Editing Talk:First Game

I '''strongly''' disagree with the suggestion of deleting the article on the First Game kingdom. The First Game kingdom has an important role in many people's understanding of Dominion, since it's the first kingdom most people play and introduces people to the basic card mechanics; the strategy article on how to build an engine in the First Game kingdom was highly influential and changed people's understanding of the Base set; and First Game strategy is of particular value in introducing new people to Dominion. I can understand the argument for not having strategy articles on a ton of specific kingdoms, but I think the First Game kingdom has a special status and ought to be kept. Also, I strongly object to marking articles for deletion unilaterally with no discussion; no, discussion on Discord does not count; the Dominion Discord does not own this wiki or constitute the only users and editors of it.[[User:Ajd|Ajd]] ([[User talk:Ajd|talk]]) 14:31, 16 May 2021 (EDT)

:Sure, First Game is special and can deserve to actually have a strategy page, I'm just not sure how to discourage the creation of (poorly done) copycat pages e.g. [[Size Distortion]], and culling all Kingdom-specific pages seems like a reasonable way to nip that in the bud. Also, when you mention the "highly influential" article, are you referring to Geronimoo's 2012 article? Because that reads very differently with what's currently on this page, and I'm not even convinced the advice on this page is all that sound. 

: As for the "deleting pages" issue, how else do you suggest we delete pages? Tagging it as "pending deletion" and seeing if anyone opens up the Talk page (exactly like what we're doing) seems the most reasonable method to me. Also, I don't see the point in bashing discussion on the Dominion Discord when the forum is pretty quiet and there's not an easy way to mass communicate on meta-level wiki-related matters on the wiki. --[[User:Terracubist|Terracubist]] ([[User talk:Terracubist|talk]]) 00:47, 17 May 2021 (EDT)

::I just think "pending deletion" ''sounds'' like you're saying the decision has already been made. Starting the process by ''proposing'' deletion on the talk page, rather than tagging the page as already having been condemned, seems more friendly. I do agree that we don't want to have a ton of other poorly-done pages for every single Recommended Kingdom, but I don't actually think there's that much danger of that; I bet if we try just having an article for First Game and not the others, that seems likely to be a stable status quo.
:: I am referring to Geronimoo's 2012 article, and it does seem like this article needs a lot of revision to get it into shape with good theory, but that's not a reason to delete it; it's a reason to update it, as you've been doing with so many other articles. [[User:Ajd|Ajd]] ([[User talk:Ajd|talk]]) 13:18, 18 May 2021 (EDT)

:::Got it, Talk page default sounds fine. I think the original purpose of this tag was for mass application with AWB. 
:::Frankly, we've been trying to keep the wiki improvement group focused on card pages specifically, which is part of the reason general strategy pages stubs are getting made and not finished and old "combo" pages are still sitting around with questionable advice. We found it a lot easier to avoid massive productivity-killing semantics arguments by doing so, and I can't imagine that kingdom analysis would be smooth sailing. We're ~90/490 card pages done, so if you want to update this that might work; otherwise I'm still in favor of deletion over letting bad advice languish. --[[User:Terracubist|Terracubist]] ([[User talk:Terracubist|talk]])

::: I disagree. I think specific kingdom analysis is out of scope of the wiki, no matter how prominent the kingdom is. This is more suitable for a blog or the forums than the wiki. Focusing on a specific kingdom is too specific for the wiki -- the wiki's purpose is to give information and general advice about cards, not handhold people through kingdoms. There are zillions of kingdoms and it's better to give general advice and leave the specific analyses to bloggers and such. It doesn't make sense to me to have such focused advice on a wiki -- it's more suited for just dominionstrategy.com. [[User:Muenstercheese|Muenstercheese]] ([[User talk:Muenstercheese|talk]]) 16:43, 21 May 2021 (EDT)
@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 ::: I disagree. I think specific kingdom analysis is out of scope of the wiki, no matter how prominent the kingdom is. This is more suitable for a blog or the forums than the wiki. Focusing on a specific kingdom is too specific for the wiki -- the wiki's purpose is to give information and general advice about cards, not handhold people through kingdoms. There are zillions of kingdoms and it's better to give general advice and leave the specific analyses to bloggers and such. It doesn't make sense to me to have such focused advice on a wiki -- it's more suited for just dominionstrategy.com. [[User:Muenstercheese|Muenstercheese]] ([[User talk:Muenstercheese|talk]]) 16:43, 21 May 2021 (EDT)
-:::: It looks like you accidentally deleted [[User:Terracubist|Terracubist]]'s last comment when making your comment. I've restored it.
-:::: Who says that that's what the wiki's purpose is? The wiki's purpose was originally announced as "an easy, one-stop source for Dominion strategy, news, rules questions, and events"—that certainly doesn't seem limited to "information and general advice about cards". The wiki was conceived in part as a repository for articles ''from'' the blog and forums so they could be stored somewhere they'd be easy to find and to update and revise as necessary. If it's Dominion information that people are likely to want to know about, it belongs on the wiki. The First Game is an important component of Dominion lore; it's been seen and analyzed by more people than any other kingdom; of course we should share some of that analysis here! [[User:Ajd|Ajd]] ([[User talk:Ajd|talk]]) 00:22, 22 May 2021 (EDT)