If you came to this page because Aldaron asked you to do so, or because you saw his thread on boardgamegeek pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome will bo primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or Meatpuppetry.
You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Decisions are based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already.
Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
Move - "German-style board game" is unnecessarily convoluted. "Designer game" is a good alternative. "Eurogame" or "German game" are other succinct descriptions I've commonly heard. Rdore 20:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Move - But to Eurogame, not "Designer game". The rational for "Designer game" is weak, it is a less-frequently used term, and it is inaccurate. "Eurogame", on the other hand, is widely used to refer to precisely the range of games covered by this article, including card games, non-German games, "euro-style" games from the US, and games with "euro" elements not credited to a specific designer. AmbientArchitecture 20:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't Move - Designer Games is not a common name for these games. On the other hand, BoardGame Geek still uses "German Style Games" to distinguish them in their Gamer Database. "Eurogames" would also be a valid alternative, as that seems to be a name gaining wide acceptance. I believe that it was a term originated mainly by wargamers. Check Consimworld and you will find it bandied about all the time. Also, Rick Thornquist of Boardgame News wrote a column touching on this term within the past week. It would be far more accurate than "Designer Games" if a move has to be made. PSauberer 22:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't Move - "Designer games" is not in common usage in English. "Eurogames" would be fine. Morngnstar 22:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't Move- Among those most familiar with these types of games, almost none use the term "Designer Games", and many have never heard the term. On the other hand, everyone who has any knowledge of these types of games is very familiar with the widely-used term "German games". "Eurogames" would be an acceptable alternative, as it is a term already gaining in popularity. Ruprecht33 12:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't Move- It's a perfectly normal thing to refer to a particular style of something by the region in which it was popularised ("French Fries" (though actually Belgian), "Mexican Food", etc.). The Germans have been at the forefront in designing, developing, and marketing this style of game for the past 15-20 years, and "German Games" is therefore what they are most commonly called around here (Regina, SK, Canada) and in most parts of the English-speaking world, it seems. The title of the English Wikipedia entry should reflect actual usage, rather than the wishful thinking of those who don't like the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs)
Well spotted. I notice the thread was started by "Aldaron" - the username AmbientArchitecture would like. I'll let him know on his talk page that this is unacceptable per WP:SOCK. There used to be a template to let newcomers know their votes might be discounted (though it seems about 50-50 so far in terms of real votes, so they may well get their way), but I can't find it. Percy Snoodle 14:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure the policy you cite applies. I simply asked an informed community to contribute to a discussion that was clearly uninformed. I have no stake in this other than improving the quality of Wikipedia and my purpose was simply to engage a group that has relevant information. My purpose was not "to stir up debate, in order to attract users with likely known views and bias" but simply to encourage people with relevant and informed views to have a say. The question at hand is, after all, "what do people call these games" -- this seemed a pretty straightforward way to answer that question. If it is truly Wikipedia policy to prohibit such discussions, then I will certainly post a message on the thread on BoardGameGeek asking users there to withdraw their posts. AmbientArchitecture 14:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will admit that I found this thread from a post on BGG. I had never registered with Wikipedia before, but have used it. This was really the first time that I could contribute in an area of my own expertise. If that makes my contribution invalid, then so be it. However, another portion of the Sock Puppet explanation includes the following, "Wikipedia is not a place for mixing fact and opinion, personal advocacy, or argument from emotion." IOW, Wikipedia is a place to reflect what is, not a place to try and say, "Wouldn't it be great to redefine something as X?" and campaign to get that listed as "official." So, regardless of whether my contribution, or those of others who have found this site officially "matter," the information provided by us should be taken into account in the decision. The fact is that "Designer Games" is not a common appellation for these types of games, regardless of how much some people may think it should be. I have provided references, as have others, that show "German Games" and "Eurogames" are widely accepted, whereas thre are no corresponding citations for "Designer Games" other than references to a non-English term. If some want to bring about this change they would be better served by backing up their proposal with facts rather than by disparaging knowledgeable people who are only trying to increase the accuracy of Wikipedia. PSauberer 14:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't Move- The French Fries argument makes perfect sense. It is the term used today. Wouter Lievens 09:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Move- But only to to "Eurogame". "Designer game" is not the right term for this class of games. It is not commonly used to refer to them. Also, wargames are sometimes referred to as "designer games", and they do not fit into the class described by this entry. While "designer game" is better than "german-style board game", it's still not a good choice. "Eurogame" would be much better, or the archaic, but still popular, "German game", as they are both in common usage. Eurogame is even commonly used to describe games in this class which are not of European origin. --Dyfrgi 17:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't Move - If there is a move to Eurogames I would understand it, as people here actually use it. But calling them Designer Games is worse than the unwieldy German-style board games. rellekmr 09:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Move, preferably to 'Eurogames'. Well, I'm not German (even when I don't care the least about nationalities) Bruno faidutti 15:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW, Bruno is a highly respected and well known game designer and member of the gaming community. Will you discount his vote too? (You'll notice BTW, that not everyone on BGG feels that the move is inappropriate: it is a knowledgeable community with a great deal to say about the issue at hand, not all of it consisting of "likely known views and bias" AmbientArchitecture 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Move I heard them called "designer games" prior to Euro- or German-. Perhaps that is due to the fact that the first author credited games that I played were not from Europe, and this was prior to the explosion of popularity of these types of games in the USA. Though many of the great publishing companies are located in Germany the designers and players are world-wide. I think one notable point is the fact that they are called "author games" in Germany. If we truly want to be in the tradition of "German Games" why not call them what they are called in Germany? --pronoblem 15:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pronoblem is also a highly respected member of the gaming community. Will you discount his vote? I hope this begins to prove my point that regardless of how biased my inital post on BGG may seem to you (that's how we talk to each other on BGG) I fully expected to hear from "both sides". AmbientArchitecture 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Move I've never heard about Designer game but I also never used German-styled boardgame. Around here we use Eurogames. That would make alot of sense since those games have a tendancy to be similar in style (no player elimination, strategic, less randomness...). And anyway, what is a Designer Game? A game designed by someone. Would'nt you say that all of them are like that, even Monopoly!? 184.108.40.206 18:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do not move. Having read significant amount of current literature about board-gaming over the past few years, and enjoying the hobby myself, the term "designer game" does not reflect current usage and is an inaccurate designation. "German-games" or "Euro-games" are the terms most widely used, and Wikipedia should reflect this. Gregorytopov 19:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Move to one or the other (Eurogames or Designer games). I'm a bit mystified by votes such as the one above which begins "Do not move" but then advocates two titles neither of which is the current title; but I digress. To me Designer games is unquestionably the best name: it's accurate (I think everyone agrees that a distinguishing criterion is that these games are credited to their designers); it gives the right impression to people to whom the term is new (because it's comparable to Designer X for other X; and it's the accurate translation of the German Autorenspiele (because we usually call them game designers, not game authors). BUT if you think this argument is too prescriptive for WP (personally I feel that having accurate titles is not too prescriptive—compare the person on the BGG discussion who pointed out that aeroplanes are at "fixed-wing aircraft" on WP) then go with Eurogames which people seem to agree is a popularly used term which is a damn sight less ugly (and marginally less nationalist) than the current title. 220.127.116.11 21:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The reason why some people will vote "Don't Move" and then suggest a move to another title is that they are voting against "Designer Games," which is the subject at hand, and suggesting alternate titles which are in more general usage. They are not objecting to a move per se, just a move to a term that is not as generally accepted as others. The reasons proposed for this particular move are not germane. All of them address reasons that the proposer believes why these game should be called "Designer Games" but do not provide any evidence that the term is the most used, or in fact, is in much use at all. Citing a foreign term and then suggesting a translation of it is not a particularly good reason in the absence of evidence that the English term is actually being used and especially there are other terms in general use. If there were an equivalent to www.germangames.com or if there were citations that several merchants were using "Designer Games" as a category, that would help bolster the case. As it is, even those that have championed the use of the term, such as Erik Arneson of about.com, have more links to sites that use the terms "German Games" or "Eurogames" than use "Designer Games." This "What should we call these games?" controversy has been around for years in the hobby, getting debated in forums such as the Spielfrieks Yahoo group. The term "Designer Games" has never gotten enough traction to become an accepted title. No matter how well some think that it does to describe this sort of games, the fact is that it hasn't made it. It has been proposed and rejected. If Wikipedia is to be a site devoted to reflecting things as they are, and not how some wishes them to be, the legitimate titles to choose from are "German Games" or "Eurogames." "Designer Games" just isn't a factor. Whether or not it would be a "better" title is entirely irrelevant. PSauberer 22:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Thoughts In Australia "Designer Game" is effectively unheard of and "German Game" would be recognised but is not in common use in my experience of two cities of gamers. We use "Eurogames"... the term acknowledges origins of cultural influence of the now global phenomenon, nothing more. Cosmic Encounter is a "Eurogame". Acquire is a "Eurogame". It's simply the language as used. A language other than English may well call this style of game by some other name, but we don't. Someone pointed out googlefight shows around 2 million hits for "eurogames" vs around 140 thousand for "German games" and 25 thousand for "Designer games". This seems a reasonable test to consider for current internet usage of English language. --18.104.22.168 07:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Joe GrundyReply[reply]
Comment I also came here via the evil BGG article. I also have never edited a wikipedia article before, though I am a frequent user of this resource. I have no idea who this Aldaron person is and I expect never to meet him/her. As such I (and others) hardly fall under the Sock policy thing. BGG is an international community of gamers with an active membership in the tens of thousands... not the only community for sure, but to discount the comments of those who are interested enough to contribute here would seem ... well, self defeating anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs)
Comment As the notice above states, well-reasoned arguments are welcome and will be considered; I'm glad that so many new users are turning up, and I hope that they stay and help to improve wikipedia's game articles. I'd like to apologise to anyone who sees my concern with Aldaron/AmbientArchitecture as anti-BGG; it isn't. IMO, BGG is the foremost board game resource anywhere, and I've always referred to it while editing board game articles here on wikipedia; I created, and defended the notablility of the wikipedia article on BoardGameGeek, and I created Template:bgg to point interested wikipedia readers to BGG. My concern is instead that AmbientArchitecture broke wikipedia's rules in order to push his agenda, and that that behaviour is unacceptable under wikipedia policy. Percy Snoodle 09:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the issue is simply this: has the discussion here improved and become more informed as a result of my post? That, as I've stated repeatedly, was my only intent. I would (again) request that you remove the discouraging warning you posted above and stop accusing me of "unacceptable" behavior. As I hope you can see (and has some here have explicitly pointed out) the BGG community is hardly the place to recruit for "likely known views and bias" or to "strengthen one side of a debate". It is, however, the best place to go to improve the quality of a discussion on any matter related to gaming. That, I would hope, is not "unacceptable". AmbientArchitecture 14:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The issue is not "is the debate more informed" - it's "did you solicit votes to stengthen your side of the debate". You posted, "hurry and stop them!", in clear and deliberate violation of WP:SOCK. That the incoming users' views are mixed doesn't alter what you did or why. But the place to discuss this is your talk page. Here, we should be discussing whether or not to move this article. Percy Snoodle 15:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was just responding to this: "AmbientArchitecture broke wikipedia's rules in order to push his agenda, and that that behaviour is unacceptable under wikipedia policy." If you want to keep that discussion on my talk page, then, please do. 16:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, we shouldn't be debating this move at all, as it does not come anywhere near falling under what is listed as valid in the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). "Designer Games" is neither "the most common name of the...thing" nor would the "average user of Wikipedia put [it] into the search engine" nor is it a "well accepted alternative" to a "misleading" common name. The arguemnts in favor of it are a) it is a transliteration of a term in a different language, b) "I think that it would be a better name" and c) "Well, I use the name." None of those meet the guidelines set forth. If the Wikipedia policies are to be strictly followed, then this request should be withdrawn. PSauberer 15:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed "well accepted alternative to a misleading common name", but I'd say that sums it up pretty well; thanks for pointing it out. A newcomer might well be misled into believing that German-style board games were a) executed in a German style, which they're not and b) board games, which many of them aren't; and a good proportion of those commenting here seem to consider it "well accepted", as does the text of the article at the moment. Percy Snoodle 15:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Twisting one of three conventions to possibly cover the change, while leaving "Designer Games" as obviously not meeting the other two substantially weakens the case for the move. It serves to show that the move should never have been proposed in the first place, espceially since it also runs counter to the statement that "Wikipedia is not a place for mixing fact and opinion, personal advocacy, or argument from emotion." The problem with your argument is that it keeps boiling down to "because I (and a handful of others here) say so." Unfortunately, that doesn't stand up in the face of the overwhelming evidence that "German Games" and "Eurogames" are far more common titles. Google shows "Designer Games" lacking. There are no retailers of "Designer Games" cited. The sites that might be used to show the term in use actually shows that "German Games" as far more common. Even in this discussion here, "Designer Games" is lacking in any sort of consensus as a common term. Unless there is actual valid evidence to be used to support an argument for a move, Wikipedia guidelines should be followed and the request withdrawn. A request to move it to "German Games" or "Eurogames" would be a different matter.PSauberer 16:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Do not move. When it comes to these sorts of games, I'd like to think that I've been around the block quite a few times. First, this debate has been popping up for a LONG time (ever since SvC came out and wrested rec.games.board out of the hands of the Star Fleet Battles fans...) and it appears impossible to settle. Second, (to reiterate what many have already said) I've heard "designer games" actually spoken VERY rarely and when I have it was either a joke or followed by an awkward rationalization or apology. I use "Eurogames", but I really don't think it matters too much as long as it isn't called "these games of ours". That one is yucky. Shumyum 13:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Shumyum, it may appear impossible to settle this debate with the people in those communities. Here at the Wikipedia it is up to the editors to decide. The result of this name change here on the Wiki article will not settle the debate elsewhere. The thing is that all three terms suggested for these games: Euro-, German- or designer- all have not been around that long and as a result I think that popularity of usage of the three should not be the indicator as to what they are called, rather what makes the most sense. They are not called "German Games" in Germany and there are publishers, designers and gamers outside of Germany involved in these types of games. While the Wiki entry titled German-style board game does well at a general description of these types of games (except for that one thing that I edited out about the rules of Chess being "complex") there are plenty of exceptions to what is outlined for what I have heard many people call "German Games": some have fixed numbers of players, while "themed" many are abstract (Chess more theme than many "German Games" by the way), some games have conflict, some have wealth accumulation as a mechanic and some are heavy in math. The only common feature in these games is the designer credit. --pronoblem 15:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment It is most emphatically not the job of the Wikipedia editors to decide what these games should be called. The only reason to move this article is if it has been demonstrated that "Designer Games" is in the most common usage of any terms for these games. Whether it is "better" than the current title or "the best" of other titles is completely irrelevant. Any argument that rests on why "German-style board games" is a "bad" name or "Designer Games" is a "better" name is not germane to the discussion. On that note however, your statement that "The only common feature in these games is the designer credit" is flawed at both ends. If you do an advanced search on Boardgame Geek by designer and search for "uncredited," you will find games like these in there, so it is not a universally commmon feature. On the other hand, you will find many games (e.g. wargames) that prominjently feature the designer's name, so the feature is not exclusive, either. PSauberer 17:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment Less flawed than calling them German or Euro? I think so. Maybe we should call them Fixed Wing Games (see airplane entry here on BGG that was mentioned above). The majority of the people that advocate "German Games" are people not from Germany. If the heritage of the games is linked to the people of Germany that play / design / publish these games we should be looking towards what they in Germany call these games. However, the games are not specifically created by, played by or published by those living in any one region. The games are international. Wargames have enough distinguishing features to have their own entry... there is some crossover, but two different types of games on the whole. Yes, BGG has some uncredited games... many games before the 1960's are uncredited and BGG is not the authority. --126.96.36.199 19:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment"Less flawed" is irrelevant and not germane to the discussion. If "Fixed Wing Games" is the predominant term that is currently in use in the English speaking world, and that is what most users would do a search for, then that is what the Wikipedia entry should be titled. The burden of proof for a move is on those who are advocating a move. They should demonstrate that the term "Designer Games" is the "most common" name. This has clearly not been done. The best that has been advanced is a reference to the German name for the games and an argument made that therefore a transliteration should be used on the English site, regardless of a current lack of use of this transliteration in English. However, the logic with that is faulty because it could just as easily be said that the entry on the German language site should be moved to something like "Deustschespiele" or some other transliteration of the name on this site. I feel as if I am going around the same track again and again but trying to make an argument that "Designer Games" is a more apt term for these games is irrelevant to the discusion at hand. That is a debate that has gone on for years in other forums. Wikipedia is not concerned with what should be, but rather what is. And the fact is that "Designer Games" is not the most common name and no evidence has been presented to demonstrate that it is. No matter how many times anyone says, "I think 'Designer Games' is a better name" it advances the argument for a move no farther than it did the first time because it is still just as pointless to the issue. PSauberer 19:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment You state: "If "Fixed Wing Games" is the predominant term that is currently in use in the English speaking world, and that is what most users would do a search for, then that is what the Wikipedia entry should be titled." I hear "Airplane" more often, and that is not what Wiki catagorizes it as. We are not talking common usage, we are talking correctness. I understand that you feel threatened by the change. You should simply call the games what you desire and not worry about the accuracy of the Wiki.
Comment The Wikipedia:Naming conventions specifically state that common usage takes precedence. "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. Another way to summarize the overall principle of Wikipedia's naming conventions: Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." If a case can be made that "Designer Games" is what a majority of Emglish speakers would most recognize, then feel free to make it. If the best that can be done, however, is advancing an argumetn of "But I want it!" and making personal attacks, then I believe that the move is doomed to rejection. PSauberer 20:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment This is neither "but I want it!" or personal. The games are neither German or Euro. Those terms when entered into the search could still redirect to the correct entry of Designer Games. Those readers serching for German or Euro would not be left out, as well they would be educated as to the correct terminology.
Comment on the contrary; for flawed, read "misleading", and it accords perfectly with the policy you cited earlier. Percy Snoodle 19:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The policy I cited earlier states three factors as far as naming conventions are concerned (in order): 1)the most common name 2)what the average user would put into the search engine and 3)a well accepted alternative to a misleading common name. Even if we stipulate that the current title is "misleading," in order for "Designer Games" to be an acceptable substitute you have to move past the first two qualifications, which it clearly does not meet, and apply the third only after bypassing not one, but two terms that are in more common use. If that is the best argument that can be made, then the move should not be made. If there is a better argument showing that "Designer Games" fits all three criteria then, by all means, make that argument. PSauberer 20:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
'Comment' I think you misunderstand the way moves work here - perhaps I should explain for you and the other new guys. If this article is moved, users are still free to enter "german-style board game", "german game" and "eurogame"; they will be redirected to the correct article, whatever happens. However, if we do go ahead with the move, the article won't mislead them into thinking it describes board games in a style invented by the Germans. That, AIUI, is the reasoning behind the "misleading common name" policy, and that is the sense in which it applies. Percy Snoodle 20:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Leaving aside the solicitation of votes for now, I notice that there appears to be a lot of feeling against "Designer Games", but no-one has objected to "Eurogame". I would therefore like to suggest that we open up the debate. Please comment in the relevant sub-section below. (And leave the question of solicitation to whichever poor admin has to tidy up whis mess)
Comment They don't all have designer's names on them and not all games with designer's names are "Designer Games." Why doesn't that count as being at least as "misleading" as "German Games?" PSauberer 04:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment I'm struggling to think of an example of a modern German-style board game which doesn't credit the designer on the box. However, if you'd prefer to think of it this way, there is a sense in which they are considered artistic works in a way that older games aren't; having one published improves the designer's reputation and is "a credit to them" in that sense - think of it like the "designer" part of designer clothing. I favour the first sense, but there's definitely an element of the second. Percy Snoodle 08:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CommentRailroad Tycoon has neither Glenn Drover's nor Martin Wallace's name on the box, to offer one recent and notable example. If you do an advanced search on the Geek by "Uncredited" designers, you will find more, mixed in with many games that are not of the type under discussion. If you wish to advance your new definition of, "Designer Games," one in which the desginer's name becomes superfluous to the term, that is truly getting into the "misleading" territory. It does not make the case stronger for a move to say that "You can't really tell a designer game by looking at it since it might not have the name of the designer on it and there are games with designer's names that aren't 'Designer Games.' You have to do research on a game to tell whether it is a 'Designer Game' or not." Even that is not good enough, because plenty of wargames could be considered "artistic works" and "improve the designer's reputation," and they can even have the designer's name on the box, yet they are not "Designer Games." Some form of "German Games" or "Euro Games" still does a better job of naming a class of games that a)surged in popularity starting in Germany (think Settlers of Catan) b)whose most common design elements are driven by the German market and designers who publish in Germany c)has its most prestigious award bestowed in Germany and d)still has most of the games produced out of Germany. Having an author's name on the box can be, but is not necessarily, a characteristic if such games. It most certainly does not define them any more than any of the other characteristics listed. Oh, and thank you for posting the notice to the anonymous person who was deleting my posts. PSauberer 16:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment sorry, I now see that your "starting in germany" refers to the surge in popularity. However, I'm not sure your example applies. Such games were already popular in Germany; it was Catan that made them popular outside of Germany. Percy Snoodle 21:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Wow. One example, yet you still know who designed it, those designers have a reputation and thus credit toward the popularity of the game! I thought this section swas just for voting and not discussion (above). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs)
Comment no; this is not a vote, it's an attempt to generate consensus. While I'm not convinced it was appropriate for AmbientArcitecture to "re-open" an open debate, it is nonetheless an appropriate place for discussion. In any case, it's never appropriate to delete another user's comments. Percy Snoodle 21:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Eurogame is hardly less misleading than "German game." The distinguishing characteristic of the designer game movement is an emphasis on quality of product design, analogous to Percy Snoodle's "Designer clothing" example. --Stellmach 21:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I for one was playing euro games with various groups for about eight years before I started being aware of designer credits. Designer crediting may well be a common feature of these games, but it's not the dominant common feature.
- If you put Scott Abbott and Chris Haney on the box of Trivial Pursuit it still wouldn't be in this category. If you took Klaus Teuber's name off Settlers it still would be in this category.
- "Euro Game" (as opposed to "Eurogame") vastly outweighs any other alternative as a term in common use (eg check Google, eg I've never heard "designer game" or "german game" as a categorisation at all in Melbourne or Sydney gaming).
- The term is no more "misleading" than "french window" (usually designed by your local manufacturer without reference to current styles in France), "hamburger" (now considered by the world to be essentially an American food), or the names given to hundreds of constants and formulae in science which were independantly discovered by multiple researchers but attributed only to a significant early famous one.
- Basically labels for things enter the English language via many vectors, and they become themselves. "Euro games" are already not necessarily assumed to come from Europe. (Nobody uses the term "Euro board game" either.)
- I believe the dominant wiki policy is common use, unless it is significantly incorrect. ie "If a consensus is impossible to reach on precision, go with the rule of thumb, and use the more popular phrase." The euro game label is in (majority) common use and is not significantly incorrect. Of itself, disambiguation shouldn't be the reason to change the article title. Or you could use "Euro games (board games)" or similar?
Support The current choice is a combersome mess of a term. It should be moved. And I think this is the most commonly used term in practice. Rdore 04:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support This is the term I would most often use both verbally and in writing. If I wanted to google for these types of games, Eurogame or Euro Game would be my first attempt. Rellekmr 06:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The term seems to make the most sense to the English-speaking community outside of English-speaking countries (I am one of 15,000 US Americans in Austria). If the Germans had pwned the genre for a lengthy period of time (50-100 years), sure, I'd go with "German game" (etc.), BUT the genre has only recently blossomed, and is quickly being evolved throughout much of Europe. The community will hopefully embrace a more appropriate thematic title, but it has not yet done so. Additionally it does contrast against "traditional" American games. samwaltz 22:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]