Talk:Scythe (board game)

Original Research

Recent additions to the article regarding Scythe's digital edition don't appear to be backed by reliable sources, and even these unreliable sources don't support some of what is being said here. As such I will be reverting these edits unless reliable sources are added here shortly. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Source Number 14 (Ludopedia)

The previous source was from BGG, an unreliable source as per the Wikiproject. The only other source I can find for this is a somewhat obscure source named Ludopedia in Portuguese and ranks around 200,000 on Alexa. I am unsure about whether this source is reputable, so if anyone could find a better one that would be great- VickKiang (talk) 07:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@VickKiang Did you try asking at WT:PORTUGAL? I can help with Polish sources if you run into any questions there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion and help! This was posted four months ago, I have deleted the source and replaced it with better refs, so no worries. But thanks for your reply to the post. VickKiang (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Merge from Scythe: Digital Edition

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge. Excluding my vote, there are three votes supporting merge and one opposing merge. Partcipants agreed on the similiarity of this to the existing board game article, but opponents also noted on the video game's unique notability. As I voted neutral or weak oppose, there is hence rough consensus (3-1 or 3-2 votes) to merge into Scythe. VickKiang (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

---

As far as I know, Scythe DE is a faithful version of the board game. (Compare gameplay sections) Do we really need a separate article for such entities? It's like having an article about a (particular) book and and its ebook or audiobook version. Or about VHS and DVD movie versions. Of course, I understand, such comparisons are not ideal, but IMHO the SDE is not separately notable from the physical version, and that's true for most other board-to-video game adaptations, of which there are many. I suggest we merge information about it to a separate section here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• Neutral to Weak Oppose This is a nice suggestion, and I am open to the consensus of other editors. This stand-alone article is probably notable, especially the four reviews (two are very high-quality), but the gameplay sections are the same. It does not meet the merging criteria for duplicate, short text, or context, but could be for overlap. Comparing the two articles, 156 of the 322 words on the same, slightly less than half of the full article, showing a large overlap.

But I also have concerns about merging. The existing Scythe article contains 1439 words. 482 (almost one-third) of the article covers expansions or re-implementations. That is reasonable to me- the expansions are too minor (except for Rise of Fenris perhaps) and don't need separate articles. But merging would add possibly too many topics to the main article. Overall, I feel that both merging and not merging would be fine for me. Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Sufficient reviews on Metacritic to prove standalone notability. A board game is not a video game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• Weak support metacritic only provides just a few reviews that barely make it notable to stand on its own. However, even though an article can be split apart and barely hold notability, it it's not always best to split it and make an inferior article.

I've looked into this to support the split in the past and couldn't find enough development info without making the content superfluous and stretching basic information. So if there's no hope for this article to ever become GA, then I think it should be merged back.

My mind will change once more development info can be found.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote! As I created the article, I do agree that "there's no hope for this article to ever become GA"; at best, it could be a C-class article, though that's the case for likely most of the start and stub class articles in this wikiproject. The gameplay section is essentially the same, except for the tutorial and the 3D interaction, but the reception section is all right to me, but the three reviews and another news article are just notable enough to definitely survive an AfD, but no more. VickKiang (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

"No hope to become a GA" is a very arbitrary criteria for something being a standalone article. Most articles on Wikipedia will never become Good Articles. There is no policy stating that articles should not exist if they cannot be made into the highest quality articles. WP:GNG simply says that an article requires notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

GNG is a good template to start the discussion for splitting an article, but I don't believe the GNG is criteria the end-all/be-all for keeping articles split.

Not able to meet GA is a good criteria if a lot of the information is going to be duplicated except for the reception of the article. If we're not striving for higher quality articles, than what are we striving for?

Look at Lumines: Puzzle Fusion, each port of the game had multiple reviews enough to technically create a stand alone article, such as the mobile phone port, ps2 port, and pc port.

In my opinion the digital edition is a form of port or adaptation of the same game. Im curious why you feel the need to keep them split even knowing it wont have a chance of being a high quality article @Zxcvbnm:.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 06:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Here is my logic. Even when a game is a direct translation of the board game, it still has its own aspects worthy of consideration. You cannot set up the real life board game and play against an AI. Its graphics and music may also be poor or good. It is not the same as, say, a second edition of the same board game. I can understand folding it into the article if the game barely got any attention. But a video game is almost never "only" a 1:1 translation of a physical game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe we should keep the articles split just to prove there are minute differences that come in every video game. There should still be enough content to be a quality article of its own.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support per Piotrus. Like information wants to stay together and I don't see a compelling WP:SIZESPLIT reason to split. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
• Both options are equally viable. The digital edition article itself is technically beyond stub length and there are three sources mainly about it which gives it unique notability, but at the same time, it just feels like the main board game article is so... not long, if you will, and the digital edition article so short, that it just feels like there should only be a multi-paragraph section about the digital edition. User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 20:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

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.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Scythe (board game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 15:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

FYI, and not an issue for GA, you don't have to cite the lead -- everything in the lead should be in the body, and cited there; the lead only has to cite direct quotes and controversial material. Up to you; it won't have any effect on passing GA.

Thanks,  Done. VickKiang (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• I think the FUR can be improved for File:Scythe-gameplay.jpg. The copyright owner is not the picture taker, and the two "n.a." entries should be filled out.

@Mike Christie: IMHO it might be done, see here. Do you agree with Piotrus's suggestions, and are there any more? Many thanks again! VickKiang (talk) 01:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • justpushstart.com
  • artstation.com
  • dicebreaker.com
  • destructoid.com -- see comments at WP:VG/RS about needing to establish the individual contributor's credentials

That's everything I can see to comment on -- the prose is straightforward and the article is well-structured. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Dicebreaker, according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/Sources, is generally reliable, and was discussed on RSN. The rest probably needs more discussion though, I'll start one at BTG WikiProject or RSN. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks -- didn't know about that RS list; will remember that. I've struck dicebreaker and will wait to hear back on the others. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done for Just Push Start and Destructoid, will need a further look for Art Station. Many thanks for your help! VickKiang (talk) 02:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Christie:  Done for Art Station as well. VickKiang (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

OK on artstation.com being removed. The only remaining issue is the FUR in File:Scythe-gameplay.jpg; it still lists Blue Pumpkin Pie as the copyright owner, but that's not right. The game manufacturer has copyright, so we just need to substitute the manufacturer -- presumably Stonemaier Games? -- and we're done. You don't need to wait for BPP to do it; I'll pass this as soon as you make that change. Re Piotrus's comments: I'm going to pass this without waiting for further discussion -- in my opinion even if I agree with him it's not a requirement for GA, so any remaining suggestions can be handled on the article talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Christie:  Done VickKiang (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Looks good. Passing GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Few passing comments from me:

• can we move the first mention of dieselpunk higher, preferably to development?
• "Różalski had focused World of 1920+ on two factions inspired by those of the Polish–Soviet War. " Name the factions for clarity. Also, I find this sentence unclear and not supported by [https://web.archive.org/web/20161114173643/https://magazine.artstation.com/2016/11/jakub-rozalski-scythe/ the source cited. Please revise or provide the quotation from the source that this is used to paraphrase.
• I find the heading "Alternate versions" less than ideas. Why alternate? Maybe "other versions"? And add subheadings for the two games discussed (MLP spin off and the digital Scythe game?)
• Maybe move reception of the digital game into the main reception section; divide that section with subheadings for reception of board game and reception of video game? But I'd keep the sentence about Iron Harvest in the 'other versions' section, it's not really relevant to Scythe digital edition, and should not be appeneded to the end of the paragraph on reception of said digital edition IMHO.
• Both Scythe and My Little Scythe have reviews in Rebel Times [1]. I will add them in shortly (ping me if I forget). Presumably reception of MLS would go in a separate subsection too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: @Mike Christie: Many thanks:

1st point: IMO it's optional, since the first mention is at lede.

2nd point:  Not done, as Art Station isn't RS, it has been rm, IMHO the mentioning of individual factions is a bit too specific.

3rd point:  Not done for now, IMHO I like the alternate version heading.

4th point:  Done

5th point: @Piotrus: If you add it that would be great for the final one! VickKiang (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't notice that, but no, I think we should have a sentence listing individual factions and their inspirations (real-life counterpart). Iron Harvest does it, and arguably, we could just copy that article's entire "Setting" section here (with minor c/e). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus:  Done with trimming. VickKiang (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Good, but we need a sentence more about other factions, which may not be present significantly in Iron Harvest, but are qually important in the board game (Ukrainian/Crimea, Nordic, and the ones from expansion - UK/Albion, Japanese and Fenris). RS that mentions factions (non-expansion): link. Expansion facon are mentoned here (RS?) or here (RS). Not sure how to deal with the final faction (Fenris) as they are kind of spoilerish and most reviews I scanned through don't clearly name them as such (as it is a mid-campaign game type of reveal). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

As for the Rebel stuff, I will work on this later this week. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Concern on File:Scythe-gameplay.jpg

@Piotrus: @Blue Pumpkin Pie: IMHO I need help with this image, File:Scythe-gameplay.jpg, as I'm not that familiar with Commons, per the GA review at Talk:Scythe (board game)/GA1. But there's issues with n.a. entries. I'm pinging Piotrus and Blue Pumpkin Pie, who've contributed significantly to this article recently. Many thanks, this seems to be done now! VickKiang (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The N.a. was auto-generated when I submitted the image. Sorry about that. I filled in the respected clauses.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help! VickKiang (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Blue Pumpkin Pie, thanks for doing that. Surely the copyright holder isn't you, though; it's whoever owns the copyright on the game itself? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)