User talk:BOZ

Archives

Happy New Year, BOZ!

Happy New Year!

BOZ,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010^Talk 00:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Davey2010, you too! :) BOZ (talk) 06:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you a happy 2020

Happy New Year!

MMXX Lunar Calendar

BOZ,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

– 2020 is a leap year – news article.
– Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– Rtkat3 (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rtkat3, and you too! BOZ (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just made Home for Christmas (TV series)

Made it yesterday. Wiki has changed since I last made an article. Back in the day, you could be the first to create an episode page, but never a whole TV show page. Must be a lot less people around now. Still enough people to nominate it for speedy deletion right away, though!

I was going to create a tiny POS article and leave it at that, but the speedy got my dander up, so I've been improving it. Like old times, sigh. A few more years of editor attrition, and maybe I can start the article for a Marvel movie or something! Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know what you mean. New Page Patrol is a lot more aggressive than they used to be. It looks like you had at least one other user helping out though, so that is good. I figure, if you get at least two WP:RS on a new article, most reasonable NPP folks will approve it, but then there are others... BOZ (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did get help. 1) Deletion forces you work. 2) Sometimes someone helps you and it's awesome! Wiki should figure out some sort of social media aspect that makes it more fun for people Think that's on WP:NOT to not do that, though.Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, yeah, I think they do frown on going to social media for help. :) But, I do wish there were easier ways to find people to coordinate to work on an article with you. That said, I don't think there is any issue at all with asking others for help for an article up for speedy or PROD, but it is a different story with AFD where you have to be more careful since it is a consensus decision. BOZ (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redent. If you have time, could you look at Template:Did you know nominations/Home for Christmas (TV series)? Took a rough stab at it but I could use some help or criticism. Thanks. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting topic! It's a cool idea actually, wonder why no one thought of doing that here. :) I like your first choice, but I would phrase it "is the first Norwegian TV show on Netflix", unless Netflix produced it. BOZ (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Fomorian (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Fomorian (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Couatl

The article Couatl has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External link and redirect

Happy New Year, BOZ!

Already I wanted to tell/ask you: In many deletion discussion we were told that content should go to Fandom wikis. It seems sad to me that in addition we do not even seem to be allowed to link to such wikis to help a reader find them according to WP:ELNO. Would you perhaps be interested in giving your opinion to the fringe case of at Talk:Forgotten Realms?

Also I was wondering: When Fey (Dungeons & Dragons) was changed to a redirect, the history was also deleted and the old version is no longer accessible for merging or other future uses. Could you please tell me if that is the normal way to do it?

Thank you very much! Daranios (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the external links, I see what you mean, and I feel the same way how it seems sad to send the content elsewhere, but I am afraid I do not know the policy well enough to say if it is OK to link there.

As far as the edit history of Fey (Dungeons & Dragons), I see what you mean, as the AFD was closed as redirect but the edit history was deleted. I will restore the edit history so that you or someone else can merge if needed, but be aware that no one should be restoring the article from a redirect unless sources are found to meet the WP:GNG. BOZ (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Digital Web for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Digital Web is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital Web until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Troglodyte (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Troglodyte (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Magic: The Gathering Totally Unauthorized for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Magic: The Gathering Totally Unauthorized is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic: The Gathering Totally Unauthorized until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of your article creations

Hi, I seem to recall that we had the same discussion last year already, but not much seems to have changed. You seem to have created a truckload of articles of very dubious notability, and continue to do so. I just nominated two right above, but looking at e.g. Field Guide: Northern Vehicles 2 and Field Guide: Southern Vehicles 2, not only is it rather unclear why these two identical articles are not created as one in the first place (as they clearly belong tgether), but even more why they would pass our notability guideline and would survive an AfD. Apart from the review you list, these supplements have received no attention at all[1]. They made no impact, have no lasting influence, they simply exist. We are not a repository of everything ever made and discussed briefly in niche magazines.

The same can be said about e.g. a novel like Wraith: Sins of the Fathers. It is rather pointless to have you create tons of articles which then get redirected or deleted anyway, and it is strange to see a very seasoned editor continuing like this. Could you please change your approach or elaborate on why not? Fram (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can take a break for a while, I do have other things I need to focus on in the meantime. BOZ (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Vampire: The Dark Ages Storytellers Screen for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vampire: The Dark Ages Storytellers Screen is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vampire: The Dark Ages Storytellers Screen until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dankendismal for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dankendismal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dankendismal until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Field Guide: Southern Vehicles 2 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Field Guide: Southern Vehicles 2 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Field Guide: Southern Vehicles 2 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 09:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dungeon Maps for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dungeon Maps is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeon Maps until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 09:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Wraith: Sins of the Fathers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wraith: Sins of the Fathers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wraith: Sins of the Fathers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Gorgon (Dungeons & Dragons) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gorgon (Dungeons & Dragons) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gorgon (Dungeons & Dragons) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Rao (Greyhawk)

The article Rao (Greyhawk) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Erythnul

The article Erythnul has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG. Only reception is a hyperfocused listicle.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Roc (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Roc (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Centaur (Dungeons & Dragons) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Centaur (Dungeons & Dragons) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centaur (Dungeons & Dragons) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Chimera (Dungeons & Dragons) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chimera (Dungeons & Dragons) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chimera (Dungeons & Dragons) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Shapeshifters Manual

The article The Shapeshifters Manual has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability, one short review in a niche magazine. Internet confirms that it exists, but that's about it.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Shadow Lords Tribebook

The article Shadow Lords Tribebook has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 10:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mecha Manual 2: Invasion Terra Files

The article Mecha Manual 2: Invasion Terra Files has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 10:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Hobgoblin (Dungeons & Dragons) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hobgoblin (Dungeons & Dragons) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hobgoblin (Dungeons & Dragons) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Cockatrice (Dungeons & Dragons) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cockatrice (Dungeons & Dragons) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cockatrice (Dungeons & Dragons) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Triton (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Triton (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Spectre (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Spectre (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Shadow Lords Tribebook for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shadow Lords Tribebook is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadow Lords Tribebook until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mecha Manual 2: Invasion Terra Files for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mecha Manual 2: Invasion Terra Files is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mecha Manual 2: Invasion Terra Files until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 07:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Cloaker

The article Cloaker has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dungeon Rooms for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dungeon Rooms is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeon Rooms until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Uncle Albert's Auto Stop & Gunnery Shop 2035 Catalog

The article Uncle Albert's Auto Stop & Gunnery Shop 2035 Catalog has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of any notability among the 40 Google hits, nothing at Google Books either. The lone source in the article is from a publication from the same company, so not an independent source.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Uncle Albert's Auto Stop & Gunnery Shop 2035 Catalog for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Uncle Albert's Auto Stop & Gunnery Shop 2035 Catalog is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uncle Albert's Auto Stop & Gunnery Shop 2035 Catalog until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Desert Tracks for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Desert Tracks is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desert Tracks until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Deep Magic for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Deep Magic is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep Magic until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

Hi BOZ! I hope your holidays were good. How do I find if a draft of a topic has been started? I want to create a draft for the next D&D book (Explorer's Guide to Wildemount) but I don't want to create a duplicate if one already exists. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good to have you back, and same to you! :) It should be relatively easy to find that, and there are a few ways you can check. First of all you can use the standard search function and set it to check for drafts. You can also type "Draft: Exp" into the search box and it will bring up all drafts starting with that. One more way is to open up a page from a red link as if you were going to create an article, and if there is a draft with that exact title you will get a little box on that page saying so. :) BOZ (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! I knew I was missing something obvious. Thanks. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NGAME requirements for mainspace

Hi, BOZ, couple questions:

I was looking at NGAME before I make a new article, but I didn't find the guidance I was looking for. Do you know if there are any pre-requisites for an article existing in the Mainspace vice Draftspace? For example, WP:NFILM will say that films shouldn't be in Mainspace until they've actually started filming. If a game is still in development, is it inappropriate to have an article until a certain point?
Do you ever go through and mark pages reviewed that would go to WP:NPP, or do you usually stay out of page reviews?
Likewise, if there's ever a draft ready to move to Mainspace, do you ever review them?

Curious in case I ever ping you about looking at new pages down the line. -2pou (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 2pou, thanks for asking! I will admit that I am not super knowledgeable about how the guidelines work in regards to video games that are still in development, as I usually work on retro games from the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s. I also do not review pages for NPP, nor do I review drafts for AFC. Sorry if I was not much help, unless there is something else you were looking for that I may be able to answer? For what it is worth, I am sure that there is a rule about a game in development that it has to reach a certain point before we should have an article on it, like there is for articles about films in development. BOZ (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's fine. Thank you! Alternatively, if I created a Draft, and asked your thoughts if it was ready for Mainspace (separate from AFC), would you perform the move if you thought it was?
Like this for example (starting small): Draft:Middle-earth Strategic Gaming -2pou (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a video game based on the PBM game? BOZ (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, I was originally talking about a future Lord of the Rings video game. Sorry; that wasn't clear. That redirect is just a quick trial experiment. Middle-earth Strategic Gaming is apparently the name that the PBM game goes by now. -2pou (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dark Horizon: Escape for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dark Horizon: Escape is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Horizon: Escape until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Cryptic Campaigns for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cryptic Campaigns is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryptic Campaigns until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 12:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Crossroads (role-playing game) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Crossroads (role-playing game) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crossroads (role-playing game) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Critter-Tek for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Critter-Tek is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critter-Tek until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Crisis: A Twisted Laugh at Life for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Crisis: A Twisted Laugh at Life is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crisis: A Twisted Laugh at Life until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

BOZ, you know that selectively contacting people about AfDs of your articles is rather frowned upon? And complaining that there are too many AfDs for one person to handle is a bit much, when e.g. the four I nominated today, are all created by you on a single day, when you created 9 articles. If you are free to create 9 articles about subjects of little or no notability in one day, then people are surely within their right to nominate the worst four of them in one day as well? Otherwise you are making a "fait accompli" by creating more articles than people may nominate for deletion... In 2019 alone, you created some 750 articles (not counting those since redirected), so you shouldn't be surprised that you get lots of AfDs per week (considering the obscurity of the subjects you wrote upon). Fram (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked people for help on finding sources, nothing more than that. I have never asked anyone to join in an AFD discussion, and if you are accusing me of doing so, then that is simply your misconception. You of course have a right to nominate any article for AFD that you chose. Any negative perceptions that you may feel you need to have towards me are also your right to have. BOZ (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Plant creatures (Dungeons & Dragons) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Plant creatures (Dungeons & Dragons) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plant creatures (Dungeons & Dragons) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rorshacma (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Claim-Jumper: The Game for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Claim-Jumper: The Game is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claim-Jumper: The Game until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks thing

I'm just getting to understand the thanks/heart thing. Do you find it useful? If you do, when is the best time to use it? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peregrine Fisher, good question. :) I use it in a variety of circumstances, kind of similarly to the "like" button on Facebook almost? On articles, I usually use it when someone adds something substantive to improve an article, or reverts a change that was detrimental to the article. In discussions, I will use it when someone makes a point I agree with, or adds something valuable that I had not considered. I'm sure other people use it at other times, and I have gotten it many times from other people as well. Got to spread the WP:WIKILOVE given how much negativity gets around, I figure. :) BOZ (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chuckle. Yeah. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rules According to Ral: Chaos Wars for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rules According to Ral: Chaos Wars is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rules According to Ral: Chaos Wars until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Phyton for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Phyton is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phyton (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN discussion

I started a discussion about your editing and admin actions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:BOZ. Fram (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me and giving me a chance to address your concerns. BOZ (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the archive of the above discussion, preserved for posterity - or posterior, if you prefer. ;) BOZ (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Fharlanghn

The article Fharlanghn has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Heironeous

The article Heironeous has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Yeti (Dungeons & Dragons) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yeti (Dungeons & Dragons) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeti (Dungeons & Dragons) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Not a very active user (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Battle of the Gods (play-by-mail game) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Battle of the Gods (play-by-mail game) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Gods (play-by-mail game) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Battle of Monmouth (game) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Battle of Monmouth (game) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Monmouth (game) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 11:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of BattleBots (board game) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BattleBots (board game) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BattleBots (board game) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Lupin (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Lupin (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Grue (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Grue (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sylph (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Sylph (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Skeleton warrior (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Skeleton warrior (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

If this comment was triggered by my statement above; I wasn't intending to drive you away. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not you personally, it's the totality of the experience. It would have been the next person who commented if it hadn't been you. I probably fucked up in any number of ways over the years and having it all brought out and paraded around to show how awful I am was making me pretty damned depressed. I had to walk away from that for my own mental health. I don't want you to feel bad though, but I will say that leaving that conversation lifted my spirits considerably. Thanks for reaching out to me though, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Happy editing. BOZ (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note

Without getting into the particulars of the situation, I hope all the work you've done is also available elsewhere. It seems like regardless of whether some of these articles are right for Wikipedia, they would be a valuable contribution to a topic-specific wiki project (dnd-wiki.org being an example I'm sure you're already aware of). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out Rhododendrites, I appreciate that. I honestly have no idea what has and has not been made available on other wikis. I have tried looking at them and found them difficult to navigate and keep track of, especially when compared with Wikipedia which I find much easier to use. I also note that on fan wikis, a lot of the information that Wikipedia does consider valuable (development, reception, etc) is often completely ignored if not just plain unwanted (it gets in the way of the in-universe descriptions maybe?), and I find that to be unacceptable. So, I have little use for fan wikis. I want to see Wikipedia have room for both the development/reception sort of thing for fictional elements, as well as describing the role within the fiction, and I think there can be more room here for elements that don't meet the WP:GNG, either in the form of lists or a selection of pages that go into details on the elements of a particular work of fiction. I have always felt that deletion of this material is generally a disservice to readers, who are then often directed to inferior fan wikis instead. But anyway, that is just my rant and I don't think you came here looking for that. :) Fan wikis are good for people who want that sort of thing, and if you or anyone you know is looking for "non-notable" material that was deleted from Wikipedia to add to a fan wiki, then I would love to see that happen so it is available somewhere for people who do want that, since it is no longer here. BOZ (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can create your own wikia and mass export over all your articles you created on Wikipedia, and keep the reception and development sections. Even if someone else has a wiki for the same thing, doesn't matter, you can still create yours, people do that all the time. And remember once you register there you can go into the options to eliminate some of the irritating ads, and also can use firefox ad blocker if the remaining ones bother you. You set the rules for your own wiki, and can maintain standards, appoint administrators as you see fit to help if it grows a large fan base, etc. Dream Focus 00:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like more than I want to bother with at this time, but thanks for the suggestions. You can use anything I have created on Wikipedia if you want to put it on Wikia. I started a few wikis on Fandom towards the end of last year just for the hell of it, and got bored quickly. I may come back to it, you never know, but not any time soon. BOZ (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Azer (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Azer (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Bodak

The article Bodak has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Wraith (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Wraith (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 12:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

		The Special Barnstar
		In recognition of your valuable contributions to Wikipedia, your equanimity, and your support for other editors. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AugusteBlanqui, thank you very much. :) Definitely lifts my spirits to see this first thing when I wake up. :) BOZ (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

		The Adopt-a-User Barnstar
		I know we didn't do the formal Adopt-a-User program, but I wanted to highlight that you've been a great mentor. I don't know if I would have stuck around without your support. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aw thank you so much. :) I definitely appreciate it, and I appreciate you! I know you will have a long and fruitful career on Wikipedia if you want one. BOZ (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AFD participation

After giving it some thought, I have decided to willingly suspend my participation in AFD discussions until my fate is decided. Since my participation in AFD has not been particularly effective for the last several months anyway, I doubt my lack of involvement will mean much. BOZ (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear Boz; you are definitely swimming against the evolving tide of Wikipedia. The pendulum will swing back, however. In my brief stint at AfD I learned a few things:

1. It's fascinating to me how limited the participation is--three to six editors decide what content is "legitimate" for the most-read source of information in the world. That is powerful normative control. 2. The arbitrariness and inconsistency of closing. There's a low-hanging academic paper here based on the stats of admins. There are some AfD topics that admins stay away from--only the bravest or most arrogant close these. As for GNG, it's clear that even admins do not agree on where are the goalposts. However, D&D and other similar topics can be piled on with ease. An editor (or admin closer for that matter) who wouldn't dare go near a Women in Red article, Wikiproject Firearms, Wikiproject Soccer (football), or Wikiproject Military History for AfD can safely purge content in these areas. It's a pity that Wikiproject D&D does not have more active users. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The trick about AFD is that it is all about who shows up. You could make the same exact argument in six AFDs on similar topics with similar levels of notability. On the first two, several editors who favor keeping show up and the closing admin is inclined to weigh their arguments favorably, you get a keep. On the next two, several editors who favor deleting show up and the closing admin is inclined to weigh their arguments favorably, you get a delete. On the last two, you get a mix of responses, and the close will result entirely on the tendencies of whichever admin decides to close it. It's really a funny little game when you look at it. I have participated in AFD for well over a decade and while (despite the claims of some people) sometimes I do indeed make substantive and occasionally even passionate arguments, a good percentage of the time my contribution is little more than "keep or merge". I say keep partly because that is my preference, and partly because I want to leave an easy window open in case I want to amend my !vote if I think of a better argument or want to agree with what someone else adds later, and I say merge because I honestly feel that if there is a valid merge target then that should be considered. Many AFDs I have participated in were closed as merge or redirect, especially when other editors (including those who would rather delete than keep) saw my merge suggestion and agreed with it. Over the last few months though, I have seen a lot less willingness to compromise in that way, though, so my comment above is sadly accurate. Despite voting reliably this way for a long time, I saw at most whining, contempt, and minor complaints towards me, and prior to a few days ago never a serious level of complaint, but I honestly never considered (and still have a hard time believing) that I was being disruptive in any way, so I am of course dismayed that people have been campaigning so hard against me. But yes to address your comments more directly, your first point is the most bizarre part about AFD; sometimes it's enough for two or three people to say "delete" and you are thenceforth prohibited from having an article on that topic ever again? And as for point two, I have seen patterns on closers myself; some admins clearly do not want to close certain AFDs as keep or no consensus so they will relist multiple times on the same discussion, hoping for more deletes so they can close it the way they would like. As for your closing comment, my goal for the last few years has been to improve the profile of D&D and RPGs in general by introducing many more notable topics and topics that I could hope to prove their notability over time, to try to encourage other people to want to participate. I am always trying to coordinate other editors to see who I can get to participate in what areas of tabletop gaming. I see a person with one skill, I utilize the hell out of that person until I wear them out, LOL. I don't work as hard as I could on Wikipedia, but then again this is only one aspect of my life, and not even the most important one. I just want to play my own little part in the overall whole. I don't mean to get too personal, but since I did mention my mental health already, I do like to participate in content creation and improvement to help with my own issues of depression, and I find that accomplishments help a lot.

By the way, I was hesitant to log in to Wikipedia today for several hours, and I finally decided not to be intimidated. I was expecting more anger and judgement towards me in my WP:AN thread... but instead I got some fierce defense from three editors I respect and admire. :) I wish there was a "love" button in addition to the "thank" button. ;) BOZ (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Chitine

The article Chitine has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Flameskull

The article Flameskull has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Gehenna (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Gehenna (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Carceri (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Carceri (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Beastlands

The article Beastlands has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Heward

The article Heward has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Procan

The article Procan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Istus

The article Istus has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Norebo for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Norebo is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norebo (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Cambion (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Cambion (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Eladrin

The article Eladrin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The A to Z of Babylon 5

The article The A to Z of Babylon 5 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Books like all notability. Author (Bassom with an "M") doesn't have an article, publisher doesn't have an article, and I couldn't find other reliable sources about the book. The Babylon 5 article has no information about this book (logically), so redirecting it there doesn't really help anyone.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 09:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mephistopheles (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Mephistopheles (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Dispater (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Dispater (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Grippli

The article Grippli has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mongrelfolk

The article Mongrelfolk has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AN

I have asked some questions of you at AN and while I do not think anyone is expecting an immediate comment on hundreds of undeletions, you should devote any wikitime that you do have to explaining your recent undelete actions. WP:ADMINACCT is an important policy and you would do well to own this situation. AGK ■ 23:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AGK, thank you for creating that table. I was trying to review my log the other day but I found it difficult to navigate, so this should be a lot easier to use. I do want to be accountable for my own actions, and so any mistakes, errors, oversights, or just bad choices I made along the way, I am willing to take care of. I want to be worthy of the good faith extended by some of the respondents in that thread, and cleaning up any messes I made may be the only way to do that.

To be clear on what you are asking, what is the best way to present my responses to each one? Would it be enough to say, for example, "undeletions 1-300 are good, 301-375 are not good so I have deleted them again"? Or do I need a line-by-line of which ones I think are OK and which ones were bad? Should I provide a reason for each one that I think is OK, or for the ones that I think are OK, do I just say so and then you will look at them and decide whether you agree or question why I think it is OK if you do not agree? I created a temporary user page at User:BOZ/undeletions to store my data as I go, but I can modify that to another format if needed. Would it be reasonable to have a category of "not sure" for those that may need outside input? How about undeletions that were bad but have already been resolved by me or another admin?

As for why I did not always provide a reason, I admit that I do not really have an explanation for that. I suppose I did not always know what I should put or did not give much thought to listing a reason, which sounds a lot worse now than when I did not think I would have to explain them later. I do not really have an excuse for not providing reasons at the time.

I am a bit overwhelmed by this experience, but I want to do what I can to make things right. I feel that the majority of my undeletions will be good or at least uncontroversial, but I know that I have already found some that should never have been undeleted (or that, having undeleted them in error, I should have realized my mistake and corrected myself). Any advice you can give me will help me go in the right direction. Obviously, I want to change my approach to something other than "becoming more reclusive and ashamed".

Your approach feels more like dispute resolution than the "he's bad, no he's good!" approach that did not seem to be getting anywhere on AN. Please, if you can, keep in touch with me as I go in case I stumble. I know you are busy, but maybe just watchlist that user page so you can keep tabs on my progress. Is there a timetable of some kind, like a hard limit that I should finish this by? I have no idea what kind of time investment this will wind up being, so I will start now and see how far I get in what kind of time. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I got farther than I expected in a little over an hour. It was actually fairly therapeutic, oddly enough? If there is anything you need me to do differently, let me know and I will change that when I resume. Due to the level of concentration needed to review this stuff, I can only do this at some parts of my day, and probably not at all on the weekends. But as I suspected, looking at it on this table is way easier to do than trying to go through my log and trying to figure out what I did and when. Unless you have an objection, I would like to continue editing other articles in my spare time (I have sources I have been itching to add) and save this for parts of the day when I can dig in properly, but I do intend to continue. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to resume going through the list later today. I will start by manually going through items # 26 - 106. I made the faulty assumption that Fram had done this already since he had previously commented on several of those items in the first few days of the AN thread, but since he found more problems I conclude that assumption was incorrect. Therefore, I will go through them one-by-one and take care of any additional problematic diffs. I will also do some minor editing throughout the day before resuming the list, but I will save more serious editing for another time. BOZ (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As promised previously, I will now go though items # 26 - 106 in the list. I did spend some time editing today, but tomorrow I will do little or no editing, so I will make more progress tomorrow if I get the chance. BOZ (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I went back over these items to double check and found that most had never been deleted prior to December 2019. Sharindlar and Myrkul, as brought up in the AN thread, I deleted the edit histories of just to be on the safe side. I did not go through the whole list looking to see if I had ever been involved in any form with the content in question, just in the log to see if there was a legitimate reason that no admin should have ever restored it (deleted at AFD, copyvio, etc), and I did not come up with any more of those. Some were speedy deleted in the distant past as very poor articles which were still on topic, so I did not redelete those (as opposed to total nonsense, like what was at Myrkul). AGK, to what degree would I have had to be involved with editing an article for me to be considered an involved admin? I remember now, after having gone though all 80 members of that list, that I started undeleting them in the first place because one user had created new redirects from those titles to a different list, so I undeleted the histories of the dozen or so that he did that with, reasoning that the edit histories might be useful to him; at that point, I decided to go on ahead and do the rest, if that makes sense. I never expected it would case so much trouble, or really any trouble at all. Like I said above, tomorrow I will make more progress if I get the chance. BOZ (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boz, note that the recent ARBCOM decision seems to set a new and very inclusive definition for INVOLVED; however, it would make no sense at all for me to try to apply it retroactively. Newimpartial (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that is a lot more restrictive of a reading than I would have thought. BOZ (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like most of my days are busy lately. I should be able to find some time shortly to start on that; I may not get far, but I want to make some progress. BOZ (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found some time and made some progress, so I am going to take a break here. I should be able to find more time tomorrow. BOZ (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to do a little more now, and hopefully should find more time later in the day. BOZ (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I got more than halfway through the list within a week; I will not likely find time to continue over the weekend, but I will resume on Monday. BOZ (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Today has been particularly busy (no surprise there) and I have some off-wiki work piling up that I need to make some progress on, and some articles that I need to try to source here, but I will definitely make at least some progress on this by the end of the day. BOZ (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Today wiped me out... I looked a little at the list and made some notes, and I will add them to whatever I can get done with tomorrow. Thank you for your patience. BOZ (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another busy day, but not as bad as yesterday, and I did get the majority of my off-wiki work done, so I do not see any problem with making some progress later today. BOZ (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I finished all my off-wiki work (will have to manage it better so it does not pile up), and made a little progress, hoping for better tomorrow. BOZ (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The last couple of days really wiped me out, so there was not much left of me today. I made a little more progress and am calling it quits earlier today, so hopefully some rest will do me good. BOZ (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am definitely refreshed and better rested, but my time was limited today, so I made what progress I could. More tomorrow. BOZ (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to make some progress today, but it was a busy day and I ran out of time early. I will probably be busy most of the weekend, and while I would like to promise that I will be able to pick back up on Monday again, it may be another busy day like this past Monday. That said, I should have no problem picking back up on Tuesday. BOZ (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to find a little bit of time today after all, and made what progress I could. BOZ (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Merfolk (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Merfolk (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Cavalier (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Cavalier (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried wikia/fandom?

Whenever my stuff was being nominated for deletion or I saw a lot of other people's stuff being destroyed in various purges, I just created wikias for them. You can special:export the full history of articles from Wikipedia and then special:import them on other wikis. You can grab a lot of your articles at once even. https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Main_Page has 30,554 articles so it might already have all the information there already. I also see https://dungeons.fandom.com/wiki/Main_Page has 10,087 articles. https://dungeonsdragons.fandom.com/wiki/Dungeons_and_Dragons_Wiki has 2,260. Its horrible to see something you worked on deleted for no good reason. Wasn't hurting anything, no one would even notice it unless they went to look for it, was there for years, but whatever. Just how times have changed unfortunately. Dream Focus 00:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by Dream Focus, I appreciate that. See User talk:BOZ#Just a note for my feelings on fan wikis/wikia in general. Maybe my feelings will change one day, but for now that is where I am at. I cannot see switching from Wikipedia to a fan wiki any time in the near future for me, but I respect you for doing it. If there is any way I can help you do what you do there, let me know. BOZ (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Gehenna (Dungeons & Dragons) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gehenna (Dungeons & Dragons) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gehenna (Dungeons & Dragons) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Technocracy: Void Engineers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Technocracy: Void Engineers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technocracy: Void Engineers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Chetsford (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Cloudships & Gunboats for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cloudships & Gunboats is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloudships & Gunboats until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Chetsford (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed

Hello, BOZ

Thank you for creating GURPS Cyberpunk Adventures.

User:Insertcleverphrasehere, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Can we actually write a reference for the review in Dragon #200?

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Insertcleverphrasehere}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

— Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 22:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I definitely can do that, as I have access to the magazine. BOZ (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Shadow (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Shadow (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG. Reception is trivial.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Popular pages

Forgot about this. I probably won't do shit, but alignment and race might be GA achievable. Maybe I'll bittorrent that DnD book that came out a year or two ago. Dungeons & Dragons Art & Arcana. You "read" that at all? Are you the only DnD editor left? Any other editors who know how to add refs to DnD articles? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I might be the most active D&D editor, but I see other folks often enough. I trust Sariel Xilo and Guinness323 to help out with sources on articles. I have seen that Art & Arcana book, and it looks very nice. :) BOZ (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm downloading it as we speak. Well, I had to stop for a bit to write this because WP won't let me edit from a VPN.

Anyways, just had an observation I thought I'd share. I roam around the wiki lately, and I keep seeing names I recognize... It's all the deletionist admins from back in day! Half of them seem to be on arbcom! Kinda making me amused right now. Maybe I'll despair at a later date.

Then I thought about my inclusionist friends who I can't remember without seeing their names. It was just you and DGG (who's some bigwig now) and that's it. Then I saw Dream Focus on this talk page. That's awesome!

Also, your talk page is terrible. Probably all notifications from TTN!

There was a time before I knew you when I would spend all day adding fair use images to lists of episodes. I added hundreds. Then me and User:Matthew would fight Maxim, Black Kite and others with mega reverts and RfCs and tons of other fun stuff. But they finally won. For years and years I got emails saying an image was about to be deleted. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this place always has been, still is, and likely always will be a huge mess. ;) But still, it's a mess I happen to love for a lot of reasons, and despite a lot of reasons. I try not to get too worked up over it, despite how difficult it's been lately with all the shit flying at me from every direction. :) My talk page is only from this year so far - I archive it at the end of every year - LOL! Aside from DGG, you know that Casliber is on Arbcom too, he's always been a good guy. BOZ (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm laughing so hard! One month in and this is what you get! TTN is a machine. I saw Casliber's name and it kinda ringed a bell. I'll have to think about it. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I always wondered if wikipedia had been in the 80s-90s, I'd have been editing all this content, likely fighting too hard at AfD and getting blocked. I can only face it in short spells...gets too depressing otherwise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean Cas Liber, although if we had been able to do it back then we probably would have sourced everything better with the all the magazines being still readily available! LOL I've had to stop posting at AFD for a while because I've been getting nowhere good with it. :) BOZ (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We did the best with what we could - we had a bunch of White Dwarfs and some other mags and books, tried to get as much OOU material as possible and crossed our fingers. To do more for many would have meant having to drop everything and run off to a library (maybe). The tidal mark of two independent souces was okay for a while but much of the stuff being deleted now I was thinking five years ago was only a matter of time before someone came across it (as has happened) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber, I know what you mean, I fought the good fight, but ultimately Wikipedia said no. Instead, these days, I work mostly on the game articles themselves and related topics, it is not quite as difficult to source those. I think I have done some decent work in that regard. :) BOZ (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's where I knew casliber. "Looks good :) bring on the froghemoth and vegepygmies ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 2:38 pm, 29 July 2009, Wednesday (10 years, 6 months, 7 days ago) (UTC−7)" Awesome comment! I had that module as a kid (Talk:Expedition to the Barrier Peaks) and used to look at the pictures of the frog and the veg a lot. Also, I went searching for that wiki quote and I misspelled frogomoth. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Petitioner (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Petitioner (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of TableMaster for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article TableMaster is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TableMaster until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Construct (Dungeons & Dragons) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Construct (Dungeons & Dragons) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Construct (Dungeons & Dragons) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Not a very active user (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Gargoyle (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Gargoyle (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have moved this to Draft:Gargoyles in popular culture for now, with plans to incorporate TV shows and films focusing on the subject. BD2412 T 17:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- BD2412, You're the man now, dog! Go for it. :) BOZ (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well I could use some help finding and adding gargoyle-heavy media. BD2412 T 18:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Balhannoth

The article Balhannoth has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Wight (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Wight (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG. Current reception is trivial.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you! :) BOZ (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Pale Night

The article Pale Night has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ehlonna

The article Ehlonna has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Baalzebul (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Baalzebul (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Moloch (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Moloch (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Forgotten Realms cities for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Forgotten Realms cities is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Forgotten Realms cities until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Forgotten Realms nations for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Forgotten Realms nations is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Forgotten Realms nations until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Wolfwere (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Wolfwere (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Content development opportunities

Hello, BOZ. I know you are busy with various things, but it seems that the deletionist crowd is taking a look at the articles for Pyramid Magazine, Hogshead Publishing and its games, and Guardians of Order and some of its games that are not yet at AfD. If you could strengthen any of those articles before any are nominated for AfD, that would be especially helpful.

Regards, Newimpartial (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you have access in particular to any Designers & Dragons references for Forgotten Futures and Diana: Warrior Princess before they are also sent to AfD, that would be great. Newimpartial (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You must have read my mind at some point, because I planned to do all of that today. :) Very busy day so far, but hopefully I have a few minutes to at least think. Thanks for helping to keep an eye on things. BOZ (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Newimpartial, I do not know if you have ever reviewed this, but the person who replied to me there was the co-nominator and someone I found to be very open to listening to my input, and may have further insight into how to deal with the latest recurrence of this situation, if you approach respectfully. BOZ (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Harpy (Dungeons & Dragons) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Harpy (Dungeons & Dragons) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harpy (Dungeons & Dragons) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC) {{safesubst:#if:|== Proposed deletion of Naga (Dungeons & Dragons) ==| TTN (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of regions in Faerûn for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of regions in Faerûn is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of regions in Faerûn until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Outsider

{{safesubst:#if:|== Proposed deletion of Outsider (Dungeons & Dragons) ==| TTN (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mummy (Dungeons & Dragons) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mummy (Dungeons & Dragons) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mummy (Dungeons & Dragons) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Elemental (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Elemental (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Lycanthrope (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Lycanthrope (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lycanthrope (Dungeons & Dragons) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lycanthrope (Dungeons & Dragons) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lycanthrope (Dungeons & Dragons) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mammon (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Mammon (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Belial (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Belial (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Nalfeshnee

The article Nalfeshnee has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Wererat (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Wererat (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 12:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Celestial (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Celestial (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminati (play-by-mail game)

You mentioned possibly turning Illuminati (play-by-mail game) into an article. I've seen it listed in the ratings in numerous Paper Mayhem issues, and in one I just happened across, Paper Mayhem Issue #69 (Nov/Dec 1994), Illuminati is noted as winning the 1993 Origin award for Best Play-By-Mail Game. However, I haven't found an article or review on it in a secondary source yet. If I do, I'll create an article on it here and let you know. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Airborne84, thanks! It won the Origins Award more than once, in fact - I could start an article for it based just on that, really, but more sources would help a lot. BOZ (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've found a number of descriptive ads in Paper Mayhem magazines, but I'd hate to base an article on them. I have to think someone's written an article or review on it somewhere. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ, I started the article. As a side note, there's an ad for Illuminati on the inside front cover of Paper Mayhem Issue #19 (July/August 1986) that has some excerpts from Paper Mayhem 1/85, Space Gamer #72, and Gaming Universal Issue 3/4, (Fall 1984). If you have any of those issues, the original articles would be accessible. I'd prefer to not quote the excerpts without seeing the original source. --Airborne84 (talk) 06:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Airborne84, I've got the Space Gamer issue at least!: [2] BOZ (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. That is much better than the article I found in Paper Mayhem. Feel free to improve the article. I may get to it eventually, but might be a few days due to other things IRL. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard. I see you already have! Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Martian Metals for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Martian Metals is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martian Metals until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ooze (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Ooze (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG, current reception is trivial.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ettin (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Ettin (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Super Nova Card Game for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Super Nova Card Game is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Nova Card Game until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Frenzy (role-playing game) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Frenzy (role-playing game) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frenzy (role-playing game) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 08:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of STOCS lite for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article STOCS lite is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/STOCS lite until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of AnimOuch! for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article AnimOuch! is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AnimOuch! until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dandanon for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dandanon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dandanon until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 11:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Undead (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Undead (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Fictioneers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fictioneers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictioneers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rich Diamond for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rich Diamond is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Diamond until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Desperados (role-playing game) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Desperados (role-playing game) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desperados (role-playing game) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bruce Harlick for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bruce Harlick is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Harlick until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Chetsford (talk) 20:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kings & Things (Play-by-Mail)

Well, there it is: Kings & Things PBM is started. Pile on if you have any more references. As a side note, I tried to find something interesting for a DYK nomination, but nothing really stood out. I'll keep it in mind for future PBM articles, as I might start a few more in the future. I picked up all these Paper Mayhem issues. Might as well do something with them. --Airborne84 (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet, good work as always. :) One question I have is that is there anything in those sources about the development of the game, for example was Tom Wham the designer of the board game involved in any way? BOZ (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no. There was very little about development and I listed the only name noted, but it was three articles bunched together in the same issue, probably because the editor in chief, David Webber, wrote one of them. I have a bunch of other Paper Mayhems around and will sort through to see if there's anything else, but I'm not optimistic as there are lists of past issues in the backs of some that outline the major articles in each and I didn't see Kings & Things listed. Still, it's not impossible. I'll check around. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, gotcha. I was asking largely because I think the article needs at least a line or two about how it was adapted from the board game. BOZ (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

In passing - and I'm not saying that this ought to be your priority - but my sense is that many of the Traveller, Paranoia and Hero supplements (at least) probably are independently notable based on their critical reception. For a clear NBOOK pass, though, multiple reviews are required, so I wouldn't be inclined to restore any from redirect without additional sources. I would also note that the editor placing the redirects is being constructive in doing so (compared to their previous approach), so there wouldn't be anything to be gained by reverting the redirects without good reason. This last comment isn't so much for you, BOZ, but more for any lurkers on the page :). Newimpartial (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I have restored a small percentage of them here and there when I found that there was more than one review, and plan to leave the rest as redirects until I find more. BOZ (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Hag (Dungeons & Dragons) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hag (Dungeons & Dragons) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hag (Dungeons & Dragons) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Diaz: A couple of requests for admin intervention

Hi, BOZ. I have a couple of requests:

First, can you put Joey Diaz on some type of long-term protection? It's been suffering from a lot of persistent vandalism and addition of uncited material lately.

Second, what is the proper procedure to close out a discussion once it appears that consensus has been achieved? I started this discussion a week ago, and there appears to be consensus on the question, with the last person to weigh in having done so on Feb 25. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been taking it easy on using my admin tools lately for a variety of reasons, so I am not doing any blocking or protections at this time.

As for the photo discussion, I think you have a pretty clear consensus there (only one person disagreed?) so if you need an impartial person to close it just for the seal of approval, I would check out Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. BOZ (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BOZ, have you seen the backlog on that page? Some requests are 88 days old. It's such a problem that there's a banner at the top of the page requesting help from admins. Nightscream (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone is actually trying to dispute that there is a consensus there, I think it is OK to assume you have consensus without needing an "official" close, and move on. BOZ (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BOZ, an serial policy violator who's racked up an entire talk page filled with warnings for adding uncited material going all the way back to 2013 is continuing his disruptive edits with the Joey Diaz article, as seen here. One of the most recent warnings on his tp is by an editor who said, "Are you still at this years later? You literally learned NOTHING from all the warnings given to you years ago. Keep it up and you will be reported.". This serial violator DEFINITELY needs a block. Can you impose one? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user posts pretty infrequently, and that warning was from over a year ago and they have not had once since then. I think this case would be better proposed to WP:AN/I. BOZ (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Mayhem

Interested in your thoughts on the tag on Paper Mayhem. It was very fair when it was added, as I didn't have much material when I put it in mainspace (should have started that one in the sandbox). I think I've addressed it adequately with secondary sources though—with the few Paper Mayhem citations aside. But, even though I don't think I have a conflict of interest as Wikipedia defines it, I hesitate to remove the tag myself. Would it be appropriate for you to review it as it stands, or should I ask the person who tagged it? Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would go back to the person who added it and see if you have addressed their concerns. I probably wouldn't be any more impartial as you as far as that goes; if they still have concerns but you disagree with them, you might either want to get an outside opinion from someone who has never edited the article, or just leave the tag on there to be resolved another day. BOZ (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thanks! --Airborne84 (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Minotaur (Dungeons & Dragons) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Minotaur (Dungeons & Dragons) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minotaur (Dungeons & Dragons) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Space Opera (RPG)

I've been keeping an eye on this article for many years,
thank you for reading and adding the actual review, deleting the review list.
24.78.228.96 (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! :) BOZ (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Island (play-by-mail game)

I started Monster Island (play-by-mail game). I don't remember why I had it on my list to write. It just was. And I had about five articles handy, so it just took some typing. Anyway, I'm not an expert at DYK, but if you think anything in there might be a good nomination, please let me know. Nothing really stood out except maybe "Zombie Juice", but not sure how exciting that would be .... --Airborne84 (talk) 09:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Airborne84, you probably had it on your to-do list since I suggested you start it as an Origins winner - that could be a selling point for DYK along with it being a long-running game... with "Zombie Juice". ;) BOZ (talk) 11:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's right! :) Thanks, and good ideas. Much appreciated! --Airborne84 (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well @BOZ, there it is. We'll see how it goes! --Airborne84 (talk) 06:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, I will check it out. :) BOZ (talk) 12:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Humanoid (Dungeons & Dragons) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Humanoid (Dungeons & Dragons) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humanoid (Dungeons & Dragons) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG. Current reception is weak.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Star Empires (card game) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Star Empires (card game) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Empires (card game) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kill the Commie Bastards! for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kill the Commie Bastards! is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kill the Commie Bastards! until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Short copyright violations in plot summaries

Hi BOZ, the following are only short bits, but they are still copyright violations. Can you please go through your articles and remove all such lines copied straight from the sources?

The Island Worlds: the "plot summary" is a near-straight copy, you just reordered some bits but didn't rewrite it. Your text is "Thor Taggart, descendant of space pioneers, seeking to escape a sundering socio-bureaucracy on Earth, pushes off for the asteroid belt with the help of smuggler Martin Shaw", the original is "Seeking to escape a sundering socio-bureaucracy on Earth, Thor Taggart, descendant of space pioneers, pushes off for the asteroid belt with the help of smuggler Martin Shaw"

Shadows Over Bögenhafen, "contents": "Shadows Over Bögenhafen picks up where the first module, The Enemy Within left off and takes the adventurers to the fair at Bogenhafen" vs. "Shadows Over Bögenhafen picks up where the first module left off and takes the adventurers to the fair at Bogenhafen"

The Enemy Within (Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay): "contents": "The Enemy Within is the first module in a set of six linked campaign modules set in the Warhammer world[...]" vs. "The Enemy Within is the first module in a set of linked campaign modules set in the Warhammer world"

I don't know if this is common in all your articles (I only now noticed it and didn't check the ones I already have seen), or just a bad day. While e.g. the third example on its own may be debatable (it is identical, but fairly straightforward), the first one is a clear copyright violation even if it is only one line.

Please don't solve it by adding quote marks, the articles already have lots of quotes in them and while this is OK for reviews, it shouldn't be done to describe contents or have a plot summary, which can be put in own words (or simply omitted). Fram (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will fix those up, and I will begin going through my other articles to make sure they are rewritten. BOZ (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Undead (Dungeons & Dragons) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Undead (Dungeons & Dragons) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undead (Dungeons & Dragons) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ogre (Dungeons & Dragons) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ogre (Dungeons & Dragons) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ogre (Dungeons & Dragons) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Cave fisher" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cave fisher. Since you had some involvement with the Cave fisher redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Axebeak" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Axebeak. Since you had some involvement with the Axebeak redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Carnivorous Ape" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Carnivorous Ape. Since you had some involvement with the Carnivorous Ape redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Fire snake" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fire snake. Since you had some involvement with the Fire snake redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Succubus (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Succubus (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Island (play-by-mail game) has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, BOZ. Monster Island (play-by-mail game), an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. EnterpriseyBot (talk!) 12:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Siege and Fortress for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Siege and Fortress is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege and Fortress until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Murlynd

The article Murlynd has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Syrul

The article Syrul has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Trithereon

The article Trithereon has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Raxivort

The article Raxivort has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 13:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Halfling (Dungeons & Dragons) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Halfling (Dungeons & Dragons) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halfling (Dungeons & Dragons) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hellrazor

The article Hellrazor has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Card games introduced in 1987

A tag has been placed on Category:Card games introduced in 1987 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

		The Stub Barnstar
		I think you've seen some of your past work undone, but I appreciate the articles you've started in the PBM genre. It's easier for others to add to a stub than to start an article from scratch. Thanks for your work in this area. Airborne84 (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) That's exactly why I do it. You have to start somewhere! BOZ (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goom and Googam

My congratulations for keeping Goom from being merged with the List of monsters in Marvel Comics page. As for Googam whose page was deleted, is there a way to salvage his informaation so that it can be transferred to the List of monsters in Marvel Comics page like some of the monsters like Xemnu were? I just wanted to know. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rtkat3, since Googam was unfortunately deleted at AFD due to notability concerns, I am not able to restore its edit history, but if you think there might be something worth adding to List of monsters in Marvel Comics#Googam that is in the article, I can take a look when I get a chance. BOZ (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wish this was an RS

It would be perfect. Top comment is "So what you're saying is, you shouldn't confuse "lawful" with "good".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dYNTKC55JA Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heheh. :) No, those can be quite different! :) BOZ (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hyborian War: Modest Beginnings

Looks like you saw that Hyborian War was promoted to Good Article. Thanks for getting that one started! --Airborne84 (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Vampire (Dungeons & Dragons) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vampire (Dungeons & Dragons) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vampire (Dungeons & Dragons) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to copyedit your !vote there. Cheers! BD2412 T 14:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. :) BOZ (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please feel free to expand on Vampires in games. Cheers! BD2412 T 22:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Scarlet Scarab

The article Scarlet Scarab has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 11:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

urgent BLP problem

You're on the "recently active admins" list and this is going on with this IP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/162.154.216.124 ; AIV isn't being responded to. Please block if you have a moment!

Thanks! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert - looks like someone else took care of this one already! BOZ (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of LandLords for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article LandLords is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LandLords until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Next Gen

Incredible work! It's been quite a journey but you've managed to pull it off. Hugely impressive as always. A push to do the same for CGW will be possibly even more ambitious, but between this, your Dragon work and all the rest you've done, I think it's achievable! All this stuff continues to be a massive benefit to the project. Thanks for all your efforts! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help to move pages

Hi! Sorry if i'm bothering you right now but can you move this page from Bulk Slash (video game) to just Bulk Slash? Thanks Roberth Martinez (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all, got it for you. :) BOZ (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ:Excellent! Here's another one: Zero Racers (video game) => Zero Racers Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, I am having a little technical trouble at the moment, but I will fix that as soon as I can. BOZ (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ:Hey man! How're you doing? Can you help me in moving this page? Thanks! Dungeon Explorer II (video game) => Dungeon Explorer II Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) BOZ (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ:Hey man! Can you help me move this page? Sengoku 3 (video game) => Sengoku 3 Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You got it! BOZ (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ:Hey man! How're you doing? Can you move this page? Whirlo (video game) => Whirlo Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ:Is there any way to gain rights to move pages without the help of administrators? Its just to make my workflow easier. Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it for you, no problem. :) I don't believe there is a way to give another user just the rights to delete pages to make way for moves - I don't think the delete function truly makes a differentiation between a move-related delete, or just any other delete (which would need an admin to perform), unless there is some technical aspect that I am not familiar with. BOZ (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ:Hey man! How're you doing in these crazy times? Look, can you help me move this article? Bishōjo Senshi Sailor Moon SuperS: Zenin Sanka!! Shuyaku Sōdatsusen => Bishoujo Senshi Sailor Moon S: Jougai Rantou!? Shuyaku Soudatsusen Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ:After you move the page to the title i indicated you earlier, then move it to its proper japanese title: Bishoujo Senshi Sailor Moon S: Jougai Rantou!? Shuyaku Soudatsusen => Bishōjo Senshi Sailor Moon S: Jōgai Rantō!? Shuyaku Sōdatsusen Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem! That's quite a title. :) I did both moves, that way you have both previous titles redirecting to the article in question. I'm doing OK all things considered, how about you? BOZ (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ:Pretty much the same thing where i live... Sorry for pestering you once more about that long Sailor Moon title but is there any way to add these titles into the article without moving the whole thing? I've seen some people over here do it but i don't know how it works...: Bishoujo Senshi Sailor Moon SuperS: Zenin Sanka! Shuyaku Soudatsusen & Bishōjo Senshi Sailor Moon SuperS: Zenin Sanka! Shuyaku Sōdatsusen Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean on that one, or what you are looking to do there. BOZ (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ:Hey man! Can you help me move this page? Tokeijikake no Aquario => Clockwork Aquario Roberth Martinez (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done! BOZ (talk) 03:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ:Hi man! Can you help me move this page? I managed to finish it: Draft:Super Sidekicks 2: The World Championship => Super Sidekicks 2: The World Championship Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ:Sorry for bothering you once again but is there any way to delete this draft? I somehow revived it with an edit i did before you moved the Super Sidekick 2 draft: Draft:Super Sidekicks 2: The World Championship Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I deleted that for you. BOZ (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ:How're you doing today? I finished this draft so, can you help me move it? Draft:Super Sidekicks 3: The Next Glory => Super Sidekicks 3: The Next Glory Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Monster Island (play-by-mail game)

On 7 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Monster Island (play-by-mail game), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Monster Island won an Origins Award for the best new play-by-mail game of 1990? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Monster Island (play-by-mail game). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Monster Island (play-by-mail game)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

--valereee (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thank you, bot. ;) BOZ (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serious Sam

Hi BOZ. I saw that you recently split off Serious Sam: The First Encounter from the main Serious Sam article. I was wondering how you were planning to tackle the rest of the article. While splitting out Serious Sam: The Second Encounter would be the next logical step, both games share a lot of details, such as the gameplay (TSE only has some minor additions over TFE), post-release bundles (the Xbox version, the Gold Edition, the HD Gold Edition, Classics: Revolution). As far as I can see, this would leave us just three options: We go the usual route and duplicate such details on both articles, we keep "Serious Sam (video game)" as a third article that links to both Enouncters as its episodes, or we revert the split and keep both Encounters inside the main article and separating only the plot and reception sections between them. The last of these would probably be the cleanest version, but I'd like to hear your thoughts about it. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 16:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I did not have any further plans for Serious Sam or the other related articles. I restored that article because I saw it was unsourced when it was redirected back in 2012, and looking at the series page I saw that a lot of good sources were added after the merge and I had one more review to add, so I figured a split was justified. If you've got an interest in working with those article and feel that merging it back in would be the best option, then you have my blessing. BOZ (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently planning to bring as many Serious Sam articles to GA(N) as I can, so this one is definitely on my agenda. I will look at it a later time, but I do think that merging it back will be the best way to go. I will consult you for your input once I finish my draft. IceWelder [✉] 12:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Cosmic Trader for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cosmic Trader is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmic Trader until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ~riley (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Master Trader for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Master Trader is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Master Trader until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ~riley (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thank you! :) BOZ (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dwarven Forge (April 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Dwarven Forge and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Dwarven Forge, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BOZ! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dwarven Forge has been accepted

Dwarven Forge, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Sulfurboy (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix games BV

Could you explain to me shortly what you have done to the Phoenix Games site? I didnt get it what you have done there in the history. Thanks. --DJ Kaito (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. The article was deleted three times previously at AFD, and those deleted edits were under Phoenix Games, so I moved them to the current version of the article. Please keep in mind that if the current version of the article suffers from the same problems as the previously deleted versions, it is likely to be deleted again. BOZ (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Glabrezu for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Glabrezu is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glabrezu until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Asmodeus (Dungeons & Dragons) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Asmodeus (Dungeons & Dragons) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asmodeus (Dungeons & Dragons) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Asticlian Gambit for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Asticlian Gambit is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asticlian Gambit until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lich (Dungeons & Dragons) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lich (Dungeons & Dragons) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lich (Dungeons & Dragons) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The Gamer's Connection" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Gamer's Connection. Since you had some involvement with the The Gamer's Connection redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Fram (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Gems for Death" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gems for Death. Since you had some involvement with the Gems for Death redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Fram (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Gamelog" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gamelog. Since you had some involvement with the Gamelog redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Fram (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Starspinner" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Starspinner. Since you had some involvement with the Starspinner redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Fram (talk) 09:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ESPN NBA 2Night, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Official Dreamcast Magazine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coronavirus pandemic lead error

BOZ, can you have a look at the 3rd paragraph in the lead for the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic article; there's an obvious grammatical error in the first sentence. I was going to edit it, but the wikicode for that paragraph refers to another article and appears to pull the text from within that other article; however, the extracted text doesn't seem to match what's being displayed on the pandemic article. I don't know enough about the wikicode syntax for article extraction to feel comfortable messing with this so I'm lobbing this at you as an admin. Thanks, Vulcan's Forge (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking VF, but I'm afraid my knowledge of wikicode syntax might be even less than your knowledge of it. If you can give me some specifics I may be able to take my best educated guess, but I can't guarantee that I can be helpful on such a question. BOZ (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Ok, I've made a fix which corrected the grammar problem ("may fever" -> "may include fever") and it displays properly. I'm just not sure that the block of text should actually be there. What does this code do?

<div class="excerpt">{{#lst:Coronavirus disease 2019|Spread}}</div>

Based on the comment, it seems to be intended to incorporate something from the other linked article - but the only data which displays is the more or less normal markup which immediately follows it. And there's some other weird markup towards the end of the paragraph as well.

which seems to have no effect at all. To me, this looks like it was cut and pasted from and older version of the Coronavirus disease 2019 article and then modified to comment out some quoted material. Any ideas?Vulcan's Forge (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but is it working more the way you wanted it to? BOZ (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's working; the sentence reads properly now. I just don't want to get wikiyelled-at for having fixed the error locally rather than wherever it was supposed to have been imported from ;). I'm going to leave the rest of it alone and someone else can fix it if they want.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Horned devil" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Horned devil. Since you had some involvement with the Horned devil redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your heroic two-year (!) quest to reformat every single entry over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Next Generation Magazine, in the process adding a citation and quote from every single review to the relevant mainspace page—and creating articles whenever one didn't exist. I don't have your stamina, but I can still recognize what a huge achievement this is. Congratulations on finishing, and on making Wikipedia as a whole a better resource for the world! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thank you! :) I have received an abundance of wikihate so far this year, so I will gladly accept your offering of wikilove! :) It was a lot of work, but I am glad to have completed it and look forward to doing more wherever I can. BOZ (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a real tragedy that so many of your articles on tabletop role-playing have been targeted all at once like this. Wish there was something that could be done. Tabletop isn't really my field, but please ping me if some of your video game stubs wind up at AfD the same way—I have more than enough sourcing experience to prove individual notability for just about any commercially-released video game under the sun, regardless of country of origin. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few! I'm going to look over my list of NG creations in the next week or two, and I will get you a list of those which were deleted or redirected and we can look into those? BOZ (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! Just let me know. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start making my way through your list. Just keep them coming and I'll get to them a little each day between my off-wiki work, until it's done! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and feel free to drop listings into my newly-created subpage User:JimmyBlackwing/nextgen whenever you want! It'll help keep this organized over the long term, and I'll be able to keep tabs on what I've reviewed and haven't. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet - in that case, I will just load the page up and move on. ;) BOZ (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's a lot going on lately and I haven't been able to find time for Wikipedia! Rest assured that I will get around to the listings as time allows. Feel free to continue adding more to the list—and I'll be looking forward to your next project! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! Hopefully things start to calm down enough on my end that I can do a little editing again soon. Like I said, it's fun to learn about all these weird little games I'd never know about otherwise. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And what a list! I hope it encourages people to contribute to those stubs. Once I can get back in the swing of citation-adding it will make it even easier to build them out a bit (everything is still insane right now). Let me know when your next project kicks off! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An enormous undertaking! I wish you all the best. The good news is that CGW is such an important source that even doing just 2 years of the magazine would be a huge benefit to WPVG—no reason to sweat it if you have to drop this project earlier than you expect! Either way, looking forward to seeing what you uncover as you go. I'm sure there are a lot of important titles (especially from the '80s) that don't even have articles yet. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Traveller SFRPG Categories

I’d like to recommend we consolidate Traveller categories.

collapse judges guild into the main categories
consider collapsing adventures into supplements

It seems to me these wouldn’t be too big, that currently it is harder to navigate than needed.

What do you think? —¿philoserf? (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it would be fine to collapse the Judges Guild Traveller categories into the parent categories if you want to, although I created those because the parent categories were getting large. For that same reason, I would keep the adventures and supplements categories separate since they are pretty large and I think they are distinct enough to keep separate from each other. BOZ (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BOZ, Okay. Thank you for you perspective. I snickered a bit at large. In doing maintenance I regularly encounter everything from zero and single digits to thousands of articles in a category. I must be jaded. I came looking for a Traveller articles then had to hunt to find it. Manly because I forgot the name. I will leave it alone. I suppose does not a good consensus make. —¿philoserf? (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just clearing this up

No I am not related to User:Banana Mutant even though our edits might look similar. User:Mark Rhodes 12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Atomic Meltdown

I am not a sockpuppet of User:Atomic Meltdown as we have different IP adressesses and I've edited more than just superhero articles. Mark Rhodes 12 (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, I want to believe you, and I do hope that I am wrong. Given that we have a very long history of sockpuppeteering (and getting caught over and over again) per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atomic Meltdown/Archive, and the latest one User:Rodent Zuna was caught about a week ago, we certainly can't assume that he has stopped. Hopefully the SPI clears your name, and if it does then I will offer you my sincere apologies for even bringing it up. Just out of curiosity though, how do you know that you have a different IP address from Atomic Meltdown? BOZ (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my current IP address 10.0.0.252Mark Rhodes 12 (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Prestige class" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Prestige class. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 12#Prestige class until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Fram (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Infinite Conflict for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Infinite Conflict is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinite Conflict until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Next Generation sources

Interesting stats! There's definitely a lot left to go, but glad to hear that it starts to taper off. Depending on how work goes (I've been busy lately and may get busier soon), I might need to start prioritizing articles that have already been redirected or deleted, but for now I should be able to continue adding sources a little at a time to at-risk pages. Part of my interest in Wikipedia has always been about learning, and I've learned a lot of unexpected stuff because of this project already (who knew PegLeg existed?), so I've been having a good amount of fun with it so far. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, I feel the same way about everything I do. :) BOZ (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Monkeywrench (G.I. Joe) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Monkeywrench (G.I. Joe) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monkeywrench (G.I. Joe) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hog Farm (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Witchlord for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Witchlord is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witchlord until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Catapult Run for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Catapult Run is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catapult Run until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Road Pig for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Road Pig is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Road Pig until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hog Farm (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding restoring deleted articles

Asking you because you're knowledgeable and have an interest in the topic at hand: how would I be able to see a deleted page and use it as a starting point for improvement and subsequent republishing? This was a while ago, but I was disheartened to see the Wikipedia article for Gnoll (Dungeons & Dragons) get deleted, primarily due to it being a monster original to DnD as opposed to being based upon existing folklore (to my knowledge), and they've certainly appeared in many works outside of DnD (World of Warcraft, Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup/probably a myriad of other roguelikes). I'd like to (eventually) restore the page, but am unsure how to retrieve the deleted page. Thanks! :] Waxworker (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Waxworker! An excellent question, and one that I would be excited to see what you can do, especially given what I have seen of your work on improving video game articles. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gnoll was closed as delete, and although I have not listed it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Where, it certainly may have potential. Since I have had some minor involvement in editing the article, I may not be the best person to do the restoration for you, but if you want to work on it just put in a good-faith request at WP:REFUND to have it restored either to Draft space or User space, and most reasonable admins will do it for you. :) BOZ (talk) 03:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of reviews from MobyGames

Simply adding lists of magazines that reviewed games is not helpful. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources". MrMajors (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add them to the talk pages then. BOZ (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also advise against adding MobyGames reviews directly onto the article; the reviews added to Kingdoms of England II: Vikings, Fields of Conquest don't really convey anything on their own, and in this instance, two reviews listed from German magazines (PC Player, ASM) had incorrect dates. In my personal experience, incorrect dates (and occasionally scores) for German magazines is relatively common for Mobygames, and I would recommend Kultboy as an alternative resource (assuming it comes back up, it's been down for 3 days :[), but I still wouldn't advise adding reviews in this way. Waxworker (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the 'thanks'!

Hello! I'm still relatively new to the community, so thanks for the 'thanks'! :D Lowyhong (talk) 00:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Lowyhong, always good to have new users who are interested in working on tabletop game articles. BOZ (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ripper (G.I. Joe) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ripper (G.I. Joe) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ripper (G.I. Joe) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hog Farm (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Voltar (G.I. Joe) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Voltar (G.I. Joe) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voltar (G.I. Joe) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hog Farm (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Croc Master for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Croc Master is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croc Master until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hog Farm (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

citation dates

sorry to cause work. it took me too long to discover the right fix for the CS1 date errors. —¿philoserf? (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! BOZ (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kings War for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kings War is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings War until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Rollout: The Game of the Risk-Takers" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Rollout: The Game of the Risk-Takers. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 9#Rollout: The Game of the Risk-Takers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Fram (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dungeon Decor for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dungeon Decor is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeon Decor until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Heavy Metal (G.I. Joe) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Heavy Metal (G.I. Joe) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heavy Metal (G.I. Joe) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hog Farm (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

I enjoy "your" articles, even if I'm not totally passionate about the subject matter. I wouldn't say that all of the G.I. Joe AfDs have been handled well. In my opinion, the Krause and Random House books, etc., would count as reliable and independent. I think that Hasbro allowing those publishers to use copyrights and trademarks--thus making the books "official"--is what's tripping up some editors... Caro7200 (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, thanks for your concern. I think that Wikipedia has very unfortunately moved to a state where deletion is the preference for a lot of editors, so it looks like we are going to be seeing a lot of this. BOZ (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lift-Ticket (G.I. Joe) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lift-Ticket (G.I. Joe) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lift-Ticket (G.I. Joe) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hog Farm (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WoD articles

Hello,

When you create new World of Darkness articles, would you mind adding them to Template:World of Darkness, and also adding that template to the bottom of the article? I like to keep the navbox up to date and keep it a useful navigation tool for moving between articles, but I won't necessarily know that a new article has been created unless I periodically check the WoD categories for titles I don't recognize.--Alexandra^IDV 09:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a reasonable suggestion. I may not create any new WOD articles for a while, but I will try to keep this in mind. BOZ (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Creating work for others

You are still creating articles and then turning them into redirects, which is a strange habit. Not only have some of these redirects been deleted as rather misguided, you are also creating extra work for others when you restore a category you created but which was deleted in the past (technically coming close to an involved situation again), which now again has to be deleted because you then redirect the only article in that category (The Make My Day Card Game and Category:Card games introduced in 1987). Perhaps only create articles for things which are demonstrably notable? Or, at the very least, clean up your own mess after you redirect? This would also reduce the AfDs and so on. Fram (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by deleting and restoring Giff (Dungeons & Dragons) (which you had created after it was deleted the first time, again an Involved situation), you have now restored the 2005 BLP violation to the history. Wasn't this the kind of thing you would stop doing because it caused so many problems and wasn't really what admins were supposed to do? Fram (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I deleted the empty category. I deleted and restored Giff to split the edit history because a user had turned the redirect into a disambiguation page, and in the process of restoring I unintentionally restored those two edits, so I deleted those again now. Thank you, and my apologies for my errors. BOZ (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Next D&D book leaked (again)

BOZ Looks like the next D&D book is an adventure set in Icewind Dale: https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/next-dungeons-dragons-adventure-leaks-online/ Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! :) Cool. BOZ (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero vehicles for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero vehicles is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero vehicles until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hog Farm (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

You created the article Crankcase (G.I. Joe). Looking through it, it only has one source that appears to be independent and reliable: Bellomo. A WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing that I found that would demonstrate a GNG pass. There's no description of Crankcase at the characters article (which looks likely to be kept in the AFD, as it should be, since it meets WP:LISTN). However, since there is a reliable, independent source in the Crankcase article, I think a merger would be an intelligent, valid alternative to deletion. I've tagged the articles as proposed merger and created a discussion at the relevant characters list talk page. I thought I'd inform you since you created the article. Hog Farm (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. BOZ (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need help RE: Tony Vlachos

Hi. An anonymous IP policy violator has persistent added uncited material and personal analyses to Tony Vlachos, ignoring my attempts to to explain to him Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. He has been warned at least three times, the third one being a final warning, but has continued his disruptive edits. Please help. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 04:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on attempted discussion on the IP's talk page, and a total lack of response from that IP, I placed the page on semi-protection for 1 month. BOZ (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The constant additions of the same problematic material is continuing. Can you help? Nightscream (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC) Also, the same problem has been consistently persistently at Joey Diaz. Can you please put longer semiprotections on those articles? Thanks! Nightscream (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Tony Vlachos article is still under my original protection so if problems resume a few weeks from now, I will put a 3-month protection on it. I see the ongoing problems in the edit history of the Joey Diaz article, so I put a one-month protection on that one for now; let me know if problems recur when that expires. BOZ (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't read the article's recent edit history, did you? BOZ, the serial violator is now using a username account to evade the protection on unregistered users, and this was the edit summary that accompanied his most recent restoration of the uncited material he's been adding:

" I matched the tone and length of the summary to the other two season summaries above and see no issues with the wording. I stand by the edit and will escalate if it is reverted again."

So now he's explicitly threatening to "escalate" or edit war. I have explained and linked him to the related policies in my edit summaries and on his talk page, which are not merely about "length" or "tone" but the lack of citations for material, but he seems to genuinely not understgand or care. He's obviously one of those newbies who comes onto the project thinking he doesn't have to learn the policies and guidelines, and can just edit-war to his heart's content. Can you please intervene? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got evidence that he is the same person the IP user I will take a look at that, and likewise if he reverts you again I will take action. Let me know; hopefully he chooses to discuss rather than "escalate". BOZ (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hi i am Whiteraven335 ,a user "Litti Chokha" continuously modifying reliably sourced content of the article Kumaon Regiment as per their personal preferences, Beginning from lead section, the source nowhere says that It (Regiment) recruits Ahirs from North India exclusively and has equal composition of troops WhiteRaven335 (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Battle of Shiloh (video game)

The article The Battle of Shiloh (video game) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I can only find a CGW (micro) review. Nothing else, fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re:CGW reviews

Hey! Actually, '80s games aren't really my forte when it comes to source-digging. Most of my go-to archives and research tools are from the '90s and '00s—same goes for my general knowledge of which publications were around that might have covered a given game. While I've certainly worked on a couple of '80s game articles over the years, I don't have the same confidence with the era as I do with more recent stuff. For now, when it comes to CGW, I'll just be on standby for when an article gets directly targeted for redirecting or deletion. If I can focus on saving single, specific articles one at a time, dedicating myself to source-digging outside of my comfort zone will be less overwhelming. I'm still more than happy to finish the Next Gen project, though, as the era is more in my wheelhouse. When it comes to CGW, I'll be able to help a lot more when it gets up to around '92 and '93, as a lot of my knowledge starts there. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip! I didn't realize how many early '80s magazines were in the Internet Archive these days. I used my usual trick ("[search term]" + "[search term]" site:archive.org) to dig up a few magazine sources for Shiloh, which I didn't know was under threat of deletion until just now. It's actually something of a classic, an important early title by SSI that paved the way for their later wargames. CGW covered it more than once in its early years, IIRC. All the best! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really impressive work! That listing of various old magazines, especially, is going to be enormously useful. I'm excited to see where this leads. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome to hear! Wargames have a serious coverage issue on WPVG. More sources and articles are always great news. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say that 1980s Macintosh coverage is way outside my realm of expertise. I searched up ("flight simulator" + "microsoft" + "macuser"/"macworld" site:archive.org) the two 1980s Mac publications I'm aware of, but wasn't able to find more than a bunch of advertisements and stray comments. I'm sure there are other magazines I don't know and/or can't access, but unfortunately this one is out of my league. Maybe it was covered in newspapers? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! If I see anything like that, I'll drop it off on their article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, very cool! Yeah, I've been starting a bunch of Grigsby pages recently as a relaxation project, trying to improve WPVG's coverage in my spare time. Thanks for doing this one! I think I have some sources I can add now that it's here. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Didn't notice this before. I'll see what I can do with it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I think that whole issue had a few articles you might find useful, but that one in particular. BOZ (talk) 03:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! I'll see what I can do. And I had trouble finding sources about the SimCan titles as well, but I don't doubt there are more out there—possibly in magazines that haven't been digitized yet. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome stuff. I've actually been thinking about starting Russia myself. It seems to have been kind of a big deal back in the '80s and I've found a number of sources on it. I'll see what I can add to that one. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. :) Well, I gave it a start and there are a few sources I found that you can add! BOZ (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Isle of Four Winds: Rune War for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Isle of Four Winds: Rune War is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Isle of Four Winds: Rune War until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Crimson Dragon Miniatures for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Crimson Dragon Miniatures is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crimson Dragon Miniatures until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Cardboard Heroes Champions Set 3: Enemies for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cardboard Heroes Champions Set 3: Enemies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardboard Heroes Champions Set 3: Enemies until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sci-Fi (G.I. Joe) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sci-Fi (G.I. Joe) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sci-Fi (G.I. Joe) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Thunder (G.I. Joe) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thunder (G.I. Joe) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thunder (G.I. Joe) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Iceberg (G.I. Joe) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Iceberg (G.I. Joe) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iceberg (G.I. Joe) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Pyramid (1984 card game) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pyramid (1984 card game) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pyramid (1984 card game) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 09:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Passage to Cathay for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Passage to Cathay is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Passage to Cathay until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Realms of Sword and Thunder for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Realms of Sword and Thunder is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Realms of Sword and Thunder until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question about article

Hi, I saw you're interested on video game subject, Can I ask what's your opinion about "MADELA (Video Game)" that game is notable for writing the article here? Feloniii (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Feloniii[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with that game. BOZ (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

I hope you are well, Sir. I'm around for a while and thought I'd "get my feet wet" again. Feel free to drop me a line if you have any articles that could do with a tidy-up. I saw a few at the WikiComics page and may start there. Regards Asgardian (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds good! :) I am primarily interested in Marvel of course, so what would you most be interested in? I know you put a lot of work into articles about characters, but would you also like to improve articles about other things like comic book titles? One idea I had was to work on character articles with the notability template to get that resolved. Another is to work on character articles who appear (or perhaps more importantly, will appear in MCU films, such as getting Draft:Kraglin published back into article space. Give me an idea and I will pick some suggestions out for you! BOZ (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of templates, I note many cosmic characters have a ridiculously high number of characters linked in, and may start there. I think some clarity is called to keep Wikipedia a cut above (I did a similar thing with Galactus' Heralds - fine to list them all but there was a necessary qualifier). Regards Asgardian (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asgardian, are you talking about those character templates at the bottom of the articles? If so, yes, they have proliferated rather out of control over time. Some characters have a good dozen or more on them... BOZ (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Old SF reviews

Hi, I noticed your articles on SF books, The Book of the River and Mute, with mentions of reviews in old magazines. May I ask, how do you find those? Is there a tool or database that keeps track of them? Or do you just have an amazing collection of old SF mags? (Asking because I've worked on a few SF novel articles and finding old reviews can be challenging.) Schazjmd (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Schazjmd, thanks for asking! The Internet Speculative Fiction Database is a wonderful thing. :) I unfortunately do not have access to the magazines themselves (although, it is likely that many of them are on archive.org), but at least being able to know that the reviews exist helps both to satisfy the GNG and to provide a resource for anyone looking to build the articles. :) BOZ (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's awesome! How did I not know about this? Thank you! Schazjmd (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, it lists awards too...this is very cool. Schazjmd (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me about it, I was overjoyed when I found out about it earlier this year. :) Get some good use out of that! BOZ (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re:BLP

Hey BOZ! I've never done any real work on BLPs before, so I'm not sure if I'll be much help on this one. I think I've heard of Monahan before but it would've been years ago and I can't recall what (if anything) I've read, and my knowledge of where to find BLP-ready material is just about nonexistent. I've always stayed away from the BLP space beyond minor edits because the extra rules surrounding them make me nervous. From what I know, though, a BLP requires sources explicitly dedicated to its subject, and I've never seen something like that for Monahan that I can remember. Best of luck with restoring the article! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Piracy sites

I'm sure it was just a slip up, but this morning you inserted a link to a piracy site in a comment (about The Trove) that will have to be revdelled out. Remember The Trove spectacularly fails Wikipedia's WP:COPYRIGHT rules. Putting a link to it, even in a comment, is a serious breach of those rules. Canterbury Tail talk 11:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, that was very much an error on my part. BOZ (talk) 12:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I figured. I've never seen you link to it previously, so assumed it was not intended. I've RevDel'd it so no issues. Canterbury Tail talk 12:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. I usually use archive.org for magazine scans, but White Wolf is sadly not available there. I did a Google search and found an issue there, but without considering that might be a piracy site, I added a link as reference - that was my error. BOZ (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly for references you don't need to link to a scanned copy of the item, you just need to reference the item. The accessible nature of the reference isn't an issue, people can figure out how to access titles etc on their own. A huge portion of Wikipedia is referenced to books you can only get from specialised libraries etc and not online. So the item not being online isn't an issue. It's enough to reference the name and page of a book, magazine etc, you don't need to provide someone with the means to access the item. In fact with RPG related material, most of those scanned items, archive.org or not, are actually copyright breaches. So just mention what the reference is, let the reader worry about how to look it up. Canterbury Tail talk 12:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure what possessed me to add the link that time (I usually don't in articles, even with archive.org), other than late night editing. :) BOZ (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes the good old late night editing. :) We've all been there. Canterbury Tail talk 13:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WoD novels category at Categories for renaming

Hi, you were the one who originally created Category:World of Darkness novels, so I figured I should tell you - I put it up for discussion at CfD for renaming (as it also contains articles about comics and poems). You can see the discussion here. Thank you. Alexandra^IDV 15:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, I replied there. :) BOZ (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Category:Category:Bossa Studios games" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Category:Category:Bossa Studios games. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 7#Category:Category:Bossa Studios games until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Category:Category:MidNite Software games" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Category:Category:MidNite Software games. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 7#Category:Category:MidNite Software games until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

D&D monster profiles purge

So while trying to look up the article on Ixitxachitl and Couatl (where I found your redirect on the second one) I’ve noticed there has been a massive purge on the pages of the earliest D&D monsters, whose articles stayed here for decades before. Indeed, the whole category “Dungeons & Dragons standard creatures” the past version of the Couatl article is in displays in red and is completely empty.

I have no idea why this is suddenly happening, but since those articles were pretty comprehensive and listed all of the instances of the monsters’ appearance in the different D&D editions, their history in the multiverse and their mythological origin, my question is – Do you know if it’s somehow possible to access the past versions of all of them and their images, since those seem to be gone too? Doubt the people who originally made them are still here, now I regret not using archive.is on time… 192.168.1.1 (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! For the most part, the edit histories of those articles still exist, only a small percentage of them have been totally deleted. Look at the top of the screen for "View history" and you will see all previous versions of the articles, including the last version before the article was redirected. BOZ (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished article

Hello. I find it rather troubling you felt this was ready to be published in the mainspace. I get that we don’t always have time to finish articles we want to create, but please utilize the WP:DRAFT space in the future if that’s all you can muster up for a week. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 23:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I will dig up some of the available sources and fix it up. BOZ (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Cyborg (video game) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cyborg (video game) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyborg (video game) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BlacknoseDace(say something. I'm lonely!)^{[I'm not a reference!]} 14:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hyborian War - TFA

This one is for my talk page stalkers. ;) I think that Hyborian War, which is today's TFA, is the first article I originated that has actually been featured on the main page in that way. :) I merely started it as a stub though, and the credit for building the article up actually belongs to User:Airborne84. :) BOZ (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It takes a village. Thanks for getting it started BOZ! Airborne84 (talk) 00:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Third Courier

I was able to find a few German magazine articles on Kultboy: https://www.kultboy.com/testbericht-uebersicht/2905/ JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Pollack & Salvador Dali Tarot

Thanks for your edit on Rachel Pollack. - TimDWilliamson ^speak

TimDWilliamson, no problem. :) BOZ (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Volo's Guide to the Dalelands for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Volo's Guide to the Dalelands is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volo's Guide to the Dalelands until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. I-82-I | TALK 02:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Champions of Ruin

The article Champions of Ruin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites nothing. It easily fails WP:NOTAFANWEBSITE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 02:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Netheril: Empire of Magic

The article Netheril: Empire of Magic has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites one source. It easily fails WP:NOTFANWEBSITE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 02:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Anauroch (accessory)

The article Anauroch (accessory) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites one source. It easily fails WP:NOTFANWEBSITE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 02:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Giantcraft

The article Giantcraft has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites one source. It easily fails WP:NOTFANWEBSITE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 02:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Great Glacier

The article The Great Glacier has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites no sources. It easily fails WP:NOTFANWEBSITE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 02:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Underdark (supplement)

The article Underdark (supplement) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites only a few fan sources. It easily fails WP:NOTFANWEBSITE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 02:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Unapproachable East (supplement)

The article Unapproachable East (supplement) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites one source. It easily fails WP:NOTFANWEBSITE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 02:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Champions of Valor

The article Champions of Valor has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites one source. It easily fails WP:NOTFANWEBSITE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 02:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Cities of Mystery

The article Cities of Mystery has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites a few fan sources. It easily fails WP:NOTFANWEBSITE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 02:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Code of the Harpers

The article The Code of the Harpers has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites one source. It easily fails WP:NOTFANWEBSITE, and should be deleted. Also, it is quite literally just a list of chapters, which is unencyclopedic.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 03:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Dreams of the Red Wizards

The article Dreams of the Red Wizards has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites only a few fan sources. It easily fails WP:NOTFANWEBSITE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 03:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Drizzt Do'Urden's Guide to the Underdark

The article Drizzt Do'Urden's Guide to the Underdark has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites only a few fan sources. It easily fails WP:NOTFANWEBSITE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 03:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Drizzt Do'Urden's Guide to the Underdark for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Drizzt Do'Urden's Guide to the Underdark is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drizzt Do'Urden's Guide to the Underdark until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. I-82-I | TALK 03:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dwarves Deep for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dwarves Deep is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwarves Deep until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. I-82-I | TALK 04:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Forgotten Realms Adventures

The article Forgotten Realms Adventures has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites one fan souce. It easily fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 04:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of City System

The article City System has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites a few non-notable sources. It easily fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 04:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Champions of Valor

The article Champions of Valor has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites a one non-notable source. It easily fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 04:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ed Greenwood Presents Elminster's Forgotten Realms

The article Ed Greenwood Presents Elminster's Forgotten Realms has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites only a few fan sources. It easily fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 04:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Elminster's Ecologies Appendix II: The High Moor / The Serpent Hills

The article Elminster's Ecologies Appendix II: The High Moor / The Serpent Hills has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites only a single fan source. It easily fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 04:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Empires of the Sands

The article Empires of the Sands has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites only a few fan sources. It easily fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 04:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Gold & Glory

The article Gold & Glory has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites no sources. It easily fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 04:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hall of Heroes (Forgotten Realms)

The article Hall of Heroes (Forgotten Realms) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites only a few fan sources. It easily fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 04:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Heroes' Lorebook

The article Heroes' Lorebook has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites only a few fan sources. It easily fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 04:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Horde (boxed set)

The article The Horde (boxed set) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites only a single fan source. It easily fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 04:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Lords of Darkness

The article Lords of Darkness has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites only a few fan sources. It easily fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 04:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Lost Empires of Faerûn (accessory)

The article Lost Empires of Faerûn (accessory) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites only a few fan sources. It easily fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 04:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Magic of Faerûn

The article Magic of Faerûn has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites only a few fan sources. It easily fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 04:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Magister

The article The Magister has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites only a few fan sources. It easily fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 04:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Maztica Campaign Set

The article Maztica Campaign Set has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites only a few fan sources. It easily fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 04:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Menzoberranzan: City of Intrigue

The article Menzoberranzan: City of Intrigue has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites only a few fan sources. It easily fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 04:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The North: Guide to the Savage Frontier

The article The North: Guide to the Savage Frontier has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites only a single fan source. It easily fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 04:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Old Empires

The article Old Empires has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites only a few fan sources. It easily fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 04:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Pages from the Mages

The article Pages from the Mages has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites only a single fan source. It easily fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 04:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Pirates of the Fallen Stars

The article Pirates of the Fallen Stars has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites only a single fan source. It easily fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 04:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Ruins of Myth Drannor

The article The Ruins of Myth Drannor has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites no sources. It easily fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 04:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Ruins of Undermountain

The article The Ruins of Undermountain has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites only a few fan sources. It easily fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 04:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Shining South

The article The Shining South has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites only a single fan source. It easily fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 04:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Villains' Lorebook

The article Villains' Lorebook has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites only a single fan source. It easily fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 04:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Volo's Guide to All Things Magical

The article Volo's Guide to All Things Magical has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites only a single fan source. It easily fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 04:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Volo's Guide to Waterdeep

The article Volo's Guide to Waterdeep has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites no sources. It easily fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 04:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Warriors and Priests of the Realms

The article Warriors and Priests of the Realms has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites only a one source. It easily fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 04:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Wizards and Rogues of the Realms

The article Wizards and Rogues of the Realms has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no meaning, and cites only one source. It easily fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, and should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I-82-I | TALK 04:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of ... Well, that was impressive

Hello, friendly talk page stalkers! (Unfriendly ones can go elsewhere, please, I've had enough unfriendliness for the moment, don't you think?) As you can see above, someone went on a real tear with Forgotten Realms books, the apparent intention to clear out the category entirely. I understand there are many and any one volunteer only has so much time (oh, but deleting takes so little work and time, especially when not taking time to assess an article and using a boilerplate rationale, doesn't it?), but do you see anything more for any of the following?: Volo's Guide to the Dalelands, Champions of Ruin, Netheril: Empire of Magic, Anauroch (accessory), Aurora's Whole Realms Catalog, The Bloodstone Lands, Giantcraft, The Great Glacier, Underdark (supplement), Unapproachable East (supplement), Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, Champions of Valor, Cities of Mystery, City of Splendors: Waterdeep, The Code of the Harpers, The Dalelands, Draconomicon, Dragons of Faerûn, Dreams of the Red Wizards, Drizzt Do'Urden's Guide to the Underdark, Drow of the Underdark, City System, Ed Greenwood Presents Elminster's Forgotten Realms, Elminster's Ecologies Appendix I: The Battle of Bones / Hill of Lost Souls, Elminster's Ecologies Appendix II: The High Moor / The Serpent Hills, Empires of the Sands, Faiths & Avatars, Faiths and Pantheons, The Forgotten Realms Atlas, Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide, Forgotten Realms Player's Guide, Gold & Glory, The Grand History of the Realms, Hall of Heroes (Forgotten Realms), Heroes' Lorebook, The Horde (boxed set), The Jungles of Chult, Horde Campaign, Lords of Darkness, Lost Empires of Faerûn (accessory), Magic of Faerûn, The Magister, Maztica Campaign Set, Menzoberranzan: City of Intrigue, Monsters of Faerûn, Moonshae, Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, Mysteries of the Moonsea, Netheril: Empire of Magic, The North: Guide to the Savage Frontier, Old Empires, Pages from the Mages, Pirates of the Fallen Stars, Player's Guide to Faerûn, Player's Guide to the Forgotten Realms Campaign, Power of Faerûn, Races of Faerûn, The Ruins of Myth Drannor, The Ruins of Undermountain, Ruins of Zhentil Keep, The Savage Frontier, Serpent Kingdoms, The Seven Sisters, Shining South (accessory), The Shining South, Silver Marches (accessory), The Vilhon Reach, Villains' Lorebook, Volo's Guide to All Things Magical, Volo's Guide to Monsters, Volo's Guide to Waterdeep, Warriors and Priests of the Realms, Waterdeep and the North, Wizards and Rogues of the Realms, Xanathar's Guide to Everything. Some of them do have one or more independent sources already, but anything we can't source can always be merged to List of Forgotten Realms modules and sourcebooks. I will check through Designers & Dragons for them tomorrow. BOZ (talk) 05:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's PROD campaign is ridiculous and, because of the boilerplate, very often based on false claims. A number of the articles PROD'd for using "fan sources" were citing the likes of Dragon, Arcane, Wired and the Huffington Post, alongside multiple reliably-published books. I've removed a few dozen PROD templates from the articles that had at least one reliable source. There are quite a few left for articles that had no sources, or only White Wolf (I don't know the reliability of that one, one way or the other). But hopefully it'll be easier for you to source those and remove the templates now that there are fewer. If the user really believes that these articles fail GNG, they should put them through AfD where that can be ascertained with greater clarity, and redirects can be made if necessary to preserve material. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. :) I think most of these can be kept and improved. BOZ (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say, that was probably one of the most impressive group efforts I have seen in a while to work through these - thank you to User:Dream Focus, User:Sariel Xilo, User:Guinness323, User:JimmyBlackwing, User:Daranios, and User:Airborne84 for looking at these articles to add sources and/or removing PRODs where inappropriately placed. I think that the user in question was probably too inexperienced to do what they were doing, as they were not even assessing most of the articles and did this activity fairly quickly, and they appear to have backed off entirely, so that is a good thing. Most of the AFDs are in the keep or at worse merge, except for the one on Dwarves Deep which needs independent sources if there are any; same goes for the relatively few remaining ones with PRODs, which are: Champions of Ruin, Anauroch (accessory), Unapproachable East (supplement), City of Splendors: Waterdeep, The Dalelands, Dragons of Faerûn, Champions of Valor, The Jungles of Chult, Lost Empires of Faerûn (accessory), Magic of Faerûn, Mysteries of the Moonsea,Pirates of the Fallen Stars, Player's Guide to Faerûn, Power of Faerûn, Shining South (accessory), and Silver Marches (accessory), which if no new sources come up by the end of the week I will likely just redirect to List of Forgotten Realms modules and sourcebooks for another day. BOZ (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Berserker Raids for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Berserker Raids is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berserker Raids until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. 🆔 APO ^Discuss✍ 04:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong labeling

I'm sorry, I mistakenly edited your article because I am editing it with a tablet. I mistakenly tagged your article please forgive me.🆔 APO ^Discuss✍ 04:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem User:AppoWeb, if you did not mean to use AFD on that article you can withdraw the nomination. BOZ (talk) 04:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Berserker Raids

Just got to your message, but it seems the situation has already been resolved! Nice work. Hopefully if enough of these drive-by AfDs get kept like that, people will stop being so trigger-happy on your VG articles when they clearly don't know enough about the subject to judge notability. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jimmy, I think that the user who nominated it just goofed - although it helps that I was able to find a few more reviews for it. :) BOZ (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Luke Cage and Iron Fist supporting characters for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Luke Cage and Iron Fist supporting characters is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Luke Cage and Iron Fist supporting characters until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: MJ (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

Since it takes a while to review drafts sometimes. I am wondering if you may want wack on it to maybe review or move the page. Thanks and happy editing! Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can take a look, although I am not the best at evaluating other people's work. BOZ (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool man! I understand. I mostly want an admin to approve histmerge if you maybe think it’s ready. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although I figure the better article title is Michelle Jones (Marvel Cinematic Universe) like one editor recommended instead of MJ (Marvel Cinematic Universe). Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kraglin

Dear BOZ, Thank you for creating the Draft:Kraglin. It is pretty much perfect. I tried to move the article to main article namespace, but I failed. I guess it requires histmerge. In near future, if you are moving this article, then please do ping me so that I can learn more about this complex operation. -Hatchens (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Hatchens. Probably the best thing to do, if you think it is ready, is to request that someone review the draft at AFC to see if it is suitable for moving to mainspace, at which point the history merge can be done. BOZ (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BOZ, then, I guess, for this draft... I have to request you... only. In the meanwhile, I will try to find more such drafts where I can do some hands-on practice and will follow your suggested way. In case, if I get stuck somewhere, then I will surely drop by at your talk page. - Hatchens (talk) 03:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hera (Marvel Comics)

The article Hera (Marvel Comics) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Poison (comics)

The article Poison (comics) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much Thanks!

Hello BOZ, I recently saw you thanks to my contributions to the RPG articles! It means so much to me that people appreciate the contributions I make to wikipedia, so thank you very much! Go-Tsumaroki (chat) 19:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, keep up the good work. :) BOZ (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Computer Game Review

Hey! Regarding the question in your edit summary, I'm noticing that quite a few of the mid-'90s games that CGR reviewed overlap with the ones you found Next Generation reviews for. In my spare time I've been undertaking a low-effort pet project to relax: adding every CGR review from the surviving archive, mostly in alphabetical order, to the relevant articles. It's definitely influenced by your own Next Generation/Dragon/etc. campaigns. Assuming it continues like it has, I'll be getting to those other articles before long! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	This is for working on the 4 Castle book/Village book articles together! Happy editing, BOZ! Go-Tsumaroki 17:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thank you! :) BOZ (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking to create Chaosium template

Hi, I see you created the Avalon Hill template

in 2018. I cannot figure out how this would be done, any help appreciated.Sciencefish (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! One idea would be to copy the contents of the Avalon Hill template into a sandbox and switch out all the contents with similar items appropriate for Chaosium, and that way you can experiment to your heart's content until it is ready to be published. :) BOZ (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I noticed though, is that on your user page you acknowledged you have a COI when it comes to Chaosium, so I would be careful when editing in that area, and you may want to seek guidance from people who know the policy to avoid getting into trouble over it. BOZ (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that makes sense with the template.

As for my COI, yes, I am being very careful to remain neutral and work within the remit of the five pillars. Much of the updating I'm doing hasn't been done for many years.Sciencefish (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Games International

Hey! You might already know about this, but the Internet Archive has every issue of the late-'80s/early-'90s British magazine Games International available here: https://archive.org/details/GamesInternational. GI was the first incarnation of Computer Games Magazine (aka Computer Games Strategy Plus, aka Strategy Plus), so it's a reliable source. Maybe the most interesting thing is that it covers both computer and tabletop games, including pen-and-paper RPGs. I plan to use its old issues to fill out some of the Gary Grigsby-related pages and thought that, if you weren't familiar with the magazine, you might have a use for it elsewhere. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet, thank you! No, I did not know about that. I will have to have a look. :) BOZ (talk) 05:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JimmyBlackwing, if you come across any more magazines like that, which you think I may have not already discovered, please do let me know. :) I am getting a ton of use out of that one! BOZ (talk) 02:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great to hear! I'll be sure to tell you. Right now I'm in the process of digging up and organizing the issues of Game Players PC Entertainment, which I've recently learned was the precursor to PC Gamer. It also ran under the name Game Player's PC Strategy Guide and a few other titles before that. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One more magazine you might find helpful, if you don't already know about it: Video Games. It's from the early 1980s—stumbled across it while looking for Gary Grigsby coverage. Seems interesting! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Moondark

The article Moondark has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and Play-by-mail games article

Found this article (page 18-19) while rummaging around in Flagship looking for something. Had a bit of a chuckle. Too bad the editor Carol Mulholland isn't around anymore to see how things have improved. Airborne84 (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow! LOL If only they knew what you and I have been up to in the last few years. :) BOZ (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard

Hi, BOZ. Can you protect the Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard for a week or two? It's being targeted by a serial IP vandal who repeatedly changes the information in it to a version not supported by the cited source. I wrote the passage myself, and both I and another user, Hammersoft, have been reverting. The vandal is using a Type 6 IP address, which was blocked for 31 hours yesterday, but he is nonetheless continuing his disruption.

That one's pretty clear, got it. BOZ (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BOZ, the vandalism is continuing, with the editor's IP constantly changing. Can you put a longer lock on the article? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone else hit that one already! BOZ (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help with archiving links

Hey man! i hope you're doing well. Sorry for bothering you but could you help me in archiving links for Metal Slug? I tried using this link [3] but (at least in my case), it gives me a 504 message... Roberth Martinez (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I'm not entirely sure of what you are looking for though? Do you mean archiving urls on archive.org or something else? BOZ (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I got a 502 error message on that page, by the way. BOZ (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ:Oh, so it's just not me? Weird. I wonder what's the issue with the function... Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed one game on Next Generation

Hey there. I think you missed one game on Issue 56 of Next Generation, and that's Rich Diamond, released in 1999. Now the magazine claims that the game was for Nintendo 64 and published by Ubisoft, as shown in this link, but I have since discovered that it was actually for PC and developed and published by Core Concepts, as shown here. But I have a feeling that this game, especially the N64 version, may not exist after all, wouldn't you agree? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 03:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Angeldeb82, thanks for writing to me. Actually, I did create the article, but it was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Diamond. If there were enough sources to prove notability it could be restored, but if as you say the game may have never been published at all then it may not even be possible to find more reviews/sources. BOZ (talk) 03:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, folks. Sorry to butt into this old conversation, but I believe I've found enough sources for this article to be restored. It was reviewed in 1999 by the Orlando Sentinel, and the game's old official page lists additional blurbs from Games Magazine, Newsday and others. This more than passes WP:GNG just off those. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein closed this AFD, so I am asking for their opinion based on comments from Angeldeb82 and JimmyBlackwing above. BOZ (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BOZ, I don't have an opinion of my own here, as my role in the AfD was limited to assessing consensus. But if you think that the game now passes WP:N you are free to recreate the article and request restoration at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 13:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thank you. BOZ (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Angeldeb82 and JimmyBlackwing, I was able to get Rich Diamond restored and moved to WP:DRAFTspace, if you have anything you can add to it to improve it. :) BOZ (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP, your save on Hoops was awesome; do you have access to any of the other sources noted above or anything else to add to my draft on Rich Diamond? BOZ (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Skeleton Crew (comics)

The article Skeleton Crew (comics) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of National Force

The article National Force has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BOZ! I know so far too little about this to have a clear opinion, but a search revealed The Amazing Transforming Superhero! as a source with some commentary, and "Hail Hydra": Marvel's Captain America and White Nationalism in the United States as quite an extensive one. However, I don't know know the ranking of the latter one, being part of a university's Summer Research programme. [4], [5] and [6] also treat the subject in a minor way. Daranios (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daranios, go ahead and add it to the article and we'll see how that plays out. :) BOZ (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing move of H.P. Lovecraft's Dreamlands

from H.P. Lovecraft's Dreamlands to H.P. Lovecraft's Dreamlands (roleplaying game). There is clear confusion between the literery work and the RPG: [[H.P. Lovecraft's Dreamlands]] and [[H.P. Lovecraft|H.P. Lovecraft's]] [[Dreamlands]]. Although this would qualify as uncontested, I'm unsure about doing the move myself after a previous failure.Sciencefish (talk) 10:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sciencefish, I don't beleive that would be necessary as I think the CoC game release has a distinct title. You might be better able to solve this with a template such as Template:Distinguish or Template:About? BOZ (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the Template:Distinguish makes sense. Sciencefish (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks- this is D. Daniel Wagner, Manual of Aurania Wulfy95113 (talk) 06:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) I am glad to be expanding Wikipedia's coverage of tabletop role-playing games! BOZ (talk) 06:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance with a neglected draft

Hey BOZ, I'm currently kinda inactive for the foreseeable future due to my current life situation, would you be able to help with a draft I've had for a literal year? It'd be a great help if you could make it presentable and finish up the work I've been neglecting to do with it. It's about an indie prodedurally-generated roguelike RPG, so I figure you'd be into it. If you're not in a position to work on it either, that's totally fine too. Thanks in advance. Waxworker (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking! :) This one is probably more than a little bit beyond my area of expertise. I'm not sure if there is much I would know how to do with it, but I will still take a look when I get a chance. For my part, I have been focusing mostly on retro video games; so far I have gone through Computer Gaming World from 1981 to just starting on 1988. :) BOZ (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty has an RFC

Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Assem Khidhr (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]