Jump to content

Talk:Paizo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Paizo Publishing)

Lisa Stevens

[edit]

Is the Lisa Stevens listed here the same as the songwriter? -British Ben 05:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. She has done some writing in the past for Dungeons & Dragons-related materials, but no songs that I am aware of. Fairsing 17:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

Current vs. historical notability will be an issue for this article. Clearly Paizo, being the publisher of the official magazines for the world's most popular roleplaying game, was notable, and continues to be notable in that context. However, the fate of the company's current notability is questionable. I don't think that has any more impact on this article, however, then it does on dozens of companies which no longer have an significance, but clearly helped to shape their industry at the time. -Harmil 16:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? In addition to the company's history with Dragon and Dungeon, it also publishes Pathfinder, which warrants its own Wikipedia entry, as well as the Planet Stories line of fiction that is distributed in major bookstores and features some of the most prominent authors in science fiction. Paizo.com is likely the largest hobby retail store on the internet, and the company itself is remains one of the largest publishers in the RPG field. As an employee I am admittedly biased (which is why I refrain from editing this entry), but I think your criticisms are way off base.Iquander (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, does notability go away once established? I mean, if something highly significant happened in the 1950s, received coverage enough to establish what is considered notable enough for wikipedia, but little or nothing new happened since then and the event is rarely mentioned now, would its prior notability not still be retained for its historical significance? Or, to ask it another way about an article on a current or recent topic whose notability is well established right now; if wikipedia is still around decades from now, would we then go and delete articles on older subjects which have no significance beyond their historical reference? Harmil, you usually seem to vote "keep" on D&D related AFDs, so I'm not sure where you're coming from here. BOZ (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinions need to be backed up by reliable secondary sources; on their own, your POV is insufficient to establish notability under WP guidelines. Please restore the notability template that has been placed there to encourage this issue to be addressed.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No Gavin - the company published two internationally circulated national magazines. It's notable. By purposely ignoring statements provided above you are not helping your case. I have dug up sources on some other notes that you and Jack Merridew have placed and will try to find more but please stop this now. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I am trying to google some sources but it is insanely hard with all the rpg blogs/groups etc. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but I think you are all misunderstanding the purpose of cleanup templates. Just because I have put one there, it does not mean that the topic is not notable: it means that there is an issue to be addressed, and the template is a way of flagging this on the article page. From where I stand, removing the template looks like censorship, which is counterproductive in this context; if more editors get involved with this article, I am sure the notability issues can be resolved. Please restore the template so that other editors will be alerted; you opinion that it is notable is insufficient. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have placed two sources from an independent source already. For thoroughness I will try to look for more later.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) - erm, could be a magazine too, it has a circulation and is a periodical. [1] cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I'd argue that a magazine going defunct is not trivial, though it is indeed succinct.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not concerned whether the magazine is defunct or not; please restore the notability template until such time as reliable secondary sources can be found.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The single secondary source there when you incorrectly tagged it was already found. More have been added. Please stop the disruptive tagging. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The press release that you refer to is not classed as a reliable secondary source. Note that there is nothing disruptive or incorrect about the cleanup templates that I added; if I had not persisted, nothing would have been added at all. Please feel free to add secondary sources, but ensure that you do so before you remove the templates, not after. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Paizo Publishing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Early history missing from article

[edit]

This article starts off with a 'D&D and Pathfinder' section that tells readers that Paizo used to publish Dragon and Dungeon magazine, and then swiftly talks about the creation of Pathfinder RPG. This does not inform the reader about the pre-Pathfinder era of Paizo at all, and needs to be fixed, as the creation of Paizo is notable.

There is an excellent topic, over at RPG Geek, called History of Paizo, straight from the golem's mouth that links to a series of five articles, on the the Paizo website, which talk about the early history of Paizo.

Those sources are primary sources, but they give us an indication of the relevant facts that a reader needs to know, which have a direct impact on why Paizo got set up:

  • Wizards of the Coast was laying off workers to reduce costs - these included Lisa Stevens, who was their brand manager for Star Wars up to the point she was made redundant, late in the year 2000.
  • Johnny Wilson, Group Publisher for the Periodicals division at Wizards of the Coast contacted Lisa, towards the end of 2001, to let her know that Wizards of the Coast wanted to divest itself of it's magazine business.
  • The magazine business that WotC was attempting to outsource consisted of Dragon Magazine, Dungeon Magazine, Star Wars Insider and also the running of the Official Star Wars Fan Club for Lucasfilm. (There is currently no mention of a connection between Paizo and Star Wars. Star Wars is highly notable, and this needs to be redressed.)
  • Lisa, her partner, Vic Wertz and Johnny Wilson had a lot of meetings with both Wizards of the Coast and Lucasfilm, before setting up Paizo Publishing on the 1st of July 2002.
  • Paizo took over the entire Wizards of the Coast magazine division, and all the employees there went over to work for them.

Star Wars Insider and the Official Star Wars Fan Club, have their own history, so there needs to be a subsection for both of them (along with subsections about both Dragon Magazine and Dungeon Magazine) that briefly explain what they are/were and how Paizo ran them.

The Paizo article linked to by RPG Geek says that Paizo inherited (as part of the deal with WotC) an outsourced customer services arrangement (run by a company that made more money for not solving problems quickly) and a free-to-call Star Wars phoneline, that they wanted to get rid of to save money. It also says that there was a lot of red-tape that meant that they didn't get paid for the magazines they distributed for several months, and that they were not aware of this, when they set up the business. This might be relevant to a reader, as it could potentially have been something that made the business fail. But the factoids above, along with the business that Paizo started with are pretty important to understanding why the company was set up.

What I don't see mentioned is where the money came from. Perhaps there is some sort of financial website that might have investment details for the founding year of Paizo.

The information about Pathfinder is also pretty lacking. There is talk about Pathfinder RPG, but the Pathfinder Campaign Setting came first. And the Pathfinder Campaign Setting was originally written to run under the same 3.5 Dungeons & Dragons rules that Dungeon Magazine and Dragon Magazine used to use, before being converted over to the new Pathfinder RPG system later. That's an important fact, because it helped Paizo to move a lot of their customer base over from a WotC product line to their own derivative product, published using WotC's own Open Game Licence.

A comparison of WotC's 4th Edition D&D with Paizo's Pathfinder RPG (which is based on WotC's 3rd Edition SRD) and the 3rd Party Publisher support for both systems could also be a useful subsection in a Pathfinder section.

I would love to see this article, sorted out at some point. I have not had the time to research any useful secondary sources, yet, but thought I would drop this here to start a discussion about improvement. Big Mac (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is important! 73.168.15.161 (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The start is now covered. Problem is (like with most facts from the ttrpg world) that sources aren't valid for Wikipedia use. In other words, very little info is covered by reputable media - discussion lists and forum blogs contain a wealth of information on the hobby, but doesn't cut it for Wikipedia use. CapnZapp (talk) 09:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 June 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Paizo. (non-admin closure) buidhe 11:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Paizo Publishing → Paizo or Paizo Inc – Company stopped calling itself "Paizo Publishing" in 2013, switching to Paizo Inc.. I suggest we rename this page accordingly, either to "Paizo" or "Paizo Inc" (couldn't find our policy on including/excluding "inc", "ltd" etc in articles on companies). Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paizo might make more sense, but I would rather have some discussion before I settle on a viewpoint here. BOZ (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paizo&oldid=1204500835"