Talk:List of play-by-mail games

Copy-paste of "Editorial"

Airborne84, you seem to have introduced a number of citations to "Editorial" in Paper Mayhem that all have different page numbers. Those look like copy-paste errors. I assume you have the source, so could you please correct those titles? --Izno (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, when adding issue numbers, do not introduce the pound sign. That corrupts the metadata of the citations. You should stop doing that across the board, not just this article.

I have also changed the issue volumes simply to issue dates. --Izno (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Will do. Interesting about the pound sign. I didn't know that. Good to know. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it might be better to do with just the bare number, rather than either a pound sign or No, so "61" instead of "#61" or "No. 61"? BOZ (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

This is not something which you can change if you use the correct citation template, which is {{cite magazine}}. --Izno (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

With the number alone, I would think it could be confused with the page number, since they are adjacent, for example, in the journal template. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Although I didn't know the magazine template did that. Should have been using that one.... --Airborne84 (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Caveats to article

I added a couple of notes to the article as caveats. I don't think they will be controversial.

• One is that the game should have moved beyond the playtesting phase to be included. Some of the games I have read about in Paper Mayhem, for example, were in playtesting and it wasn't clear they ever moved past that. So, I don't include them.
• The other one is the publisher. Sometimes I come across a game that's already on the list but by a different publisher. If it's in a source a number of years apart, there's a chance the game just changed hands, so I'll typically try to do a bit more research before just listing a duplicate name with a different publisher. --Airborne84 (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Active/Inactive

I added an active/inactive column because at the website playbymail.net, I've seen comments that no one knows how many active PBM games exist. I'm not sure this list will turn into that, but it might get closer than anywhere else.

Admittedly, it could be problematic if a game that's noted as active goes inactive. I think the juice is worth the squeeze. A possibility is to add the year or month/year in parenthesis next to the word "active", corresponding to the last time the source was checked.

Anyway, I just propose that to add either annotation requires a source. Either a current website or similar for an active game, or a source that identifies positively that a game or company went inactive, vs. just a guess. My two cents. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a bit further than the list should go; I think it will be more likely than not to draw unreliable sourcing firstly, and secondly for the reasons you mention as being negatives. There are/should be other places for people to get this kind of information. --Izno (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm open to reverting if other feel the same. Any other input?--Airborne84 (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

As an added consideration, if this were to be a separate article here called "List of active play-by-mail games", would that be notable as a stand-alone article or might that be something other editors would eventually recommend be consolidated into this article?

Another option would be to create a separate list above or below the "main list" in this article with those sourced as active. This avoids some of the problem with the separate column in that there's no sourcing needed for inactive games—only for active games. The main list would simply avoid taking a position on active/inactive. --Airborne84 (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I would anticipate such an article being deleted or merged here if created. (I'd guess the former more likelier than the latter.)

A separate list might be reasonable for me; I'd just make it a simple list though with some {{div col}}. --Izno (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, I can do that. Might take a day or two.

If the active games remained in the main list and were to just be repeated in a separate list, the "div col" tool would be appropriate.

Another possibility would be to pull them out of the main list and capture their information in a separate one, in the manner of the "Television" or "Narrator" sections of the Morgan Freeman on screen and stage list. I'd lean toward the latter to prevent redundancy, but am open to either. Let me know what you think. I'll leave it up to you. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Radio silence. I'll try the latter. If it doesn't work, will adjust to the former. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Mostly done

I've hit diminishing returns on this article as far as list entries. I'm sure there are more PBMs out there, but I've mostly depleted my sources, and I think the list is built out fairly well. With the gaps, I doubt it would pass as a featured list, nor do I have the interest to try for it. As it stands, the list could use an image, and I'll keep that in mind in the coming weeks. Other than that, I might just check to see that the appropriate pages link to this article (feel free to join in if you're reading this), and then I'll move on to my next project. Happy editing! --Airborne84 (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Review for a PBM called "En Garde!" (based on the RPG En Garde!?): https://rpggeek.com/rpgissuearticle/138952/tetes-daffiche BOZ (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Industry Page

@Izno, regarding those active PBM games, I checked their websites and sourced from there, but I saw they were active games originally from PlayByMail.net's Facebook page. I usually avoid linking to social media sites, but in this case, perhaps it is adequate as an "industry page". Your thoughts? --Airborne84 (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

This page isn't for every single game that might have been produced; it's for games which have been recognized by WP:RS (or at least trade magazines like Paper Mayhem, as you've added). The citations were to their personal pages, which is what triggered the revert button. (Some lists will limit their entries to notable topics in the list, but in this case I think the minimum is reasonably "someone has written about them in an edited work".)

I also saw you earlier removed some citations and I thought that might not be a great idea. If we can continue adding citations even to list items here that already have a citation, maybe we can get to the point where we can easily identify topics for new articles (via the WP:GNG). --Izno (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough on using sources outside of the game pages. And agreed on adding sources versus replacing. Works for me. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Additional sections

I'm about to add some more additional dozens of entries from Flagship. They're overseas companies. Currently the main list is long enough to be cumbersome to negotiate. It seems as if breaking the main (long) list into one or more smaller lists would be easier for a reader. So, we could:

1. Leave the format as is

2. Split the main list into "US" and "International" PBM games (or companies)

3. Split the main list into some other category set (decades would be hard given the gaps in dates)

I lean toward #2, but I don't have strong feelings one way or the other. Airborne84 (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

As an added note, splitting into US and International would not be an exact split. Some of the ones listed in Flagship have companies listed only by email and web addresses that don't identify a country, and there aren't other identifying characteristics (e.g., a question mark in the currency column, where a pound sterling or Euro sign would have identified an overseas company). On the other hand, there are probably some games in the main list that are still active, so the list isn't hyperaccurate and can continue to be improved over time. Airborne84 (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

For some data, right now, there are 562 entries in the main (inactive) list, and 95 non-US entries (93 UK and 2 German). I have about another 50 to 60 non-US entries from Flagship #99 to input. So, that would be ~150 entries to split off from the main list. That would be:

• US inactive games
• International inactive games
• Active games

Or potentially putting the active games at the top. Airborne84 (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Bowing out

I believe the list is currently at 732 total articles and 78 active games. It's a reasonable reference at this point, and has plenty of grist for those who might be interested in writing a related article but is short of references. For my part, I have to start bowing out due to other requirements. Airborne84 (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)