Talk:Tak (game)

Organization

Introduction

It seem like the middle two paragraphs in the introduction explain how the game is played. Perhaps that should be moved to the Rules section. The only part that really belongs in the introduction is a brief comment on the objective of the game. The Wikipedia article on Reversi/Othello might be a good guide to follow.Phantomx129 (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Edits

Agreed about the intro. That intro was written when the organization and content of the page was still under development. Definitely gonna move it now! Thanks for the feedback. Dove queen (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Notability

Is this really notable? The fact that there are only 2 refs and they are both from the publisher makes me suspicious. A lot of the text seems a bit marketing-speak too. Someone should provide some 3rd party sources. Ashmoo (talk) 09:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

In text citations should be used more for the benefit of the reader

Several sections make claims without referencing the citations below making it harder than necessary to find where to go for more information. T0afer (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)T0afer

Added some intext citations T0afer (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)T0afer

History Section Needs work

The history section needs some citations for the content already there, but it could use information on the development of the game, the reason for doing so, the formation of the US Tak association, and its various tournaments and clubs. T0afer (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)T0afer

Strategy Section Needs More Information

The Strategy Section could also use work from some more experienced with the game. Bill Leighton's book and blog could be great sources for discussing strategy and tactics at higher level play. T0afer (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)T0afer

Self-published refs

Unfortunately, I found numerous unreliable self-published blogs, Youtube channels, and Reddit. I've removed these sources, but if you can find more reliable ones please reinstate the content. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Tak Article- Notability concerns and unreliable refs

The article for Tak (2016 board game) is extremely poor IMO. Almost all of the refs link to self-published blogs, Reddit, or Youtube. I will remove some of the contents (e.g., refs only to clearly unreliable refs), however, if you could find more reliable refs please let me know. Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@VickKiang: Looking at Tak (game), which I assume you meant, I share your concerns. I consider boing boing reliable, but [1] is hardly in-depth (WP:SIGCOV). The only review that looked reliable is... password-protected ([2])? Further, a look at BGG ([3]) suggests this was a Nominee for a number of awards, but failed to win. If there is reliable coverage of this, outside the usual blogs/YouTube channels that these days review almost anything, I am not seeing it. That said, some of those reviews are written by popular influences or whatsyacallthem, like GeekDad [4], and I do wonder if that review or this would pass muster at WP:VGRS. Right now I'd support deleting this if this was brought to WP:AFD, but with a weak delete, and if someone digs up more reviews like that, maybe I'd change to weak keep. In either case, this article, needs cleanup, as it certainly has too many references to reddit and other stuff that fails WP:RS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies! Yes, IMO the refs coverage does not constitute to such a lengthy article. If you are all right with, I will gradually remove the Youtube and Reddit content. Also, do you consider the Tak Times reliable, since it is a key ref? It states that it has "editors" but the methodology or editorial process is not described. Also, the US Tak Association looks all right, but I doubt whether it is indepedent enough from the subject? Many thanks for your time and detailed comment! VickKiang (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Re Tak Tikes, it seems like a fanzine. I'd say reliable enough to cite, but not to establish notability (due to lack of independence). (You could ask about it at WP:RSN if you really want further feedback on this aspect). Ditto for the USTA. Rethinking this, I'd call GeekDad review reliable and satisfying half of GNG requirement of multiple (I read this as two) in-depth sources. BoingBoing gives us maybe a quarter, as it is reliable, but too short to be in-depth. So, as I said above, this is almost notable, but right now, not quite. I'll tag it with {{notability}} for now, thanks for trying to clean this up. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Thanks, though below is my source assessment table. Please inform me on whether you disagree:

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://boingboing.net/2016/04/19/kickstarting-tak-a-new-cheapa.html	Yes	~ The author seems to have written many articles, but Boing Boing is a "group blog" according to RSP.	~ Counts as half of a significant source IMO as it has three short paragraphs (excluding the parts directly from the game description in the Kickstarter or website) though most are quotes.	~ Partial
https://www.pastemagazine.com/games/boardgames/tak-brings-a-fictional-boardgame-into-the-real-wor/	Yes	Not the best ref, but a well-known magazine with its own WP article , and editors. It is probably reliable (IMO).	Long, significant review.	✔ Yes
https://geekdad.com/2016/04/kickstarter-tak-kingkiller-chronicles/	Yes	~ The source is a blog (?) according to WP, and won some blogs of the year awards, along with an unclear (?) editorial policy. To me, on RSP it would be Option 2 (marginally reliable) at best, and am unsure of its reliability.	In-depth article, just its reliability is of question.	~ Partial
https://www.taktimes.com/	Yes	Unfortunately, I'm going to go with a no for this. Its FAQ results in me doubting this website. It says The Tak Times is a player-made online publication that publishes "breaking news" in the Tak world and produces a quarterly "issue" of articles and other content for all Tak players to enjoy. The "player-made" suggests that this does not has a reliable enough editorial team. There is no mention of this in reliable refs, and it uses a Strikingly is our current low-cost website platform, similar to Wordpress, Wix, or Blogger. Both Wordpress and Wix are casual websites, so it suggests that this is fan-made. When I open the news articles, it says it's a blog accoridng to the URL (https://www.taktimes.com/blog/tak-times-year-one-review). As a result, IMO it is unreliable, but considering the extremely poor article, the source could be kept for now.	Very in-depth.	✘ No
https://ustak.org/2017/02/new-website/	~ It's the official Tak association, and it claims that it is indepedent. I don't have much evidence for or against this, so am unsure.	~ I am unsure if it is a reliable secondary source.	Has detailed coverage.	~ Partial
https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Mastering_Tak_Level_I.html?id=okORswEACAAJ&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y	Yes	The author is a Tak fan who is a "plumbing sales specialist with a degree in philosophy" and not a subject-matter expert. Its publisher is CreateSpace, an unreliable self-publishing service owned by Amazon according to our WP page. As it is self-published and the author not an expert, IMO this is unreliable.	140 page book on Tak strategy.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Concluding, there is one ref I am sure is reliable. GeekDad, US Tak Association, and Boing Boing are uncertain, but I would not say that the fan-made Tak Times or the Mastering Tak book are reliable. Otherwise, the other refs are in my opinion so poor that they are definitely not RS, let alone contributing to GNG. I would like your opinions on whether you agree with my assessment, if you disagree, I might change some of these and possibly ask at RSN. Thanks for your time! VickKiang (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Good find re Paste, I missed that one. I'd say that the article is borderline notable, now, one good source, several "halves" (partials). Thanks for reviewing this and copyediting it. When we are done here, I'd suggest copying that discussion - or at least linking to it - from the artice's talk page. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I've added some sources to the Reception section that I believe are reliable and increase notability - Abstract Games magazine, Gaming Trend, NYM Gamer (which are all independent and appear to have editorial staff), and also included Tak was incorporated in an international competition, Mind Sports Olympiad. Reid Tak (talk) 06:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Also added a review from The Guardian Reid Tak (talk) 06:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

General revisions

(Aim: remove banners)

Notability/independence - USTA. As a precursor to some of these changes, I am making the assumption that USTA sources about the rules and ongoing tournaments of the game are as good as those of the games publisher's. Source: https://crabfragmentlabs.com/tak - Designer's link to the association.

Nontrivial claims will be changed

remove "Many of the terms are unofficial and, while proposed or commonly accepted among Tak players, are not published in official rules or used in other official capacities." from the text - will be relying on terms published by game materials or distributed by USTA.

change the reference for Tinue to the page for Tak Terminology published by USTA: https://ustak.org/tak-terminology/

change "Players have proposed numerous variations to the official rules and have developed unofficial terminology to describe these variations and the different states of game play, including the variant of "komi"." to "Tournaments and official play through the USTA has adopted and continued to develop rule variations, most notably that of Komi." (change references to only the tak 2021 open and maybe Tournaments in general?)

Remove Tak Times section - reason: Content was developed in concert with USTA, but not officially as a part. In addition, is no longer being supported.

remove references that cite Tak Times  Done Tak Times removed. STEMinfo (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Other notes, sources from other independent had been added, but not resolved.

suggestion & question: remove [better source needed] on "Since then, the US Tak Association has been founded by fans of the game to promote the game's recognition and its level of play and to host tournaments in person and online" - would documentation or legal links about the USTA being an official Association be sufficient?

Noahsfields, this article relies heavily on a website called "Cheapass.com", whose website begins For centuries, Cheapass Games have worked quietly behind the scenes, creating amazing tabletop games for the betterment of all Mankind. This is obviously not a reliable source because they say ludicrous things, and obviously not an independent source since it hosts and promotes the game. This source and all other non-reliable sources need to be removed from the article along with all of of the content referenced to unreliable sources.

Much of the current version of the article consists of gameplay details cited to unreliable sources. As a matter of policy, Wikipedia is not a game guide.

The backbone of this article must be summaries of the truly reliable sources that are entirely independent of the game calked Tak, and that devote significant coverage to Tak. If several such sources do not exist, then this article should be deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I think I see what you're saying. To clarify a point, the Othello article also has a bit dedicated to the rules, but don't seem to have independent citations specifically for those. So where does that come from? And in what sense is a publisher's material about its own game not reliable in regards to rules? Wouldn't most if not any source that has rules for the game be somewhat tied to the game by nature? Noahsfields (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 - would [5]https://www.ultraboardgames.com/tak/game-rules.php be a sufficient source for the rules? Noahsfields (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Noahsfields, Reversi also known as Othello, is a C class article tagged as needing more references. That article goes way back to 2001, when quality standards were almost non-existent on Wikipedia. Do not use a mediocre article written decades ago as a model for this article. Standards are far higher now. As for ultraboardgames.com, I see that it is cited in several other articles about board games, so it may be OK. It is not easy to find information about their editorial processes, though. The publisher's description of game play is reliable, but it is not independent. Sources used to establish the notability of the game must be both reliable and fully independent of the topic, and must devote significant coverage to the topic. It is a three part standard. Cullen328 (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 - found a few more sources that may be reliable, some more independent than others: [6]https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/mar/24/sherlock-holmes-consulting-detective-is-a-captivating-victorian-adventure; [7]https://gamerant.com/most-difficult-board-games-adults/#tak; [8]https://www.scifinow.co.uk/books/top-five-fictional-games-by-the-knave-of-secrets-author-alex-livingston/ ?; [9]https://www.sasktoday.ca/central/yorkton-this-week/the-meeple-guild-players-need-to-lead-game-growth-development-5971671 ; [10]https://www.meeplemountain.com/reviews/tak/; [11]https://nerdist.com/article/immerse-yourself-in-the-kingkiller-chronicles-with-tak-a-beautiful-game/; [12]https://thethoughtfulgamer.com/2019/02/04/tak-review/; [13]https://www.tor.com/2018/10/12/learning-to-play-tak-the-kingkiller-chronicles-beautiful-game/ Noahsfields (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Noahsfields, the Guardian source is excellent. As for the others, disregard the ones that mention Tak only briefly. Several of the others look strong, and, when in doubt, check at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Cullen328 (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 - What would your recommendation be for proposing changes to the article? Should I do a full re-write with the new sources, or would it be possible to enlist you or someone else without potential COI to do the revisions? Noahsfields (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Noahsfields Just making sure, do you have a COI with this article subject? Shadow311 (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Shadow311 - potentially. I'm a board member of the USTA. My aim is to help make sure the article is accurate and correct while eliminating the appropriate banners. Noahsfields (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

This is the oldest request in the COI queue so I wanted to address it. I made a few modifications, including deleting the Tak Times info and restructuring. I removed the cleanup rewrite tag. I reviewed the sources listed above and looked for some better ones. I think it can use a few more to solidly meet notability, and some of the current primary and/or weak sources could be removed. It's going to take some more work. But since none of the edit requests above have reliable sources, I'm going to mark this answered to clear the queue, and suggest to @Noahsfields: that they come back with more specific requests to add properly sourced content with reliable sources, or to remove poor sources. Feel free to ping me if you'd like another review. STEMinfo (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)