User talk:Sangrolu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Solomon Kane RPG revision[edit]

I just read your revision concerning role playing games in the Solomon Kane article. Before I go any further, let me admit that I know jack you-know-what about RPGs; not to criticize those who are into them, just saying that I am not one of you. Given that, my not understanding your version may well not mean much. However, the Wikilink for the word "campaign" goes to a disambiguity page, not a specific article. As I do not get your point, I can not select the correct article. Please do something about this. Thank you. Ted Watson (talk) 04:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey there![edit]

How's it going?  :) BOZ (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Input needed on Beast Wars Maximal deletion[edit]

I noticed you had an opinion on the proposed deletion on the article on Fuzors. The same nominator also proposed the deletion of the article on Maximals, saying they are not notable. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maximal (Transformers) Your input would be welcome, since there are few voices in this article yet. Mathewignash (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ankheg[edit]

Hello,

Because you participated in the previous AFD for Ankheg, I am notifying you that it has been nominated for AFD again. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

merge proposition for Lamia (D&D)[edit]

Hello, as you took part in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons) (2nd nomination), which closed on "no consensus", I'm bringing to your attention a discussion on whether to merge or not that has opened on the article talk page.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Caryatid column[edit]

Do you know what sources there might be for the caryatid column? I looked for sources for all the ones at AFD, and I found a couple for the Brownie. The Adherer also has a Paizo source called "Misfit Monsters Redeemed". Anything you can find would be helpful. Also, I had added the ToH to deva, marraenoloth, dergholoth, hydroloth, and piscoloth, but Folken wanted to redirect them so I did not stop him - maybe I should have, but arguing with him is tiresome. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The source I was thinking of was a pathfinder Bestiary supplement (unlike the PFSRD, it's not an edit of first party material, so should be a credible WP:RS). Note that even sources that are comedic in nature can be sufficient here, though honestly, I think you are going to have difficulty finding WP:RS for many of those creatures, and some probably don't warrant stand-alone articles. Thanks for dropping by, I'll do some work on scrounging up some sources this weekend as time permits.-Sangrolu (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't have the books, but since you have some or all of them, I found an index online: Looks like Bestiary 1 has the basidirond and cave fisher, Bestiary 2 has the aurumvorax, slicer beetle, blindheim, brownie, bunyip, and crypt thing, and Bestiary 3 has the adherer, ascomoid, atomie, and axe beak. Even if I missed some, that means more than half the creatures in the AFD are covered in the series. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Since there was a question as to whether the PF Bestiary books were just edits of the ToH monsters, I did some research. I have only the original ToH, so I do not know how the original entries were changed from the 3.0 edition in the subsequent 3.5 revisions of ToH. I also don't have any of the PF Bestiary books, so I was only able to look at the entries based on the links I posted above, and do not know how those Reference Document versions may differ from what is in the actual books. I can tell you by comparing each of the creatures from the material that I do have, that the entries are substantially different. The statistics blocks are somewhat different - ability scores are often changed, some have more hit dice in the PF version, skills and feats are often changed, some creature types are different, etc; while some of this can be accounted for by the fact that we have gone from 3.0 to 3.5 to PF, some things (such as changing the blindheim from monstrous humanoid to magical beast or adherer from aberration to monstrous humanoid) are clearly editorial decisions. The special attacks and defenses are completely rewritten; although the differing versions of the same creature do essentially the same thing, there are many noticable differences (if you want examples, ask and I'll go back and look when I have time tonight). Likewise, the general descriptions of the creatures are completely rewritten, and in most cases the PF version is noticably longer than that of the ToH version. So, unless the ToH creatures were substantially altered in later revisions from the original book, and the creatures in the actual PF Bestiary books are substantially different from what I can see on those indexes, I have to conclude that the PF versions are either complete rewrites of the ToH material or complete rewrites from the original TSR material without making use of the material in the ToH. If you are able to do additional research to confirm my suspicions, that would be helpful. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for taking the time to look this over! My time to do this sort of research is, unfortunately, very limited, but I'll at the very least try to do a comparison of the previously mentioned Caryatid column in Bestiary 3. - Sangrolu (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I think if you compare a small number of entries (one may be enough, but two or three would be better), that should be suffficient. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the AFD was closed as redirect for all the remaining articles. It may be too late to argue about the ones from the PF Bestiary now. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I've been thinking about it over the weekend, and all may not be lost. I did get a chance to look at the Bestiary books, and I compared the text to what I found at the Reference Document links above, and they appear to be identical. I only did a quick glance, so I don't know if any subsequent minor editing is involved, but I feel safe in saying that those are identical, and that the Bestiary entries are distinctly different from those in the original ToH. Now, I'm going to try to get a look at the revised versions of the ToH and compare those to the PF Bestiary series and see if those are indeed different. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Again, thanks for taking the time in improving wikipedia. Having been at this for a while, I can say that arguing around a corner case is always a crap shoot. Some closing editors understand the intent principle discussed in WP:Wikilawyering, others are hardline with guidelines.
The best use of the editors' time and effort is not arguing with deletionists about quality of references. If you can always make sure you have 2 or more references, and at least one reference that has no relation to TSR or WotC, that would be a start to making an article that will not be easy pickings for the gaming-article-haters. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Tell me about it, arguing with them is pointless, because they think they are right so they won't listen. Just look at how stupid that mass AFD got. And yes just for the sake of argument, I did get a chance to compare the revised 3.5 ToH (I had a PDF copy on my hard drive all along, duh) with the PF Bestiaries - they are still totally different. The 3.5 ToH is obviously an edit of the original ToH, and the PF Bestiaries are not like the ToH books, as I have detailed above. I can try to add these sources to articles, but it seems like there is always some kind of counterattack when that happens. Imagine that, a reprimand for good faith efforts; it's what I've come to expect from these types. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, well. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Don't sweat it. I have to agree that many of the cited articles were un-encyclopedic as-written, but the closing editor saw fit to leave them as re-directs so that they can be restored with little effort if reliability can be positively established and they can be written in an out-of-universe perspective. - Sangrolu (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Just letting you know that I added the PF sources to the articles and then redirected them properly, in case there are any questions about what I have done. Therefore, I'm considering the matter of the 20 articles redirected as a result of the AFD a closed matter, and will leave them be as redirects unless more sources are found - and I am not looking for any more sources at this time or any time soon. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

D&D monster list[edit]

If you are concerned about preserving information on D&D monsters, you may be interested in joining the discussion at Talk:List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request[edit]

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :)

Merry Christmas![edit]

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :)