Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Role-playing games

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zodiac01 (talk | contribs) at 00:23, 14 November 2007 (→A couple of questions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive
Archives
  1. January 2006 - Jun 2006
  2. Jun 2006 - Oct 2006
  3. Oct 2006 - Dec 2006
  4. Jan 2007 - (early) Sept 2007

For more specific discussions, see:

A call for assistance

As some of you know (as mentioned in above notices), many GURPS articles have been up for AfD. Other related articles have also been slowly (or not so slowly) being also put up for AfD. This is mainly the action of one editor. Let me make it clear that while I don't agree with all of the reasons given by this editor in his comments, nor his somewhat "slash-and-burn" approach, it is not my intention to insult or denigrate his actions or the editor personally.

My main appeal here is to call upon all those involved in the project here to help improve these, and related articles, so that we can stop spending our time defending them in AfD nominations. I'm not an "official" member of this project but am an obvious sympathizer. Some (many?) of you might have big libraries of back issues of Dragon, Pyramid, Dungeon, etc, which could have relevant reviews of these RPGs, interviews with their creators, interviews with designers who cite creators (e.g. inspiration for them becoming game designers), etc. I don't have such a library of back issues. Some relevant material is not available online, or is only available with a subscription (e.g. online back issues of Pyramid).

I've been trying to work on some of these articles, but it's a more time-consuming task to locate and properly source them than it is to nominate them for deletion and sit back for the result (and, yes, I certainly acknowledge that it's not necessarily the responsibility of a nominator to look for sources). In any event, I'm urging all interested parties to help improve these articles so that we can preemptively avoid AfD discussions, many recent ones of which have been all very repetitive. Improve articles (mainly by sourcing them), and redirect the ones that can't be improved. If you remove a {{notability}}< tag, it would help if you helped supply some proof of notability (please don't just say "a simple web search demonstrates notability" or whatever). This particular editor seems intent upon nominating articles that have had notability tags removed from them. So we should do something to improve them to demonstrate exactly how notable they are (or redirect as appropriate).

It is not my intention here to canvass for votes in these AfDs, but to sincerely appeal to you all who have an interest in RPGs and related subjects/articles for your assistance. Some articles that have recently attracted notice include (in no particular order):

As I've said, my goal here is to stimulate active participation to make these articles (and any others) better. I can't do it all by myself. Thankfully, some of you are already working on these too. Carry on!  :) --Craw-daddy | T | 18:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the articles are being preemptively declared "NN" and redirected to List of GURPS books without any prior debate. I actually think that might be a good thing right now, though; redirecting articles gets them out of the way of the current deletion storm and allows them to be more easily worked on later without an arbitrary 5-day limit. Bryan Derksen 23:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would agree. I've redirected a few of the GURPS articles myself, usually after trying to locate some reviews online, or something that would indicate notability and not finding anything. This is entirely appropriate and fits into what I've mentioned above (i.e. improve if possible, else redirect). One reason why I wanted to mention this is to see if people might have reviews or other appropriate materials that aren't necessarily available online. For example, Graeme Davis might be considered the "father" of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (at least by some people). However, the first edition was developed and published in the mid 1980s (I think). So there likely isn't so much to find about this online as it's before the deluge of the internet. Thanks! --Craw-daddy | T | 23:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been redirecting a lot of them, for precisely the reasons Bryan describes. Hopefully the remaining articles in Category:GURPS that aren't already up for AfD all make their notability pretty clear. Percy Snoodle 07:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is over.. and I can't help but feel we've given ourselves a terrible, terrible precedent here. Game books apparently do inherit notability from the game, despite WP:NOTINHERITED. Percy Snoodle 09:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about GURPS 4e Basic Set? Even not considering that WP:NOTINHERITED itself says "Often, sub-articles are created for formatting and display purposes, however - this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums", you have nothing to worry about: precedents are not considered valid arguments in Wikipedia. You won't catch me saying "What about article x?"! Happy editing, Goochelaar 17:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask for a redirect for the following:

  1. Bunnies and Burrows- Result was KEEP Turlo Lomon 05:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. GURPS Discworld
  3. GURPS Infinite Worlds- Result was KEEP Turlo Lomon 02:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GURPS Space

to List of GURPS books as well, as I cannot see how these titles, which lack independent secondary sources, meet WP:NOTABILITY criteria. I ask because my edits on GURPS related articles are being reverted. --Gavin Collins 16:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody else opposes in the next few days, I shall do so myself for the first two books (Bunnies and Discworld), as, unprompted, I have done for several other GURPS books. On the other hand, I feel that GURPS Infinite Worlds and GURPS Space, having be awarded Origins awards in their categories, deserve to survive. --Goochelaar 17:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with regards to Space and Infinite Worlds (i.e. keeping them as independent articles) as they have both won Origins Awards. I will withhold judgement on the others, but would lean towards redirecting them as specified. --Craw-daddy | T | 21:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of interest, Goochelaar, you seem to know a lot about these games. Have you ever worked for the publisher, their distributors or agents? How are you personally connected to these game supplements? --Gavin Collins 20:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your interest in my professional life. No, I am a mathematician based in Rome, Italy, actually. You are welcome to check my user page and my contribution history for more about my professional interests and hobbies. --Goochelaar 21:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, that looks like it only took a basic level of knowledge and fact-finding ability. --Kizor 22:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gavin, your constant implications of COI towards people who disagree with you are definitely not assuming good faith. Edward321 02:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not redirect Bunnies and Burrows to anything else. It is a stand-alone roleplaying game that was also licensed as a game world for GURPS, as stated in the article. -- JHunterJ 21:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bunnies and Burrows seems to predate GURPS by a decade, the GURPS adaptation is only one of several and it's a fully independent system on its own. I can't support redirecting it. --Kizor 22:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise I don't support redirecting B&B or the two award-winning games. I've no strong feeling about GURPS Discworld, other than that WikiProject Discworld deserve a say in the matter. Percy Snoodle 08:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't know how many times I must repeat this, but Infinite Worlds and Space each won an Origins award. This is clearly stated in the articles, with a reference provided to the official site. How does this not demonstrate they are notable? Also, out of curiousity I ask what edits of yours, Gavin, on GURPS books are being reverted? --Craw-daddy | T | 14:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save yourself the effort of repeating what you have said, as they did not actually win, but were nominated for a prize. Independent evidence of notability is required, not just your opinion. My tagging of the GURPS related articles has been reversed on several occassions. But this is not the issue here: unless you can come up with more sources of notability; someone will edit out the unreferenced materials at some point in the future, as they don't stand up to independent review. --Gavin Collins 14:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gavin, just to be sure: you are not talking about GURPS Infinite Worlds (winner in 2005 as "Role-Playing Game Supplement of the Year") and GURPS Space (winner in 1988 in the same category), are you? --Goochelaar 14:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read what I stated, and the articles themselves? The two mentioned did win the awards and that is clearly referenced in the articles (one of them was referenced, and I just added the other reference now). --Craw-daddy | T | 15:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD): c. 5-Sept to c. 16-Sept

  • Thank you, though I would have thought (without consulting the scope statement) that MMORPGs would be here as they are seldom (or were seldom) video in nature, more typically command-line and text-description based. Nonetheless, I do see in consulting the scope statement that all computer-based RPGs are out of scope here. I will make a note of this and alter notifications accordingly. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latest Targets

Well, I think (on some level) it comes down to that fact that Bunnies & Burrows was nominated and this was originally published by FGU. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which is most appropriate, but some outlets include:

I've stated my current opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GURPS Infinite Worlds‎ that I think this editor is now engaging in disruptive editing and is trying to somehow make a point. It's probably about time to try one of these outlets for an outside opinion. --Craw-daddy | T | 03:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Today

Opinions stated above. Turlo Lomon 12:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those I don't wholly disagree with, but D20 System! We should probably respond to his comments on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Percy Snoodle 12:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Basic Role-Playing, Coda System (which really should be CODA) are both the equivalent of D20 System in different spectrums of the industry. Other then RPGA, I am still unsure about the rest. Further research is needed, and it is difficult while I am at work. Turlo Lomon 12:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did some work on Basic Role-Playing today, thought I am sure it could use more. I'll try and take on Tri-Stat dX later. Web Warlock 19:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added another article. Turlo Lomon 12:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to say it, but it is really beginning to look like someone has an axe to grind. Not an accusation of any sort, but an observation of recent behaviors. So what can we all do to make these better articles? Web Warlock 14:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I already figured this one out.
  • Step 1. Add references.
  • Step 2. Add more references.
  • Step 3. Eliminate interpretation of rules unless sourced.
Turlo Lomon 14:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Example of a fixed article: Simulations Publications Turlo Lomon 17:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, I am concerned about protecting our articles from deletion. The authors, the companies, and the significant products. Afterwards, we need to seriously clean up these articles to get each and every one of them to be qualified for featured article status. That is my dream. Am I delusional? Perhaps. Turlo Lomon 17:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Even More 9/26/2007

Someone had a field day yesterday.

Well, I added in some things I found, have a feeling there's more out there... --Craw-daddy | T | 20:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added references to several reviews, and consequently removed the "unsourced" tag. As for notability, I think it is established, but prefer to wait for other people's opinions --Goochelaar 16:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adding more myself. I'll work on notability. Web Warlock 16:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to remove the "fictionlist" tag in a few days from TWERPS if no one objects. That tag refers to fictional uses or occurrences of real-life subjects. If the characters of a novel were depicted to play TWERPS, or a Simpsons episode revolved around a TWERPS manual, such an information would be a "fictional references" to TWERPS. But the tagged section just refers to published supplements of the game. --Goochelaar 17:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do... that tag doesn't make sense there at all. Pinball22 18:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure there are lots more. Web Warlock 13:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see he's given up on AFDs. At least when he was putting stuff up for deletion, the good stuff got improved and the chaff got deleted; now we just end up with a mess of tags on everything. Percy Snoodle 14:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I see he's going for the non-English-language articles, which will be hard to source. Percy Snoodle 14:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saiyng that all of these should/must be saved, but there are several that are clearly worthy, like TWERPS. Unfortunately, (as I've stated elsewhere) I don't have a huge back libray of Dragon or anything like that, so am generally limited to what I can find online. Those that do have such resources, I encourage them to use them. A few of these can be merged/redirected to some appropriate other article (like, for example, The Yellow Clearance Black Box Blues). --Craw-daddy | T | 14:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gavin has taken it upon himself to put Mutants and Masterminds up for deletion. I think it is time we investigate asking for sactions or a block based on bad faith edits. Web Warlock 16:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This latest nomination for deletion seems to be retaliatory, since he made the nomination after a tag was removed from the article, and he apparently disagreed with the reasoning behind the removal. Instead of discussing it on the talk page and trying to find consensus, he immediately nominated the article for deletion. Rray 16:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree. User conduct RFC? Have at least two of us tried to talk to him about it to no beneficial result? SamBC(talk) 17:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am supposed to be working at my actual job right now. But if someone can point me to the right place then great. I'll certainly do what I can. Web Warlock 17:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put the How to template there in the first place. I did so is because most of the article (over 1,300 words) are dedicated to the game setting. You can ignore WP:NOT#GUIDE if you wish, but the tag should be reinstated in good faith. I can understand if Craw-daddy and WebWarlock disagree with my opinion, but if they just delete my edits without discussion, then we waste each other's time. --Gavin Collins 17:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The most casual research would show that the text in question is not game setting but rather game rules (yes there is a difference) and rules that make the game notable. I have a better idea, stop adding AfD tags unless you know what you are talking about, which I am making the public claim that you don't know what you are talking about. Web Warlock 17:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've certainly put a great deal of effort into trying to work things out with Gavin, and am sad to see that it hasn't made much difference. Yes, I said that tagging things was better than AfD'ing them, but just putting a Notability tag on every article about an RPG-related topic, whether it's the right one or not, without either making an attempt to discern notability or to discuss concerns with editors who are more knowledgeable in the area, isn't much better. If someone wants to start an RfC, I'm quite willing to participate as someone who has tried to resolve the issue. Gavin, if you're reading this and want to demonstrate that you're willing to work with other editors to improve these articles instead of continuing an attack, I think we'd all be happy to do that instead. Pinball22 20:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It is not something I want to persue for what amounts to basically a vandal. However, if it does get worse then that is the action we will need to take. In the meantime the Mutants and Masterminds article has been removed from AfD and 12 sources added. I'd like some more but I NEED to do my actual day job now. Thanks to all those that also helped! Web Warlock 20:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support and certify an entry on WP:RFC/U, as I believe I've made good faith efforts to talk about things with Gavin. I think characterising it as vandalism almost trivialises it; the behaviour seems almost pathological. However, I don't have the time to write up the initial RFC at this point. I'll be glad to add diffs and my signature if/when someone writes one up. SamBC(talk) 21:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You can deny my eidts are not in good faith, but if you read the articles you will see that the templates are added only where some articles need improvement, but if you remove them, that won't happen. Without improving the articles, they will always look shoddy. I think by warning you of these problems, I am actually assisting this project. Some of the articles I have nominated for AfD have been improved and kept; others have been merged and consolidated, all good results in my opinion. If you want to make this process work, retore the How to on the article Mutants and Masterminds in good faith, and we can commence discussion as to how improving this article can be achieved. --Gavin Collins 22:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But there isn't any "how-to" or such information in the article. There are no instructions. There's an encyclopedic description of the rule system, largely by comparison to the "normal" form of the rules it's based on, which is one of the most notable rule systems in roleplaying. SamBC(talk) 22:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gavin, saying that this article contains "how-to" material is somewhat like saying it about an article like Football (soccer). It explains, in part or fully, the rules of a game; it does not explain "how to" be a good player, how to bake a cake or how to repair a bike. --Goochelaar 22:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And *that* is why I removed the {{howto}} tag. I guess I should have explained myself more clearly (on the talk page), but I said that I thought it didn't apply in my "edit comment". My apologies for not being clearer. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gavin, I don't object to you tagging articles that need work -- that's the appropriate way to get things improved. The "notability" tags aren't the best way to approach it in most cases, though, as their implication is that you think the subject shouldn't have an article. Yes, there are undoubtedly cases where that's true, but you don't appear to be making any effort to separate those from articles that simply need better referencing -- for example, you tagged D20 System and RPGA for notability, which indicates to me that you did no research at all before simply slapping a tag on the articles. Try tagging articles with more specific templates for concerns about references or style and, most importantly, discussing your specific concerns on the article talk pages or here to get input from knowledgeable editors and things will go much more smoothly, I think. Pinball22 13:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I have tried tagging article like Mutants and Masterminds with more specific templates, but these have been unilaterally removed (see above). If the tags are removed without discussion, then that gives me a clear mandate to go for AfD to get third party opinion about lack of notability or inappropriate content. With regard to RPGA, there are no verifiable sources at all. I would recommend that RPGA to be merged into Wizards of the Coast before someone prods it, as it looks like thee notability of a small marketing division of Hasbro is doubtful to say the least. D20 System has improved, but it contains lots of statements that have no external sources.--Gavin Collins 16:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about more specific and logical templates? If an article isn't a how-to, don't tag it with the how-to tag. When you do things like that it just makes it more apparent that you don't understand the subject and aren't making an effort to. The RPGA is more than a "small marketing division of Hasbro" -- it's been a significant organization in producing gaming events for nearly 30 years. And if your concern about D20 System was a lack of sources, why not add fact tags and discuss sections that you think need sourcing? What you did was to mark something that is clearly notable with a tag indicating that you don't think it merits an article, and not even with an appropriate tag, since it's not about a specific book. Pinball22 17:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think your affection for these games are getting in the way of sound judgement when it comes the use of the How to template. Although the article states that Mutants and Masterminds is a "game system is designed to allow players to create virtually any type of hero or villain desired", the article is too focused on the system settings, with over 1,300 words contained in the sections "System" and "Setting", to make it of any encylopedic varlue. The reason is that the long description of the system and settings is contrary to the guideline WP:NOT#HOWTO. If this game system was a book, that would be the same as saying that the article is too focused on plot summary. A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable. Keep in mind that RPG articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers; remember the bigger picture. The key point to remember: Wikipedia is not a game guide, that is why the template "Howto" is highly relevent to this article. --Gavin Collins 09:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the system/setting descriptions are how-to information... they don't tell me how to play the game, but they do tell me what sorts of settings have been created for the game and what parts of the game mechanics are unusual/different from other RPGs. These seem to me like basic facts required to create a page that describes the game, and not at all like instructions. Pinball22 16:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to this a little late, but "mandate to go for AfD"?! No, the clear mandate is for you to try an understand the subject of the articles you're stomping around on instead of wasting even more time (yours and other editors'). That you take it as a "challenge" to go for AfD instead is beside the point. Since the tags were added without discussion, their removal without discussion should be taken as a challenge to discuss them first. -- JHunterJ 14:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think if your removal the templates, which have been put there with good reason, without initialising that discussion, can be interpreted as disruptive behaviour in the first place. In fact they are basically the opening shots in an edit war. --Gavin Collins 17:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that's how you think. I was simply pointing out that you're wrong to take how you think as a mandate from the editors who disagree with you. There is frequent disagreement to the "good"ness of your reasons, and the shotgun tagging (not the removal of those tags) is the "opening shot", since you avoid working with consensus. -- JHunterJ 18:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The concensus is that they have to be notable, independently sourced and not plot/game summaries. I don't see this to be the case.--Gavin Collins 02:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and since you don't see this to be the case, you should bring up your concerns on the Talk page if your undiscussed tags are removed without discussion. -- JHunterJ 12:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A policy for RPG notability?

Following the recent discussion about several GURPS books, the debaters stumbled more than once upon the fact that it is often difficult to ascertain the notability of a RPG with respect to that of a novel or a film. These are covered in the general press, there are several (paper and web-based) journals devoted to literature and cinema, and so on. RPGs, on the other hand, are rarely, if ever, covered in the non-dedicated press, and even dedicated magazines are rare and not rich in reviews. Most of the information about RPGs is gathered by an interested person by perusing a variety of official and unofficial websites, mailing lists, newsgroups, blogs and so on; then one makes one's mind, in a personal, private version of notability for one's own use. Of course I am not by far suggesting that sources for RPGs' notability should be so haphazardly and unreliably determined and collected.

What I suggest is to "review" some sources of reviews and determine whether, or in what measure, they can be considered reliable. RPGnet is one of the more frequently cited source: could it be taken as such a source? What about other sites in which, as in this one, reviews are mostly user-submitted but subject to a modicum of control? More in general, where does the border between a formal, reliable web-based magazine and an unreliable one lie?

Do you have other ideas for clarifying the general notability guidelines when applied to RPGs, as has been done for other categories of subjects (such as numbers, pornographic actors or films)? --Goochelaar 16:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the current GURPS issue and the previous D&D issue, I think this is an absolute must.Turlo Lomon 16:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on the ins-and-outs of RPGnet, but from what I understand there are indeed some "staff writers" (for lack of a better or more appropriate term). So I think that not all reviews on RPGnet are "user-submitted" but some are written by these staff writers. These are the ones that I have tried to find and link to in some articles where I have added them. I certainly agree that deciding on this criteria is important, especially in light of recent AfD debates and so forth.

As an aside, it's clear to those who know about RPGs that Origins Awards are a clear symbol of notability, but to others less familiar with the "scene", they might appear like "fan awards" and not a sufficient criteria to satisfy WP:N (which I think they clearly do). I'm slightly dumbfounded by the apparent argument that citing the Origins website might not be sufficient, but it seems to me it's just a statement of fact, and not a "press release". To me it's tantamount to citing the Academy's website when you state that a film won an Oscar, or the Grammy awards website when you say that an album/single/whatever won some Grammy award. Or am I being too simplistic here? In these cases it's an easily verifiable fact that "X won award Y" and giving a reference to a primary/secondary/tertiary source is sufficient to demonstrate this fact (which can be easily checked), correct? --Craw-daddy | T | 18:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the biggest problem is that some people arguing for deletion seem ignorant of roleplaying and unwilling to listen to those who know more about the subject. The notability of the Origins Awards is obvious to anyone familiar with roleplaying, yet even after the notability of the Origins Awards was clearly explained, some of them continued to say they are mere fan awards or even that they were awards created by a single person.

Is there any standard of notability for console or board games? That might be useful. Edward321 03:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! The website of a society awarding a prize is a primary source, which is the best possible kind of source, when it is available. --Goochelaar 18:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern with this is a lot of small press, indie and some-what obscure RPGs will fail this notability clause. Orgins awards are nice and all, but there are a lot of note-worthy, but not award-winning games. I would rather see all of them than something get missed. Now supplements and spalts are a different issue. Most of those could be encorporated into the main game system entry unless it gets too long. Web Warlock 15:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, and I agree with you. In some editors' opinion, such "small" games do presently fail notability guidelines. My hope is that a better focus on what means for a RPG to be notable, in the frame of general guidelines but with an understanding of the peculiarity of RPGs, will specifically help to cover obscure RPGs. --Goochelaar 18:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is the Origins Award a truely notable and independent prize? My understanding is that they are awarded by a subcommittee of Academy of Adventure Gaming Arts and Design, of which Steve Jackson Games is likely to be a member. As such, the awards are made by trade association to its members, so it fails the independence test. --Gavin Collins 08:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answer Yes, it is notable. Origins Award does not just go to SJG products, but any product in the field. You can review the past winners on the link. The entire gaming industry is reflected. Turlo Lomon 09:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, Origins Awards are awarded by the Academy of Adventure Gaming Arts and Design exactly like Academy Awards are awarded annually by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (which is indeed composed of motion picture professionals). If you manage to prove that Academy Awards are not notable, you will have proved that Origins are not (and will become famous worldwide). --Goochelaar 12:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested criteria

Broke this out as a seperate subsection. I think we all agree that we need criteria. So, now what to suggest. These are my ideas.

  • Won anything from Category:Games awards.
  • Received 3 or more independant reviews classified as secondary sources.
  • Introduced something original to the RPG world. (See Bunnies & Burrows for an example) - and must be sourced.

If we focus on writing these more like an entry of a book before adding what a lot of people describe as "fancruft", we may have a chance at reducing the amount of defensive actions we need to take. I, for one, am getting tired constantly defending our work from people who aren't familiar with our culture. In addition, I need someone to compare this to the other policies to make sures ours is an equivalent. Turlo Lomon 10:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Notability:Books:

A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:

  1. The book has been the subject [1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.
    • The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[4]
  2. The book has won a major literary award.
  3. The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country.
  4. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.[5]
  5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources.[6]

Summation: How exactly are we loosing these debates? I could put up just about any RPG book I own and write an article that satifies the criteria listed above. Should the gaming award categories be linked to the literary awards category? They already include comic books, web comics, etc. Stuff that typically would not have qualified. Input from others, please! Turlo Lomon 10:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Your criteria look pretty good to me; though I might phrase it more like WP:BK, above, and I think we need to be more specific about online sites such as RPGnet. This is what I'd suggest:

A role-playing game is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:

  1. The game has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the game itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. (with the same notes as above)
    • Coverage from an online review website can be considered non-trivial for the previous criterion if the coverage includes work by at least one professional reviewer or writer. Multiple reviews on a single website do not impart additional notability, so online reviews must come from multiple sources or be supported by additional coverage.
  2. The game has won a major award.
  3. The game represents a significant milestone in the development of role-playing games.
    • This criterion includes the first game to use a game mechanic which was later widely adopted; the first game within a given major genre of setting or the first to use a setting which was later widely used; the first to be published in a certain way, for example online or print-on-demand; or which is otherwise described as a significant step by multiple reliable sources. Generic role-playing games do not prevent future setting-specific games from counting under this criterion.
  4. The game's designer or setting is so historically significant that any officially associated works may be considered notable; or it is the focus of an active WikiProject
    • This includes licensed games of significant franchises.

Percy Snoodle 12:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commentary

moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Role-playing games/Notability

ENnie Awards

I hate to dump this off on other people, but again thought it could be valuable to get lots of input... Anyone know of reliable refs for the ENnie Awards? I just thought with all the hoo-hah going on with the recent AfDs, here's another award that might be used to establish notability for RPGs/RPG supplements. In order to do so, we should first establish notability (if possible) for the awards themselves.  :) --Craw-daddy | T | 23:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] is the site. More awards the better. Turlo Lomon 00:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I knew that was the site, but as I said, I think we need (secondary) references for the ENnies themselves, i.e. establish notability for these awards first, and then use them to help establish notability for other RPGs. --Craw-daddy | T | 02:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, gotcha. Here are some possible relevant links. Turlo Lomon 02:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • [2] - describes process. fairly good

Starting a new list, since we are close to finishing up the last big mess. Turlo Lomon 10:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added some references here --Goochelaar 16:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of days ago (before Gavin's tag) I had inserted a reference a French review from Casus Belli magazine. It's difficult to get more third-party... --Goochelaar 16:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone have the GURPS for Dummies book? That should be 3rd party enough. I have it, but I am beat now. I'll start in on it in the morning. Web Warlock 03:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That has already been tried. The book was written in partnership with the publisher of GURPS, so it not really an independent source of notability. --Gavin Collins 11:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the Dummies publishers thought it was worth it ought to make sense... the fact they then talked to the publishers of the original is just research. It doesn't have to be written independently, it has to be published independently. SamBC(talk) 11:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The authors of the book have no ties to the game industry. So it was produced in partnership with SJG. That's still less than the books by Microsoft Press on various Windows products and yet they are still considered to be secondary sources. I say GURPS for Dummies is notable, and I am prepared to challenge the claim to the contrary. Gavin you are looking more and more like you have some sort of axe to grind with RPGs in general and GURPS in particular. You are loosing credibilty as a non-biased editor and looking more and more like the edits and AfDs are done in bad faith. Web Warlock 12:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that, even if a publishing house wanted to, it could not publish a book detailing most of the rules of a game without the approval of the game publisher... --Goochelaar 16:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but it's Wiley that published the book, not Steve Jackson Games. --Craw-daddy | T | 21:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! I realise that my words conveyed a message almost opposite to my intention: I meant that I consider the For Dummies book an independent source indeed, and that the "SJG-approved" (or however it is labelled) status does not invalidate this because it is almost unavoidable. (The alternative would be something like an "unauthorised biography", which might be far more unreliable for other reasons...). --Goochelaar 22:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A user has removed one of the newly-inserted references because they're being added directly to the references section rather than in support of a specific fact in the text[3]. They claim this is per Wikipedia:Footnotes, although they probably mean Wikipedia:Citing sources. I'm not sure what to think about that, but I thought I should bring it to your attention. Percy Snoodle 11:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted them... WP:CITE#HOW contradicts them directly. They see to be a new user, so maybe someone should patiently explain. WP:FN merely explains that they can be used for references, and doesn't say that they must be. Finally, and clinchingly, they're both guidelines, not policies, and therefore it's not really appropriate to run around enforcing them. SamBC(talk) 11:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad the reference I found by wading through my partial collection of Casus Belli did not disappear like tears in rain! Goochelaar 16:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Rather than discussing PROD-nominees here, it is better to contribute to the talk page for the article nominated for deletion. If you agree with the proposed deletion, you don't have to do anything or you may second the nomination. If you think the article merits keeping, then remove the {{prod}} template and make an effort to improve the article so that it clearly meets the notability and verifiability criteria.

  • 28 September 2007 - expires 3 October
Eon (role-playing game) (via WP:PROD)
--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 27 September 2007 - expires 2 October
Final Nights (via WP:PROD)
Goblinization (via WP:PROD) redirected to Shadowrun
  • 26 September 2007 - expires 1 October
Ad Astra (role-playing game) (via WP:PROD)
Akunanse (via WP:PROD)
Autochthon (Exalted) (via WP:PROD)
Blood bond (via WP:PROD)
Five Elemental Dragons (Exalted) (via WP:PROD)
Five Maidens (Exalted) (via WP:PROD)
Luna (Exalted) (via WP:PROD)
Neverborn (Exalted) (via WP:PROD)
Orichalcum (Exalted) (via WP:PROD)
Praedor (via WP:PROD)
Unconquered Sun (Exalted) (via WP:PROD)
Yozi (Exalted) (via WP:PROD)
12 notifications --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would probably be most appropriate for the Exalted articles to be merged - they seem to have a distinct measure of common content, and really aren't individually notable. Blood bond probably deserves similar treatment, and I'd wager that other Vampire stuff does too. I think Gavin should probably have proposed merge, rather than deletion, but the PRODing fits his pattern of behaviour. SamBC(talk) 22:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

  • To be fair, I can see the nominator's point. The article seems to be written in entirely in-universe style (except the last section), and there's little indication of what on earth it's talking about to anyone who isn't up-to-date with White Wolf background. Actually, as I'm not up to date with White Wolf background, I'm just assuming that it's related to the most recent round of rejigging of that universe. If the article isn't fixed, it probably should be deleted. Are the Khaibit actually independently notable? SamBC(talk) 00:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help beyond the RPG arena?

Our favorite AfD'r has been hitting areas beyond RPG's in the Gaming field. One heavily assaulted area has been the Star Fleet Universe (Star Fleet Battles, Star Fleet Battle Force Prime Directive RPG), and has succeeded in getting some of them deleted (though, I admit that even as the author of some of them, a few of them probably should have been elimitated).

I am hoping that you are willing to look beyond just RPGs and help out the rest of the table-top gaming community here. As it is, the SFU does cross over into the RPG arena with Prime Directive. The problem we have is that there are not many editors covering the SFU, and I know for one that I am not the best editor when it comes to knowing how to do cites and such. --Donovan Ravenhull 18:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revised List

Here is the list culled from the entries above that still need some help. Most of these are listed under the notability for books which I do not believe is appropriate at all. We need to get the guidelines together.

I haven't been able to locate any (online) sources for this one, myself. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we need an "Indie" or "Homebrew RPGs" page to cover all of these. Web Warlock 20:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think that notability has been established. Multiple reviews of supplements by Pyramid and on RPGnet seem sufficient, together with the awards. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability tag removed (not by me, but another person, so at least there's two of us who think this is okay now). More references still welcome, of course. Kudos to Web Warlock for all the hard work on this article (and the others he's worked on recently)!! --Craw-daddy | T | 23:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'd hate to see this stuff disapear. And thanks to you and all the others as well that came in for stealth edits! Web Warlock 01:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably hard to find English sources on this one. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article was deleted, but restored on my request since it's one of the most well-known and best-selling Swedish RPGs. I'll try to add content and references. Jonas Ferry 19:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those of you who have them, pull out your old RPG magazines to locate those reviews. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Got my Dragon Mag CDs out last night. Web Warlock 20:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, have added a few things and it seems that more should be out there (at least according to the RPGnet review which mentioned "high praise" by "many designers". --Craw-daddy | T | 20:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Likely hard to source. See User talk:Agamemnon2#Praedor for his comment about this when I contacted him. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this particular article is analogous to having an article of the form List of Star Trek role-playing games or having a disambiguation page for the term "Star Trek role-playing game" since (as you can see from the article) there are several that have the same (or similar) names. As such I feel the existence of this page is entirely appropriate in its current form. I have stated as such on the article's talk page. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps should be merged with Paranoia. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
agreed. Web Warlock 20:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merged (a tiny bit) and redirected to Paranoia --Craw-daddy | T | 23:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See comment my comment above about GURPS. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Web Warlock 20:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Loads of stuff in the Category:Greyhawk and its subcategories (perhaps, much of which should be merged into only a couple of articles, like much of the "locations" in Greyhawk)

RPG Notability

There's been some discussion here about what notability guidelines are appropriate, and the potential for creating a guideline for RPGs (or possibly all games?) in sections above. Is it perhaps worth taking the discussion to the talk page for notability (WT:N)? This should help establish wider community consensus as to what guidelines are applicable. I suggest this largely because a cosensus here is unlikely to satisfy those who insist on questioning RPG notability, while a consensus of the wider community is somewhat harder to question. SamBC(talk) 20:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that this would be useful. If some guidelines are agreed upon within the wider community, then there would be those guidelines to point to when these issues arise (As they undoubtedly will). I definitely think that the typical guidelines that are attempted to be applied (i.e. for books, fiction, and, in at least one case, organizations and companies (to a RPG book!)) aren't 100% relevant. I mean RPG awards are certain evidence of notability (like in the case of book awards), at least such things as Origins Awards, ENnies (though that article could use some work), and (I think) the Indie RPG Awards. I also believe that the Outies are also good signs of notability too, but probably some solid article should be written on them, and for other appropriate awards.
The idea here is that if the awards themselves are notable, then the products/supplements/RPGs that receive them are receiving "well-recognized" awards. I think some criteria for which RPGnet reviews are acceptable might also help. Some of them are "user-submitted", but I there are staff writers as well. Identifying relevant online magazines (and supplying accompanying articles to show their notability) will also help. The difficulty is that a lot of reviews and awards are done online these days, which makes some people think they are all non-notable awards given out by someone in their basement somewhere. This isn't the case for the big awards I mentioned, but this should perhaps be made more clear to those who aren't familiar with the subject. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Something else that occurs to me is that the distinction between game rules and a "game guide" needs to be made (more?) explicit. Discussion of game rules, especially in the context of how they are different from other game rules (and, thus, why a particular game system/RPG rulebook is notable) is entirely appropriate, as long as it's not overly pedantic and long. This is very different than writing a "game guide" which I view as a means of telling someone how to play a game better (or even how to "have more fun" or whatever), which isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. I mean, are the Laws of the Game a "how-to" guide on how to play football? --Craw-daddy | T | 21:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem of establishing notability is that this project has no clear guidelines. However, I have a suggestion that could solve this problem easily. I suggest that you make a copy of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines and copy it to the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games/Article guidelines. You can then ammend it to fit in with the characteristics of RPG. You would be advised to keep as closely to the Video guidelines; that way you can always use them as a precedent in any disputes. --Gavin Collins 08:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My concnern would be that wikiproject-established guidelines don't have wider community consensus, and I don't have much trouble imagining that someone engaging in the same sort of tag-and-nomination-fest as you have, Gavin, would then feel that they were easily ignorable. I'm not saying that you would personally, and your attempts to help in establishing some sort of guideline speak well for your good faith. Also, please don't misinterpret my language here as being anything more than a summary of previous criticism that is relevant to my point; it's not a dig at you. SamBC(talk) 14:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Consensus is hard to find, as our discussions here show. However, the Video games guidelines are part of official Wikipedia Policies and guidelines, and as such, they have already been through a lengthy process of peer review and discussion. Rather than repeating this process here, I suggest adopting them (in modified form) as it will save having to reinvent the wheel. I am not saying one size fits all, but there could be considerable saving in time and effort if you adopt their guidelines rather than go on as is.--Gavin Collins 15:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just looked at those guidelines, and while something like that would be quite useful for this project, it doesn't actually seem to say anything about what we're discussing now - notability. SamBC(talk) 16:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only bit of that I can find that seems to relate to notability is this: "A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable. Keep in mind that video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers; remember the bigger picture." While that is a good rule of thumb and is fairly applicable to RPGs with changes to relevant nouns, it's only a piece of the puzzle. I'm not sure of your assertion that the work of this wikiproject, possibly all of it, lacks any real legitimacy, however. SamBC(talk) 10:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An unrelated AFD

Unrelated to GC's escapades, I'd appreciate it if anyone interested could take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Omega (game) so we can get a broader consensus. Percy Snoodle 10:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outcomes

Alpha Omega (game) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Omega (game) (22 September 2007 – 30 September 2007) No consensus→Keep

subsequently overturned at WP:DRV and deleted 2007-10-08.

Ethan Haas Was Right at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Omega (game) (22 September 2007 – 30 September 2007) No consensus→Keep

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would somebody do this already?

Look, I'm a total noob at this, I just came to wikipedia to look for some information about stuff related to RPG's, and just created an account when I found myself irresistibly sucked into this ongoing dispute. WP:RFC/U this guy Gavin, someone, please. I just wasted something like 2 or 3 hours of my life looking at the various edit and talk pages, after randomly looking for why one of his (turns out to be countless, never substantiated) "notability" tags was added to something that just seemed ridiculous to me, then looking for the appropriate place or way to report abuse of the rules like his.

Certainly, RPG's are inherently somewhat obscure, but they also disproportionately influence the culture - whether film, video games, other popular media, or various scientists, game theory, what have you. And the guy posting all this ridiculous harassment of wikipedia's entire section on RPGs claims that RPG articles are not notable or interesting to 'average readers,' when his big thing is, according to his user page, ACCOUNTING?!? If any subject has ever been less than notable or interesting to average people, it is accounting.

Anyways, I'm clearly being less than polite, but in looking in the maze of wikipedia rules, following several circular paths looking for who or what one would report a blatant rules-abuser like this, finding no appropriate place to report someone who is using deletion and notability and such tags as harassment, I came across a rule that said that if you're new you didn't have to read the rules before posting an edit, and another that said break all the rules if the rules are impeding the creation of a better encyclopedia.

This prick, asshole, scumbag, whatever you prefer, is clearly using the rules to wreck this encyclopedia, and I've read a lot of your attempts to reason with him. He will obviously not reason with you, he will only stop being a prick when someone enforcing some kind of rule forces him to. So, yes, I'm breaking the politeness rule, but I think you folks, by letting this guy walk all over you in search of compromise or courtesy, are letting him damage the value of the encyclopedia. I see here that he has tried in various ways to delete a lot of information that I, as a regular reader rather than editor of wikipedia, have found useful during the past week or so while I've been looking for RPG info on the web - from 'All Flesh Must Be Eaten,' the only zombie-focused RPG I'm aware of, to Ken Hite, a guy who has clearly written countless well regarded articles on the RPG hobby, and has been published in a bunch of books central to the hobby in various ways, featured on countless conference panels, and so on. I hope to avoid doing any editing in the future, based on this example.

It just seems that this guy's hobby is fucking with you people, and his hobby is certainly obscure but he clearly isn't playing it with people who have the same hobby - yours is providing information. You folks are trying to be reasonable because he uses accountant language, which might make it look like he is trying to be reasonable. But he is clearly being more provocative than I'm being in this stupid, frustrated comment - he's just slick. He is consistently attacking an area of the encyclopedia that he obviously knows nothing about. If I started tagging hundreds of accounting articles for deletion for not being notable, it would be a prick thing to do, which would clearly indicate my bias against accountants (which may or may not exist, I can't judge that, though I do know at least one awesome accountant who is also a paper and dice RPG gamer). Sure, I could make hundreds of polite arguments why all things accounting-related should be deleted for being boring, irrelevant to most encyclopedia readers, not notable, self-referencing (everyone in the field of accounting is in that field, so they must not be independent sources! self-promoting spammers! - to use his logic) and so on, and on, and on, and on, but the actions say harassment louder than any number of his politely phrased words.

Anyways, I've read way too much and written way too much, given that I'm someone who just looked here for information because I just recently played an RPG (with the accountant and his gamer friends) and wanted to learn more about them.

I don't know if WP:RFC/U is the right place to report this asshole, but it's one of the many pages I went to while circling the maze of rules, and one of you here suggested it. I also know form skimming that page, that not having tried to settle anything with this guy, I am not supposed to initiate that process. Nor do I have any interest int alking to this smarmy little shitbag, I've seen you people do enough of that to turn my stomach already. Maybe I should break the rules in this case, too, and post him there, but one of you already suggested it, and several of you clearly DO meet all the criteria for posting there.

Anyways, sorry about the length and the passion, everyone but Gavin (for whom I'm not the least bit sorry, but I also don't care if he reads this, it isn't intended for him, but for the actual editors and contributors of this project), but I felt I had to write something somewhere about this. Maybe I'll get banned for language while this dickweed is let free to roam around fucking up whole subjects in this encyclopedia that he obviously knows nothing about, has no interest in, and is actively hostile to, all while citing various rules (seems to me, mis-citing, but he never seems to respond to any of the many times he is called on it, nor does he fundamentally change his ritualistic abuse) and using polite accountant speak. He probably does the same thing, laying people off all day or whatever he does, at work ruining people's lives while smiling, nodding, and citing rules. Whatever, I don't care. I had no interest in editing anything until I was sickened by seeing this guy's attempts to trash your community's efforts. I guess I still have no interest in editing, just wanted to throw in my opinion on this talk page - seems like there are countless other pages he's fucked over that would have been equally appropriate.

Hopefully this is formatted correctly, so that it'll post, and those of you commenting on this will see it. Maybe my take on it is extremist, I don't know, I'm not familiar with all the intricate Victorian etiquette here. But I think that guy should be banned from editing anything, or at least anything other than discussion pages in which to make suggestions about articles which people who are actually concerned with editing material on that subject can then take or leave, and perhaps discussing why he shouldn't be banned. Whatever, in any case I have little investment here, I assume I'll be able to read wikipedia either way, which has been my interaction with it, so maybe you people feel the same way but fear getting banned or something yourselves, which seems to be the game he's playing. Or maybe you really think he's doing more good than harassment. It sure doesn't look like it to me, but whatever. Now I just hope I can keep myself from ever looking at the RPG discussion and edit pages here again. Ultimately he's wasting not just a few hours of my time as a frustrated reader, but clearly many dozens of hours of yours collectively, as valuable contributors and editors forced to deal with his bullshit complaints. Anyways, cheers, and thanks to those of you who are actually trying to provide and improve the quality of information, rather than just harassing those who are, in annoyingly rule-oriented hall-monitor style.

Clay5X 12:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's not getinto your incivility or personal attacks right now, and try to handle the constructive elements of your post. In essence, aside from the insults, I agree with a lot of what you say. I think the main reason that no WP:RFC/U has been posted is simply that no-one has had time to do so. Many of us would participate in and support such an RFC, but simply haven't the time to actually start it. SamBC(talk) 13:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's Gavin's first contribution to wikipedia, way way less notable than any of the stuff I've seen him tag: Hampton_Wick_Royal_Cricket_Club. Yeah, I'm sure you're right about the civil and NPA stuff.
I hope someone will post him in that WP:RFC/U soon, as he seems to be doing a lot of damage to your project. Maybe if he weren't keeping you all busy running around repairing his damage, you would have time to report him. Anyways, as I said, I hope to avoid this from now on, but I couldn't resist tagging that Wick stub.
Clay5X 13:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do be careful to avoid tagging things and similar just to make a WP:POINT. SamBC(talk) 14:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To this point, I am going to take a break for a bit for a cleared perspective. IF this is something that needs to be done I want to go about it with a clear head and be as unbiased as I can be. Web Warlock 14:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I think the original poster's communication style is unnecessarily abrasive, I agree that Gavin might benefit from an RFC. He seems to be in a hurry to either label or delete every roleplaying game article he can get his hands on, regardless of whether or not his labels are correct or his proposed deletions justified. Comments from other users might help. I'd personally like to see Gavin actually do some editing of articles rather than just asking everyone else to edit them. (Tags are just requests that an article be edited, after all.)
I also think that everyone would do well to remember, especially Gavin, that Wikipedia isn't on a timeline, so just because something gets marked with a notability tag, that doesn't mean it should be deleted if it isn't "fixed" within a certain amount of time. And nominations for deletions that are retaliatory because someone removed an incorrect tag server no one either. Rray 00:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of the 2664 edits (to date) Gavin.collins has made to Wikipedia, the vast majority have been to list articles for deletion or to tag them for references, notability or footnotes. I have yet to find a single substantial contribution to wikipedia's knowledge base, that is anything he has actually written outside of Talk pages. In the past four weeks alone he averages about 20 pages nominated per day. The vast majority of these are in the role-playing games area (which he seems to confuse with books or video games given the tags he uses), but some are in science fiction in general.
Now for the RFC what is the outcome we want? His account suspended for X number of days? A slap on the hand? Banned from Wikipedia? What do you want from this? Web Warlock 03:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly for Gavin to be told in no uncertain terms that his behaviour is unacceptable, which he clearly won't believe from us. Then other routes are much more accessible if he carries on. SamBC(talk) 09:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If at all possible, I want him to stop. Whether by sternly telling him that or by other means, do it fast! He's multiplied his efforts! --Kizor 10:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One option to consider, before an RFC, would be to make these points directly to Gavin on his talk page. If all of his nominations for deletion and all of his adding of templates were accurate and correct, then he'd be making a contribution, but he often doesn't seem to understand what he's tagging or why. For example, his contribution to this discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_minor_Star_Wars_Sith_characters doesn't even make sense, since it's not even an article about a game. Approaching him directly about his editing behavior on his talk page is appropriate and will possibly work, especially if multiple rational people make well-considered, thoughtful observations about what he's doing and about what might be more helpful from him. Rray 14:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly why I wanted to back off a bit and approach this as cool and as unbiased as I can. Web Warlock 14:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've left him a message explaining the situation as I see it. I invite others to do the same. Percy Snoodle 14:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that making all of these points to Gavin on his talk page in a calm, reasonable manner is the correct thing to do prior to an RfC, so I did just that, on September 13th: [4]. Gavin suggested that his talk page wasn't the place and made a topic on the Village Pump, where several people attempted to make headway with him on these issues: [5]. That's been nearly three weeks and ridiculously many attempts to have a reasonable conversation (see the rest of this page and [6] for good examples) ago, and we still haven't gotten through to him on basic issues like what WP:OR means, as this nomination from yesterday shows. I think we've all put an immense amount of time and effort into good-faith attempts to resolve this in a civil and logical manner, and have reached the point where we have to move on to the formal dispute resolution process. Pinball22 14:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After reading his latest edits and his replies to our good faith efforts to get him to stop with his deletion nominations, I think it's time for an RfC now as well, and I think that asking that his editing privileges be suspended at least temporarily is a reasonable thing to do. He obviously has no respect for consensus and isn't willing to take the time to do things thoughtfully. Rray 04:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Formal Request

Members of WikiProject Role-playing games. The following is the text I will be placing on User:Gavin.collins talk page. Please make edits as you see fit. I will wait 24 hours before placing this and getting the progress on any Admin action that needs to be addressed. Thank you. Web Warlock 15:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Collins


This is a formal request as a representative of WikiProject Role-playing games for you to stop inappropriately nominating articles for deletion or placing unwarranted and ill-chosen Notability tags.

To date
1. You have not demonstrated sufficient subject matter knowledge that would give you the necessary insight as to whether your nominations are appropriate or not.
2. You have not been receptive to other users' comments, pleas or requests to end your disruptive behaviors.
3. By nominating upwards of 20 articles a day for the past four weeks (over 2600 edits) you are demonstrating that you are more interested in the number of articles you can have nominated rather than paying attention to exact content of these articles. We feel that your nominations are often inappropriate for the article nominated, e.g. placing notability for Computer games on RPG articles, using the guidelines for books as hard and fast rules for RPG rules, and nominating articles for deletion based on reasoning that has nothing to do with the article in question (e.g. Isle of Dread).
4. You have not contributed any text of significant length to the body of knowledge of Wikipedia, again supporting that you are only interested in the number of articles you can nominate.
5. You have demonstrated retaliatory tactics such as nominating an article for deletion after one of your tags were removed, as in the case with Mutants and Masterminds, an AfD which, should be noted, was resolved and closed twice in 24 hours due to any lack of support.

If these behaviors continue we, the members of WikiProject Role-playing games, will be filing a formal Requests for Comments on User conduct to investigate your changes and ask for a sanction against your user account.


If you have any questions or comments, please limit your discussions to your own user page to allow Wikipedia Admins to track this discussion.

  • Comment. I'm inclined to think that we should just go ahead with an RfC instead of this -- that will both bring it to a wider audience and follow the appropriate process. What does everyone else think? Pinball22 18:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In all fairness, I think some of the notability tags are warranted, but likely many of them could be replaced with {{references}} tags. There are many articles that need references (other than primary refs). Also, there are some articles that should be rewritten, keeping in mind that they should be encyclopedic articles designed for consumption by people who may not (primarily) be RPGers, or even gamers for that matter. The main concern I have is the inappropriate tags, and some of poor (i.e. wrong) choices for notability tags that were used, as well as the heavy handed approach taken and the excessive (and, at times, wrongly placed) {{inuniverse}} tags. Nominating articles for deletion when notability is asserted in the articles isn't appropriate, but asking for sources/refs is. Nominating Mutants and Masterminds for AfD when I removed a tag that I thought didn't apply was acting in bad faith and (in my opinion) retaliatory. If this is going to go to RfC, the focus should be on these issues, since (as I say) some of the notability tags are appropriate. The primary focus of our energy should be to improve all RPG-related articles, resulting in a better reference for all. --Craw-daddy | T | 19:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good job on those latest edits, Craw-daddy, I knew there was something(s) wrong, and I couldn't put my finger on it. Seems much better now. SamBC(talk) 20:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed a couple of small things. Also, I think "to investigate your changes and ask for a sanction against your user account" should perhaps be changed to something more like "to bring your conduct up for discussion by the community". This also doesn't directly address one of my biggest concerns -- Gavin's continual misuse of policies such as WP:OR and refusal to discuss that misuse. Pinball22 21:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More good tweaks. I would agree with your further suggested change. As to the policy misuse, if you can think of a good way to say it in the same tone as the rest of the message, add it. SamBC(talk) 21:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I mentioned this in the earlier thread, but I think it's time to move to an RfC process. His latest AfD ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/World_of_Greyhawk_Fantasy_Game_Setting) flies in the face of consensus and doesn't even make sense considering that the article has references. He also didn't show much sign of being open to discussion of his behavior on his talk page. Rray 04:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fully Agree This is beyond silly now. I am exhausted from defending articles that don't need defending. Turlo Lomon 05:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important!

Created Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gavin.collins I could really use some help populating this form. This is a lot of work. Turlo Lomon 06:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Were you planning to wait until it's more fully populated before linking in at the RFC/U page? I ask because I can't see it linked there. We'll also need to notify Gavin.collins, to be polite, although I don't doubt that he'll see this. SamBC(talk) 08:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize the form was so long. It's a lot of work to fill one of these out. Yes, to your first question. Yes, I agree. And thank you sooooo much for your help. Turlo Lomon 09:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation requested

All people endorcing the RfC I added as participants to the mediation. Turlo Lomon 09:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that it's appropriate to list WP:RPG as one of the parties involved, but the users that you include. --Craw-daddy | T | 10:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Craw-daddy: I for one never formally joined the RPG project (even if I am a de facto member). Thanks for bringing this forward, anyhow! Goochelaar 10:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed 2 references to WP:RPG as party involved. However, the third one is relevant and I kept. Thank you for the feedback. Turlo Lomon 10:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation close - Need arbitration

Mediation stated that they handle issues on content only, not behavior. I reviewed the policy, and formal mediation (the next step) also has the same guidelines. The next step we need to follow is arbitration. I need to take care of something right now and don't have time to fill out the form. If someone could start the huge amount of work (use the RfC for links), I will sign it later tonight. Turlo Lomon 23:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I on my own for this? Turlo Lomon 07:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could possibly help. I'd like to read up on the ArbCom guidelines and see what they're asking for first, etc, etc. The earliest I could do so will be over the weekend. --Craw-daddy | T | 08:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's the earliest I could work on it too. Well, to summarize. It is a LONG form. Probably going to need a test page or something somewhere. (sub-userpage) to get it completed. Also, just in case you are curious, we have been following Dispute Resolution guidelines exactly, step by step. This is important, as it will be brought up during the arbitration. Turlo Lomon 09:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having been involved in a (technically-still-ongoing) arbitration, I do have to say that you don't go to arbitration until the person has been told, preferably by the wider community (ie in an RFC/U), and reasonable time has passed and they're still doing whatever-it-is. Is there current evidence of Gavin still doing this? Being unrepentant isn't actually actionable unless the person is still doing whatever-it-is wrong. SamBC(talk) 16:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, many thanks for the explanation of policy.  :) --Craw-daddy | T | 16:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion: Moonsilver (Exalted)

Moonsilver (Exalted) (via WP:PROD on 8 October 2007) Redirected→Exalted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a wide swath of destruction tore through those Exalted articles. What they really needed was more organization and less copy-and-pasting from each other and other sources. Web Warlock 15:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to merge anything relevant to Exalted and redirect there. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you do merges, could you please include Template:R from merge on the redirects for classification purposes? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have redirected the page to Exalted (but not merged any content myself), and would suggest that others be suitably merged/redirected. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All these really-quite-valid PRODs and AFDs of the Exalted-related articles seems to make a point to me, quite successfully. Perhaps we should be more efficient in policing RPG-related articles ourselves, at least those tagged as part of the wikiproject. After all, loads of these Exalted-related articles are about non-notable background elements for which there's no reason to have a content fork and summary style in the master article, and lots have substantial redundancy between them. It's not unreasonable to think that perhaps we ought to have caught them ourselves. Should we consider this part of our mission? SamBC(talk) 10:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. This is certainly something that should be part of what this project does, i.e. be self-policing. For example, there are loads of Greyhawk articles that all have to do with the geography of Greyhawk (lots of which have been recently tagged for notability and/or sources, and some have been prodded). This is correct, and someone who is interested in taking on the task could write some geography type of article for Greyhawk. Before this is done, however, it should be determined if such a resulting page would be notable and properly referenced. Otherwise these pages should be deleted. The same can be said of many of the Exalted articles such as the ones above. Relevant material (if any) could be merged into the main article, and then these could be redirected there. But this should be done carefully, again to maintain proper sources and make sure the resulting new article doesn't suffer from "bloat". --Craw-daddy | T | 13:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Such stuff should really be on a to-do list, and as long as the list is being dealt with, the fact that it's going to be dealt with should preven deletions to give time to finish dealing with them. I have no idea how much time I'm going to have in coming months, as I'm just starting a Masters' that is taught in a rather on-and-off way, but I'd certainly be interested in taking on such work. However, some of the material to be checked and potentially merged would really need someone who knows the relevant setting (or, I guess, system in some cases). SamBC(talk) 17:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Pyramid review?? (Subscription access)

Greetings! I was hoping that one of you out there with access to the Pyramid archives could fill in the missing details (like reviewer's name, issue number) for the Pyramid review of the Abomination Codex supplement for CJ Carella's WitchCraft? I've filled in the details that I can glean from the first part of the review, but just wanted to get the full citation details. Of course if you find any other appropriate place to add a reference to other material in the article, please feel free to do so. Many thanks in advance! --Craw-daddy | T | 22:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added author and publication date. -- JHunterJ 01:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Hunter! --Craw-daddy | T | 09:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greyhawk locations (redirects)

Unless there are strong objections, I plan to start redirecting the great majority of articles in Category:Greyhawk locations to the page Greyhawk. I'll use the template Template:R from merge as suggested above. A few of them like Temple of Elemental Evil should not be merged (but, of course will likely need some more sources). --Craw-daddy | T | 06:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created a link in the header to the Greyhawk page. I believe this would be more appropriate to discuss there. Turlo Lomon 06:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While you are cleaning up some of the Greyhawk articles, could I ask for the merger or redirect of the stubs that come under Category:Greyhawk deities. There are over 200 articles in this category, but some will be worth keeping. I propose redirect to List of Greyhawk deities. --Gavin Collins 15:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion: Dreamation

Dreamation (via WP:PROD on 17 October 2007) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean for this to sound harsh, but have you considered looking for appropriate information yourself. I've been working on refs for other articles. --Craw-daddy | T | 07:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am conducting notifications against 100 or more WikiProjects. No, I have not tried looking for information - the reason why I bring to this to the attention of this WikiProject is so that knowledgeable people know of the pending deletion. See User:Ceyockey/Notifying WikiProjects of Deletion Proposals for the scope of the activity that I'm engaged in. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on with GURPS?

I've been gone from Wikipedia for a bit. Real Life and all that. I come back and fine that the GURPS Traveller page is gone. The GURPS Traveller: Interstellar Wars page is gone. The List of unofficial GURPS books page is gone. The WikiProject box has been removed from the GURPS page entirely. What the heck is going on? Are you guys even doing anything anymore? Are you just sitting around letting people delete all the GURPS pages? Or is it just that "If it ain't D20 we don't care about it." Seanr451 19:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a disturbing and uncivil message from someone who pointed out in his 1st sentence that he hasn't had time to help out here in a while. Why would you attribute such motivations to a group of people who actually do find the time to work on the project? You should apologize for your rudeness here and then find time to help fix what you think is broken. Rray 19:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a long and sad story. You can have a first glimpse of it in the previous discussions in this talk page and in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins and its talk page. I for one are contributing a little, for instance enriching List of GURPS books. Many people are doing much more than me. You are very welcome to help! Happy editing, Goochelaar 19:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to not have time to help out. The problem I have with the original poster is that he felt the need to attribute some kind of sinister motivation of only being interested in preserving d20 articles. Just wanted to clarify that I didn't mean to sound like I was displaying a lack of respect for anyone's time. Rray 19:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course! I did not mean to contradict your response, or something, Rray. Bye, Goochelaar 20:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I do apologize if I frightened your inner child there Ray ray. However, if you will take a moment and actually read what I wrote you'll notice that I did not attribute any motivation to anyone, I did not make a statement of any kind. What I did was ask a question. Or rather several of them.

I really do appreciate that you all responded to my questions so quickly. If my first post in a long time seems overstrong please realize that I've been gone unavoidably for awhile. Now that I have a bit of time I thought I'd see what's happened to some of my favorite Wiki pages only to find out they've all been deleted. I thought outright deletion was generally against Wikipedia policy and I was shocked.

At your suggestion Gochelaar I did read Gavin's page and others linked to it. I think I pretty much have the idea. It doesn't make much sense to me for me to recreate those pages if this Gavin is just going to be able to convince someone high up to simply delete them again. Once this moderation thing is over and he gets banned then I'll repost the pages. I have them saved in their entirety on my hard drive somewhere.

Unless of course I'm too rude and you'd rather I didn't help out at all. Seanr451 16:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rude editors can still help, Seanr451; it's just that we'd rather you weren't rude. Unless of course you're too sensitive to requests to be civil and would rather not help out at all. Statements like "Well I do apologize if I frightened your inner child there" are unhelpful, and "I did not attribute any motivation to anyone" after implying that "we" don't care if it ain't about D20 is disingenuous. -- JHunterJ 10:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it "doesn't make much sense for [you] to recreate those pages" unless you (or someone else) can add references to demonstrate their notability, as this was why they were redirected in the first place. It doesn't matter what the result of any moderation turns out to be as that's irrelevant to the notability of this particular game. --Craw-daddy | T | 10:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now this I don't understand. It has to be notable? So if it's about Elvis then it's important enough to be on Wikipedia, but if you (and/or people like you) don't think it's important enough to be on Wikipedia then it gets deleted? Is this a new trend in Wikipedia or simply one that I was unaware of? When I first signed in to Wikipedia I spent a lot of time reading the "How to" and "About" pages. It was my understanding that one of the guiding principles of Wikipedia is "don't delete, expand, improve." Has this changed, or have I simply been mistaken this whole time?
As for the D20 question that seems to have gotten everyone so fired up. I really didn't mean that as an insult, I meant it as a serious question. I see tons of articles on Wikipedia about D20 books with more being added everyday. But the GURPS articles are getting deleted. If you step back for a second and see this from the point of view of someone who was away for awhile and then came back and was shocked about how much GURPS stuff had been deleted then perhaps you'll understand why I asked that question without taking offense. It was meant as a serious question. The answer could have been something like; "Yes. We are focusing on D20 books because that's the vast majority of the market and we didn't think that a niche product like GURPS deserved multiple pages." Since that might have been what was happening I asked that question. Seanr451 13:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of the subject matter is the requirement for an article to be included in the Wikipedia. If you'll visit that link, you can read exactly what that means, and you can probably see that the subject of Elvis Presley is surely notable and easily demonstrable. If you disagree with that requirement for inclusion, then you might try starting a discussion of that on the policy page there, but I think you'll have little luck convincing the consensus that notability isn't an appropriate requirement. I hope that's helpful.
Like JHunterJ, I'm sure that the editors here would appreciate any actual good faith efforts to help, but your rudeness is not welcome at all. Try reviewing the policy on being civil and also the guideline about not being a dick. You'll likely be more able to accomplish whatever your goals might be here if you're polite and civil. Rray 13:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to your question, a lot of the GURPS articles have not actually been deleted, but have been merged in the List of GURPS books. The reason for this was that many of these gaming supplements had notability and content issues, were subject to extensive debate before the mergers were effected. With regard to D20 books with similar issues such as The Black Company (role-playing game), I imagine they too will be merged within a list, as the articles as they stand don't provide much information to RPG players, let alone to non-game players. --Gavin Collins 14:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, what Rray said. It's not about popularity, fame, importance, whatever (or lack thereof), it's about notability which is (somewhat) precisely defined for Wikipedia. Namely you want verifiable, third party references about a subject of an article. If you can locate such references about some topic you're more than welcome to (re)create an article or return a redirect to a full-fledged article. References could include online stuff or magazines, newspapers, journals, etc, etc, but the important thing is that they should be independent of the subject of the article.
In other words, Pyramid articles about GURPS (most likely) wouldn't be considered "independent" as it's published by Steve Jackson Games, the makers of GURPS. If you have old copies of Dragon that have GURPS reviews, those should be fine as long as you provide the relevant citation material (i.e. number, date, author, etc). Other reviews (and especially awards of note, like Origins Awards and such) are fine as well. Check out WP:N for the guidlines. Please contribute if you like, but we're trying to warn you about the guidelines now, else articles that you (re)create could just end up being deleted (again) if they don't satisfy the notability guidelines. Cheers --Craw-daddy | T | 14:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent some time looking around. I've seen that a great many of the RPG pages that aren't D&D have those warning boxes. It seems to me that someone(s) is spending a great deal of time and effort trying to get almost every RPG page that isn't D&D deleted. I don't know if there's anything I can do to help stop that or if anything even can be done. After what happened to John Seigenthaler I doubt that any of the 'powers that be' on Wikipedia even listen to anyone but themselves. Perhaps someone can provide some advice or insight. Seanr451 16:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox RPG problem?

Any reason why the "system" parameter isn't showing up in the InfoBoxes? Has the recent tweaking of this template caused this problem? I'm not so familiar with the ins and outs of how these templates work, so don't want to start mucking around with them myself. Cheers --Craw-daddy | T | 10:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the template/what's it called? I'm reasonably good at understanding these things, and happy to take a look. SamBC(talk) 10:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Template:Infobox RPG. The "system" parameter isn't showing up, even when it's defined (say, for example in the Infoboxes for Mutants and Masterminds or GURPS). And thanks in advance!  :) --Craw-daddy | T | 11:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
voila, fixed. The if-clause for that parameter was testing a parameter called "issystem" (which isn't documented) to decide whether to include the parameter "system". SamBC(talk) 11:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! You da man! (assuming, that you're not female, but you get the idea  ;) --Craw-daddy | T | 11:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability proposal

I've put up a first draft of a notability proposal for RPGs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games/Notability. I'm not sure where to take it next; the options as I see it are:

  • Put it up on the Village Pump in the hopes of getting it made official policy.
  • Link to it from the project page and explain that that it's how the project interprets WP:N as it applies to RPGs
  • Neither of the above - we do without.

I think that recent events have shown us we need *something* to stop deletionist editors from deleting all the RPG articles out of hand; but I don't know whether the community thinks a full-blown official policy is what's needed. So - please discuss the actual rules on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Role-playing games/Notability their talk page, and discuss what to do with them here. Percy Snoodle 15:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion: Embrace (World of Darkness)

Embrace (World of Darkness) (via WP:PROD)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krynn on AfD, along with various other D&D settings

Thought you should know. --Kizor 15:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've added in the relevant talk page referenced that can possible be used to show notibliy Roguebfl 11:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs, Transwiki, etc

Hey guys, I wanted the RPG Project to know that I've started copying articles that I see in AFD to Fancruft.net The people hosting it are letting me sysop and there are no weird notability or in-universe rules. If any Rpg project people want to help me out by porting templates and cleaning up copied articles (templates, etc) I'd really appreciate the assistance.--Torchwood Who? 03:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

This section

==References==

  • A section for references at the bottom, in the following format:

Books, modules, supplements, boxed sets, etc Author or editor. Title of product (publisher, date). Available online:URL, if applicable

should perhaps be clarified so we don't end up with listcruft like in [7] --NeilN 15:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably be replaced entirely - the new Wikipedia:Footnotes system kind of makes it obsolete. Percy Snoodle 16:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done - what do people think of the new advice? Percy Snoodle 12:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a break from my break. IT looks good, now we need to go out there and hit the books for sources to keep the deletionists at bay. Web Warlock 16:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exalted castes - redirect?

Gavin's just tagged Dawn Caste, Eclipse Caste, Night Caste, Twilight Caste and Zenith Caste as non-notable D&D in-universe cruft. While the "D&D" part shows his typical accuracy, I don't really disagree with the non-notable part. I think the best thing would be to redirect these articles to Exalted (role-playing game). Would that meet with objections? Percy Snoodle 12:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected all of these to Exalted. Interested parties can merge any relevant information using the histories. --Craw-daddy | T | 19:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of questions

  1. I have added Faith Hunter to the category:RPG writers. I don't know, however, the difference between that and RPG designers. Should she be in the other or both, or is there currently not enough infomation to know?
  2. Should the talk pages of writers/designers get the RPG project banner?

Thanks for any help! Aleta 20:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


==Star Trek (PbBB Role Playing Game)

I'm in dire need of help fixing this article so it can be returned to wikipedia. I've exhausted all attempts to meet standards. :( The article has been userfied and moved to [Amazon Star Trek PbBB Role Playing Game]

I've been told time and time again to find sources and I've listed all undisputable websites and search engines associated with this genre. What else can I do?!!! hehe. -Zodiac01 00:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment.
  2. ^ "Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is reliable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur. Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source.
  3. ^ Independent does not mean independent of the publishing industry, but only refers to those actually involved with the particular book.
  4. ^ Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the book. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material). The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its author, publisher, vendor or agent) have actually considered the book notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.
  5. ^ This criteria does not include textbooks or reference books written specifically for study in educational programs, but only independent works deemed sufficiently significant to be the subject of study themselves, such as major works in philosophy, literature, or science.
  6. ^ For example, a person whose life or works is a subject of common classroom study.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Role-playing_games&oldid=171324807"