I hear you, but I'm not sure I agree—it'd be like if we described a movie hook as out of universe since we mentioned the names of the actors as they executed their characters' scripts. I'm going to put a flag up on WT:DYK, see if we can't get some more eyes on this one. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 10:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• I've struck the original hook, added ALT1 from Wikipedia talk:Did you know#would y'all mind lending an opinion, and ALT2 from a new addition to the article. Mindmatrix 01:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• ALT1: ... that the expansion set for Cartographers was crowdfunded?
• ALT2: ... that the board game Cartographers can accommodate 100 players?
• Could combine the two to create an ALT3, because it's just slightly ridiculous that a board game that can go up to 100 players needs an expansion: theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 01:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • ALT3: ... that the expansion set for the 100-player board game Cartographers was crowdfunded?
  • ALT3a: ... that the 100-player board game Cartographers has a crowdfunded expansion set?

• I will review the changes and new hooks later today. Flibirigit (talk) 11:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• The conversation at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#would y'all mind lending an opinion appears to be ongoing, and I do not feel it is best practice to discuss one nomination in multiple places at the same time. I will be happy to revisit this nomination when the other discussion is closed. Anyone else is of course welcome to review this or comment. Flibirigit (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• The mention of 100 players is properly cited and verified here. The mention of the expansion set developed on Kickstarter is properly cited and verified here, but the source does not explicitly state the word "crowdfunding" and relies on the reader to know that Kickstarter is a crowdfunding platform. I find ALT1, ALT2, ALT3 and ALT3a to be less interesting than ALT0, but am willing to accept the general consensus. I feel it is best to ask for a second opinion on the use of the word "crowdfunding" and the interest of the hooks. All comments are welcome, but please do not ping me. Thanks and best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 13:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Personally I think that ALT2 is interesting as it is, I mean I don't think it's common for board games to have that many players right? And while crowdfunding is a relatively well-known concept, I feel that having a hook based on that may have a slightly nicher (i.e. techier) appeal compared to the 100 player angle, which might seem odd especially to those who aren't into board games. I'm also not much of a fan of either versions of ALT3 for the reasons I gave earlier. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I also prefer ALT2, so if it'll move the process along for this nomination, let's just go with that. Moreover, there are many board and card games (and their expansions) that are crowdfunded, so its mention doesn't make for a particularly compelling hook. (I agree with User:Theleekycauldron that mentioning an expansion for the (up to) 100 player game may be hook-worthy, but there's not much there other than its crowdfunding or new maps or cards.) Mindmatrix 00:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• I am waiting on a second opinion on the use of the word crowdfunding and whether it is adequately cited. Flibirigit (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The source doesn't explicitly use the term "crowdfunded" but it does mention Kickstarter, so I'm leaning towards adequate citation in this case given that Kickstarter is a crowdfunding site and said description is on the Kickstarter article. With that said, I still don't think any of the crowdfunding-centered hooks are that interesting compared to the 100 players angle. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

It is unnecessary to ping me or post on my talk page. I will see changes on my watchlist and comment when I am ready. Flibirigit (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I've added a ref to 'crowdfunding', which also mentions Kickstarter. It is to a company that provided game design services to the creators, but this should be sufficient for citing info about a third-party service. (That is, Brieger Creative has no affiliation with Kickstarter.) Is this sufficient? Mindmatrix 14:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Approving ALT1, ALT2, ALT3 and ALT3a, as they are all properly cited and verified with the respective sources, and since there appears to be a consensus that they are more interesting than ALT0. The article adheres to all other DYK criteria as per my first review. Flibirigit (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)