Talk:Legends (play-by-mail game)

Legends (play-by-mail game) has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 16, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Board and table games Low‑importance

	Games portal This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle-earth Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien, his legendarium, and related topics. Please visit the project talk page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.Middle-earthWikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earthTemplate:WikiProject Middle-earthTolkien articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note: Though it states in the Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, all Tolkien legendarium-related articles that cover in-universe material before the current action must be written in past tense. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.

Role-playing games Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Role-playing games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of role-playing games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Role-playing gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing gamesTemplate:WikiProject Role-playing gamesrole-playing game articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Legends (play-by-mail game) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 October 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that an early version of the turn-based game Legends could take three to ten years to complete?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Legends (play-by-mail game).

Wikipedia

Wrong EPIC game link here folks... --Saxondragon (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

Feel free to comment at Talk:Legend (disambiguation)#Merger proposal.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Legends (PBM). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Legends (PBM). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720175036/http://home.worldonline.nl/~t017001/legends.html to http://home.worldonline.nl/~t017001/legends.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that an early version of the turn-based game Legends could take three to ten years to complete? Source: Dyche, David W. (July–August 1990). "Legends: A Review Part II". Paper Mayhem. No. 43. p. 40.
- ALT1: ... that a 1990 version of the turn-based game Legends could take up to ten years to complete? Source: Dyche, David W. (July–August 1990). "Legends: A Review Part II". Paper Mayhem. No. 43. p. 40.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Pitgaveny
- Comment:

5x expanded by Airborne84 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Since 1 October, the article has expanded from around 6,500 to over 40,000 bytes. QPQ is still pending and will need to be completed. Hook is interesting and cited. Quickly skimming the article, it appears that the game in its current form still takes a few years to play, is that right? If so, it may even be a better hook. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review Krisgabwoosh. I will do the QPQ within the next few days. It does apparently take a few years to play currently. I proposed the above hooks since a game that appeared in DYK in January 2022—Victory! The Battle for Europe—used a hook saying it took three years to complete. It seemed like the 3–10 year estimate was even longer and is one of the longest I have seen for a turn-based/play-by-mail game. I don't object to changing to the current time estimate—just wanted to note this previous entry. Airborne84 (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, in that case I'd say go with the original hook to distinguish further. With that, I'd be happy to pass this once QPQ is done. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
QPQ completed Krisgabwoosh. For your awareness, I have edited the article since you reviewed—primarily copyediting. Appreciate the review. Airborne84 (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect! Krisgabwoosh (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Running Legends

Just dropping a line here to let you know that 'conflict of interest'-wise that I've made a couple of edits early on for this page - I'm currently working for Harlequin and running Legends. While I don't check into Wikipedia all the time, if you have questions (on anything in the last 20 years) or if there is some aspect which is unclear ping me a message and I should be be able to either answer or maybe point you at where the info is available. EdwardLane (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Legends (play-by-mail game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 19:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Lee Vilenski, I think I've addressed your comments adequately below. Ready for a relook. Thanks! Airborne84 (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Prose

Lede

PBM) is a turn-based, fantasy role-playing game. It is a closed-ended, computer-moderated game with a medieval setting, currently published in English by Harlequin Games. - Jargon and WP:SEAOFBLUE issues with this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I modified this. Let me know if this works. Airborne84 (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

owner of Midnight Games - who? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean here. I don't think Jim Landes is notable enough for an article, but it seems encyclopedic to list the game developer. Airborne84 (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've missed the point somewhat. We've introduced Landes as an owner of "Midnight Games", but not said what "Midnight Games" is. Even if we said they were a developer or something we'd have less whiplash. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see now. Fair point. Addressed. Airborne84 (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Demand by 1991 was "incredible".[1 - ^{[according to whom?]} 21:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't sure the issue here, so I just paraphrased. Airborne84 (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, we need to say who said it was "incredible". It has dufferebt meaning if it's internal or not. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thank you. Airborne84 (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lede in general struggles by being pretty jargon heavy. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few adjustments. Please let me know if this works.

Appreciate the review! I'll continue to work this in the coming days. Airborne84 (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General

"Play-by-mail genre" is such a wierd section head name. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is consistent with the other PBM good article, Starweb, and the only PBM Featured Article, Hyborian War, as well as a few other PBM articles that have this context. I don't mind changing them all if you have a better name. But I'd rather keep them consistent. Airborne84 (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the play-by-mail concept covered in such depths here? I get commenting on it, but we've got a whole section not about the subject. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I ran the Hyborian War Featured Article nomination, the editors asked for this context before promoting it. It follows Featured Article Criterion 1.b., "places the subject in context". So, although this is a GA nomination, it aims to follow the best example of the genre on Wikipedia. Airborne84 (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, there's a concept of what it is, and then there's a whole section that doesn't talk about the subject at all. I'm amazed this was how we wanted this implemented at FAC. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The flow of the article is a bit off. For example, the development starts "The game is computer moderated, although in early versions certain special actions could be hand moderated.[27][h", before we actually go in on anything about how the game was created or anything. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Addressed, thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"vastly more complicated scenario" - when you state a quote, you need to say who said it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thank you. Airborne84 (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few times we state things in the present tense, despite talking about an item that has been true for a while. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed this. Please let me know if not. Airborne84 (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review meta comments

I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.