Talk:Basic Fantasy RPG

Oct 22 - Commentary by the original author

I realize primary sources are discouraged on Wikipedia, and I don't want to get into a philosophical battle about it; other than editing the name to conform to trademark standards (even though it's not exactly a trademark but rather "Product Identity" as described by the OGL), I'm not interested in getting into this article. I will point out a historical error... as far as I know, based on my discussions with Stuart Marshall, OSRIC was secretly in development about the same time as the announcement of BFRPG was made. Neither of us is sure which of us started first. I have compiled what information I can locate or remember on the history of these games here: SolomoriahBFRPG (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Notability and reliability or sources in question

out of 16 references, this article has 10 from primary sources, and someone decided to remove the tag? the articles products own website, and the website Chris Gonnerman runs, for Steve, under the pseudonym Solomoriah, are all places HE himself controls, and should not give notabitlity since it is possible he himself as above created or had one of his people create the article. To prevent an edit war from someone just calling it "noteable" when there is mostly primary sources, now we will have to have the discussion, and question the creation of the article since Chris himself already posted on this talk page, and the "creator" of the article has VERY few contributions to WP since they began in 2014. If every fantasy heartbreaker is given its own article, then WP would need a server farm the size of Facebook to hold all the articles, when this "game" probably could be left on the "retro clones" article, until it actually does something of note other than existing, like the 3000 other game clones, that are nothing more than variant of each other. shadzar-talk 18:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

And the other six reference establish notability. The other references are there to establish facts in line with WP:PSTS, but it's the non-primary sources that push this over the line of notability. Especially the well-established podcast. Notability does not depend on the majority of the references in that article being independent. It's not quantifiable like that. oknazevad (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

But removing the tag does nothing to IMPROVE the article. as said it is attempting an edit war. While the tag remaining wold have told other editors, there may need some work and this is a place that needs work. Tags arent just there for one user to dispute but to inform others that an article may have problems, and what those perceived problems are for a consensus to be reached upon how to fix the article in question. it is still mostly primary sources, and the so-called notable podcast isnt anything big as a single occurrence, because an advertisement on that same podcast, which Save or Dice is the one you mean, was probably a sponsored podcast which amounts to nothing more than an advertisement. I don't watch or listen to that group of people so cannot comment on if the podcast was nothing more than an advertisement disguised as something else. Before removing tags it is better to leave so others can see the questions raised, and bring the concerns about the tag to the talk page or a WikiProject it is connected to to question the tag. Now nobody that isnt familiar with WP will know that the references are suspect and may not comply with WP writing guidelines. shadzar-talk 19:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

First off, stop calling it an edit war. No one edit warred with anyone. Getting reverted once is not an edit war, so kindly stop miss-using the term.

Secondly, if your intent was to highlight the need for additional third-party references, that was the wrong tag to use. The correct tag would be the {{primary sources}} tag and/or the {{more citations needed}} tag. The notability tag is for when the article doesn't have anything that shows the subject of the article is notable and it may be taken to AFD (because notability is a property of the subject of the article, not the current state of the article). oknazevad (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Well you could have added those tags when removing the other. It took 2 hours to find a tag that mentioned "secondary sources" and how to add them. also you removed 1 of 6 forums posts from the references and left the others from Dragonsfoots, RPG.Net, etc that are not reliable sources. if the one you removed was not. Which shows this article might not be as notable when you notice that all are forums posts or things involving the author either placing these things that are referenced online, and not from independent sources, or direct website for the "product" the article is about. While direct links to the articles topic may help explain the content, it doesnt prove notability. shadzar-talk 20:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. It's the "creator" here. I've been editing on and off as an anon IP since 2005. This exchange perfectly reflects the culture on WP that dissuades prolonged, active involvement with the project. I reluctantly have an account to ensure a better chance of my edits being left alone, but nothing about the functioning of this project encourages me to devote the time and effort that I could volunteer if it weren't so frustratingly paranoid and hostile. BFRPG is one of a handful of things that I care enough enough about to put in the effort to even try to create a new article here. Sure, it's not the most famous or the most successful game, perhaps. It's not the Nirvana of the OSR movement, it's the Pixies. This game made those later games possible. It literally helped lay the groundwork for OSR. I honestly don't know how many of those other games are published in other languages (like BFRPG), whether they're published in hardcover (like BF), are bestsellers on Amazon (like BF), etc., but to slag it as one of 3,000 clone "heartbreakers" doesn't fit the facts. ~ Frank Finklestein (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)