Talk:Red Hand of Doom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dungeons & Dragons-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, or join the discussion, where you can join the project and find out how to help!
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notability: Red Hand of Doom[edit]

I note that User:Hobit has removed the Notability template from the article Red Hand of Doom. Since this article has no content, context, criticism, analysis or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside the Dungeons & Dragons, I don't understand why he thinks this book of instrucitons is notable.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote "In library and information science, historiography and some other areas of scholarship, a secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. A secondary source contrasts with a primary source, which is an original source of the information being discussed." These sources, both reviews and ghits are discusing information originally presented elsewhere. They are thus secondary sources. Heck, enworld is also about as reliable as you can get in this area. Further, as Agamemmnon2 notes, this isn't a book of instructions. It would probably be helpful if you learned a bit about the topic of the page you are discussing. Hobit (talk) 03:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Still denigrating the hobby by calling RPG books "instructions", I see. I might agree with you that it doesn't deserve to be here, but I can't agree with your attitude. Also, why not ask him? --Agamemnon2 (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
He did ask me (on my talk page) so that's fine. Hobit (talk) 03:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
"In the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game, adventure or module is a term for pre-packaged books or box sets that help the dungeonmaster to manage the plot or story of a game. The term adventure is currently the preferred term." However, in clear English, you can boil this down to "Game instructions". --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Being specific is usually clearer than being vague. Game instructions normally refer to rulebooks that explain the mechanics of a game, while adventures or modules focus more heavily on plot. Rray (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying that a module or an adventure is a book of game instructions that incorporates a plot summary or vice-versa?--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
It is a different form of fiction than normal, closer to a group "chose-your-own-adventure" than anything else. I continue to be a bit concerned that you don't have an understanding about the pages you are editing. Hobit (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I prefer to use Plain English, so that we can both understand what is being discussed. I will assume that this is a book of game instructions that incorporates a plot summary to facilitate a "chose-your-own-adventure". To go back to your claim that enworld is a reliable secondary source, I would have to disagree; since it is a fansite, anything written there is more or less self-published, and therefore cannot be treated as reliable. I again request that the notability template be restored until this article meets the requirements of WP:RS. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
While you can assume that, it turns out it's false. As I and others have asked of you (say here) please learn about the stuff you are editing. We've tried to inform you as best we can, but at some point you need to make an effort. Hobit (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the AfD discussion killed the whole notability thing here. I for one will remain opposed to adding the template back. Hobit (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
If the issue of notability is not addressed, then is likely it will be put up for AfD again at some point in the future. You can stick you head in the sand if you wish, but long term, this will result in the loss of this article. --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I think the decision will be the same. It is well sourced, even if you don't like those sources. Hobit (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


Per discussions I've been having in the talk page for WP:PLOT I think the plot content here is in line with these guidelines. I'd like to remove the template. Discussion?Hobit (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing none, removing. Hobit (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
restored; see my edit summary. --Jack Merridew 10:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
As some one who's never edited this article, i fail to see where 3 sentances of plot is deserving of this tag,--Cube lurker (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Certainly not a problem here. Please read WP:FICT's talk page. This specific article is used as an example. Hobit (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem is there are only three other sentences; write something encyclopaedic or this will go back to afd. (used as an example by you — too funny) --Jack Merridew 08:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, but the current author of the fiction guidelines agreed eh? Hobit (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


Please avoid self-published sources; they are inappropriate and will be removed. --Jack Merridew 10:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify how these 2 sources violate the mentioned policy? it's not clear to me?--Cube lurker (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
#1 Self published sources can be used. They aren't great for notability, but they can be helpful to the article. In this case, showing what people seem to think of it. Also, I don't see timewasters as self published. Can you show that? Hobit (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
the 'submit a review link, for example. --Jack Merridew 08:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Unclear here. I think you can submit articles to reader's digest too. Or the New York Times. Do you have reason to believe they don't edit or review the submitted articles? (talk) 04:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC) (Note: this is me, didn't log in at the time. Hobit (talk))
See Looks pretty real. Hobit (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


  • WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, offers point 4: Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.
  • offers two links to — note the referrer parameter 'ref=d20z' at the end which is used to ensure the d20z gets a slice of the money. Pages such as this offer a 'review' (always a 'good' one) as bait to garner links as a way for them to make money. Such link are to be avoided (i.e removed, but I'll discuss a bit first). --Jack Merridew 08:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Wtf? Lots of review sites include links for purchase. Even on negative reviews. See [1] as a highly reputable site that does this. Book review sites do the same thing too... It clearly isn't the primary purpose. Hobit (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Also see from the same site for a non 'good' review from the same site. Hobit (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've stricken the 'good' bit in my above post; it is irrelevant to the issue, anyway. --Jack Merridew 11:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks, could you then address the issue if you think gamespot, or even the NYT books secion (which also has ads for reviewed books) also would have problems by your reading of WP:EL? If not, could you explain the difference? I'm not seeing it. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


Hello, Please use this space to discuss notability here. Given the above discussions, I'm really struggling to see why it is being tagged again. Hobit (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't see? It is as plain as your nose: this article has insufficient content, context or analysis for starters. Unless you actually have an article, how can the subject matter be notable if it is described as a "generic" D&D adventure". Please restore the Notability template until these concerns are addressed. --Gavin Collins (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Hobit, please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and cease being disruptive. Your endless invitations to discuss further amount to trolling. The tags keep being restored because the issues have not been addressed; until you come up with a better argument than I don't get it, I will simply restore tags you vandalize. --Jack Merridew 08:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Jack, there is a whole set of discussions about many of the sources above. Each of your points were rebutted, and now you just start adding templates again? I'm not going to rehash the above arguments. Either continue them the discussions above or stop adding the templates. As you know, this made it through an AfD recently and if you wish to bring it there again, you are welcome to. Otherwise please stop being disruptive by applying clearly incorrect tags. Hobit (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Given the result of most of the AfDs that you and Gavin have supported lately, versus the much larger group of editors who have seen the issue differently again and again, I see the drive-by-tagging and poorly grounded AfDs as being grossly disruptive in and of themselves. It's getting annoying, it's not making people want to cooperate with you, and it's discouraging to newer and even to established editors when it looks like a half-baked jihad against a group of topics that a small minority of editors appear to want to remove bit by bit from wikipedia. Be reasonable, help to improve articles, and wikipedia will be better for our collective efforts.Shemeska (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Your assertion that I am involved in drive by tagging is just not supported by any evidence. The article has nine citations: four come from the game publisher (Wizards of the Coast), four are self-published on fansites and the remaining one is published by Paizo Publishing under licence from the game publisher. Either you are ignoring WP guidelines or you are pushing a POV. There is no evidence of notability per WP:BK as the sources cited all fail WP:RS.
Ref Source Type WP:RS
[2] Wizards of the Coast Primary Source No
[3] EN World Self-published No
[4] Wizards of the Coast Primary Source No
[5] Wizards of the Coast Primary Source No
[6] Wizards of the Coast Primary Source No
[7] d20zines Self-published No
[8] Time-Waster's Guide Self-published No
[9] Dungeon (magazine) Primary Source No
[10] EN World Self-published No
In particular, I must dispute the wording of the section "Critical Reception", which has been written in a way that is deliberately misleading and designed to accomodate additional references to support a dubious claim to notability using weasel words. Firstly, this section uses references as if the statement "greatest Dungeons & Dragons adventures" applied to this module, when in fact it does not. Secondly, Dungeon (magazine) cannot be classed as a reliable secondary source, as in the context of this article the publisher of the magazine and the game are conntected by licence agreement. I must insist that the notability template be restored until these issues can be addressed.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Now I think you are just being silly. The sources above are perfectly valid with regard to the subject matter. I'd agree with the suggestion above that the drive-by tagging is becoming disruptive. Catchpole (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gavin. I did expect your response - I'm a tad disappointed with the tone, but not surprised. Nevertheless, in relation to your points: I agree that the notability tag should stand, at least until further (reasoned) discussion. I'm in the process of trying to address the issues, and hopefully others with better resources will assist. I agree that the primary sources and the original set of references did not establish notability, and while I believe that d20zine and The Official Time-Waster's Guide are better, I am not sure that they are necessarily sufficient. Although to be honest here, I might well regard The Official Time-Waster's Guide as acceptable - it has an editorial team who are clearly qualified as well as staff writers. The existence of an editorial team raises questions about any "self-published" claims. I'd classify it as an e-Zine, (and might do the same for d20zine), which puts it outside of a narrow interpretation of WP:SPS.
As to Critical Reception - it is intended as a start, not a completed section. When reading reviews (where valid for notability or not) I was struck by the universal high-regard for the publication. There was also a tendency to draw comparisons with The Keep on the Borderlands and The Temple of Elemental Evil. The comparisons were based on both quality and content. However, those not involved in RPGs probably wouldn't recognise the significance of the two works. Thus a line explaining the significance of the comparison (based on the Dragon ranking) seems valid. Given this, if the line should be changed, I have no hassles - the entire section needs development and rewriting, but Wikipedia is good at that sort of thing. I would add that the Dragon reference was not used to establish notability, but to verify a factual claim. Please don't conflate notability with verification.
Just as an aside: I have taken your tagging in good faith in spite of philosophical differences. I would ask that you respect attempts to address your concerns from any editor, and assume good faith on your part. I'm not convinced that you did. Bilby (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • And so you should accept the tags in good faith as it is in your interests to do so; only by flagging these issues and involving more editors with this article will it be improved; Hobit take note: tagging has beneficial effects, whether you agree or disagree with it. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, and assuming that this was at least partially directed at me - my point was that I did. Bilby (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, the tone and the sharpness of my comments were not aimed at you nor are they probably appropriate in any case. Your editing to date is to be commended. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
No hassles, then. :) I've updated the critical reception as you suggested, so I'm hoping that there shouldn't be any particular problems with the content, beyond the previously noted concerns with the references. Is this closer to what you were after? (I still see it as a start, rather than a completed section, but I'd rather a reasonable start). Bilby (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I've removed the tags, as Pyramid and Black Gate constitute non-trivial independent sources, so they satisfy the notability requirements. Black Gate in particular seems to be a rather good, independent fantasy magazine, and the review was very long and involved. I also find it interesting when Pyramid review WOTC material, as they're technically competitors - when your competitor gives you a good review, you're probably onto something. :) I'll add a few more print reviews over time - they take a bit to track down and get copies of, as you would expect. Bilby (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your excellent work. I am so releived that substantial non-trivial sources are at last being added. Up to this point, I feared that RPG editors, desperate to remove what some view as "indiscriminate" cleanup tags, were ignoring the fact that this is the most important aspect of buliding an encyclopedia. It is such a pleasure to read sourced material. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Red Hand of Doom "sequel"[edit]

While the Scales of War adventure path does reuse the same setting as RHOD, namely the Elsir Vale, it has moved forward the time-line a significant number of years. Furthermore, it appears to disregard completely the established locations of its main town, Brindol. And the connections to previous events (as depicted by RHOD) are tenous at best. Even geography has changed (the western part of Elsir River now flows in the opposite direction).

Therefore I don't think we should call it a "sequel" even if Wizards does so in its promotional material. At least not if we can't find a source that discusses these topics to counter-balance the claim. (I have sources, but they're all forum posts, which don't cut it for Wikipedia inclusion).

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If they called it a sequel, it's a sequel. And it's not all that a significant number of years later (10, to be exact). In fact, some of the exact same characters are in both. Yes, it is a sequel, and should be called as such. oknazevad (talk) 06:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Claiming No D&D Adventures Was Published 2003-2005 is Factually Incorrect[edit]

At best you could say that no adventures were published in *print* form for *generic* D&D (just for specific worlds), but that in itself is a pretty weak claim because its of little relevance. And you have to discount the two Fantastic Locales published in 2005.

Here's a probably complete listing, year by year:

At a minimum, three Eberron D&D adventures, one Forgotten Realms D&D adventure, two Fantastic Locations (which were locales for generic D&D *with* adventures) and a gazillion generic D&D PDFs were published.

Overall, the claim seems specious.

-- (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably true - feel free to fix! (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The claim is definitely not true - there were three Eberron modules and two Fantastic Locations produced in 2004 and 2005. I've already removed the offending paragraphs before reading the talk page (was this really raised four years ago?) Neonchameleon (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)