Talk:Playing Gods

	Games portal This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

This game is mentioned in a couple of Point of Inquiry podcasts. Richard001 (talk) 09:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:PG Cover Large.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:PG Cover Large.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 17 November 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reception Bias[edit]

The reception section was incredibly biased. It rattled off praise from a bunch of random blogs that it cited as authoritative and "mainstream" sources, then briefly mentioned negative opinion aggregated by the BoardGameGeek community before snidely disparaging them as out of touch with the "mainstream" (despite one of the "mainstream reviews" being present on the site). I've retained most of the positive reviews (minus one without a source and one with a dead link) but given the negative reception from BoardGameGeek its own space. If you feel this needs to be changed, I hope you can explain why here before you do so. Ban Bridges (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]