Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 14
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
Gavin's reverting {{importance}} tags
Part of this discussion has been archived due to length, and can be found in Archive 10. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Note: I've refactored the recent archives for length. The Gavin stuff now starts on /Archive 11 and continues through to /Archive 12. I've de-archived talk less than a week old as it is unsettled. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Note more discussion has just been archive to /Archive 13 due to length. --Drilnoth (Talk) 14:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I hate to say this...
But I think we may have a legitimate Arbitration case against Gavin. This has turned behavioral for the most part, and past attempts at dispute resolution didn't work. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 20:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- That sounds about right. I don't feel confident beginning anything (as I stated above), because I'm still relatively new and I haven't been involved in as much discussion regarding Gavin as some other editors have, although I will support any attempts however I can. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- If I had good net access I'd've started one myself. I would look at the ArbReq page; be sure that when you do file one you include the prior attempts at remedying the dispute or else the case will be rejected. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 20:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have notified all involved users of the situation, including Gavin. Note that when I posted on his page, I said that I did not consider Shadzar's actions to be his fault. Although his tagging caused the problem indirectly, and needs to be stopped before something like it happens again, he was NOT involved in the discussion which made Shadzar leave. I think that an arbitration case is still the proper course of action here, but I wanted to make it clear to everyone that Shadzar's leaving really isn't his fault (at least in my view of things). -Drilnoth (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hey Jeske. I know I was probably the main proponent of going for an RFM over an RFArb last time, and I know you didn't agree with it then. I felt it needed to be done first, and while the RFM itself was basically a bit of mental masturbation, it did give us six months of wonderful, yummy peace. :) So, I don't regret that route at all. But now, I find myself in complete agreement with you. Do you know when you might have your net access fully restored? In the meantime, I think it would be a good idea to pursue the AN/I as discussed above. In all the time that Gavin has been doing this, I'm surprised he hasn't had one yet! ColorOfSuffering seems to have the most gusto to lead this, but if not then we can find someone else. I would do it, but since I led the charge on the RFM it would be best if I didn't; I'm sure he will state that I have some kind of vendetta in leading the "lynch mob" against him a second time. :) BOZ (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- BOZ, I can start an AN/I section if you think that we should do that first, but why do you think that we should wait for Jeske's web connection to be back to start an Arbcomm? This issue really needs to be dealt with, but which should we try? -Drilnoth (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I recommend waiting for Jeske for two reasons: one, he's willing to do it, and two, (if I'm not mistaken) he's done it before. :) I definitely think we should do the AN/I first as it's in theory a lot quicker and easier. Plus, it will bring attention on both "sides" of the argument and the general community to what he's been doing. Then, when an Arbcom case comes up, we have yet another attempt at settling the dispute to show for. BOZ (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Then, when an Arbcom case comes up, we have yet another attempt at settling the dispute to show for. Don't you mean IF an Arbcom case comes up? -Drilnoth (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Do I? I've long seen that as the inevitable outcome. Rather than make a self-fulfilling prophecy though, I never intend it to be me as the one who does it; starting the RFM was enough. If it never needs to happen, then cool, but in the end I'd be surprised. Right now, another RFC and/or AN/I as warranted is the thing to pursue if Gavin's pattern of behavior continues where normal discussion fails. BOZ (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, but he may change before an ArbCom is needed. Although it is difficult, remember to Assume Good Faith and hope that he can change without such measures.
- Anyway, Vassyana just mentioned on her talk page that another RfC or RfM could still work, if it was focused upon the tagging and associated behavior, now that the deletion has stopped. She also made a very good point that we should think about what our action's would look like if we were in Gavin's shoes. What do you think should be done? -Drilnoth (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- If I were in Gavin's shoes, with as many people opposing what I'm doing with strong feeling, and with very little active support from other people on what I'm doing... well, I'd at least consider a compromise, at least reconsider why I'm doing what I'm doing, and unless I could come up with some damn good reasons to continue, I'd probably give up. I'm not the type of person to strong-arm what I think is right in the face of overwhelming opposition or impose my will on other people. But we're not talking about me. I can assume good faith all day, but I would have to outright lie to myself to believe that Gavin will ever become a nice guy. The best I can hope for is that he will give up on his own or at least do what he does with less aggression and threats. I'm absolutely willing to try another RfC, but I can't see where another RfM would go that the last one didn't - what, take another six months to "fix" one more article? :) BOZ (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Do I? I've long seen that as the inevitable outcome. Rather than make a self-fulfilling prophecy though, I never intend it to be me as the one who does it; starting the RFM was enough. If it never needs to happen, then cool, but in the end I'd be surprised. Right now, another RFC and/or AN/I as warranted is the thing to pursue if Gavin's pattern of behavior continues where normal discussion fails. BOZ (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Then, when an Arbcom case comes up, we have yet another attempt at settling the dispute to show for. Don't you mean IF an Arbcom case comes up? -Drilnoth (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I recommend waiting for Jeske for two reasons: one, he's willing to do it, and two, (if I'm not mistaken) he's done it before. :) I definitely think we should do the AN/I first as it's in theory a lot quicker and easier. Plus, it will bring attention on both "sides" of the argument and the general community to what he's been doing. Then, when an Arbcom case comes up, we have yet another attempt at settling the dispute to show for. BOZ (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- BOZ, I can start an AN/I section if you think that we should do that first, but why do you think that we should wait for Jeske's web connection to be back to start an Arbcomm? This issue really needs to be dealt with, but which should we try? -Drilnoth (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hey Jeske. I know I was probably the main proponent of going for an RFM over an RFArb last time, and I know you didn't agree with it then. I felt it needed to be done first, and while the RFM itself was basically a bit of mental masturbation, it did give us six months of wonderful, yummy peace. :) So, I don't regret that route at all. But now, I find myself in complete agreement with you. Do you know when you might have your net access fully restored? In the meantime, I think it would be a good idea to pursue the AN/I as discussed above. In all the time that Gavin has been doing this, I'm surprised he hasn't had one yet! ColorOfSuffering seems to have the most gusto to lead this, but if not then we can find someone else. I would do it, but since I led the charge on the RFM it would be best if I didn't; I'm sure he will state that I have some kind of vendetta in leading the "lynch mob" against him a second time. :) BOZ (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have notified all involved users of the situation, including Gavin. Note that when I posted on his page, I said that I did not consider Shadzar's actions to be his fault. Although his tagging caused the problem indirectly, and needs to be stopped before something like it happens again, he was NOT involved in the discussion which made Shadzar leave. I think that an arbitration case is still the proper course of action here, but I wanted to make it clear to everyone that Shadzar's leaving really isn't his fault (at least in my view of things). -Drilnoth (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- If I had good net access I'd've started one myself. I would look at the ArbReq page; be sure that when you do file one you include the prior attempts at remedying the dispute or else the case will be rejected. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 20:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- (RI) Guys, don't wait for me to regain my Net access (which I don't see happening in the foreseeable future). If you feel that you need to do an AN/I first, feel free to do so; if that doesn't work, take it to ArbComm. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 19:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I guess maybe an AN/I would make more sense than an RfC at this point, followed by an ArbCom IF that doesn't fix the situation. BOZ, would you agree with that? I'll get the AN/I started as long as you think that's the right step. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, I agree with that. AN/I based on the info ColorOfSuffering pulled up (see the last archive page; can we reproduce that here again?), with a few select additions to that to give an idea of the scope. CoS said he won't be back until after Thanksgiving, and although Gavin's a Brit, I think we can give him a holiday if he doesn't get particularly ornery tomorrow. ;) BOZ (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds good; I can wait a few days. As to restoring the archived stuff, unless discussion is going to be added, what's the point? It's still very easily accessible. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, I agree with that. AN/I based on the info ColorOfSuffering pulled up (see the last archive page; can we reproduce that here again?), with a few select additions to that to give an idea of the scope. CoS said he won't be back until after Thanksgiving, and although Gavin's a Brit, I think we can give him a holiday if he doesn't get particularly ornery tomorrow. ;) BOZ (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I guess maybe an AN/I would make more sense than an RfC at this point, followed by an ArbCom IF that doesn't fix the situation. BOZ, would you agree with that? I'll get the AN/I started as long as you think that's the right step. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Seriously, unless you have firm evidence that using {{notability}} over {{importance}} is leading to worthy articles being deleted, I'd drop that entire part of the argument. Concentrate on the edit warring and the accusations of bad faith - those require administrative action, while content disputes (which is what arguments over which tag to use are) are explicilty not handled on ANI. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough; I'll make the changes soon. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've rewritten the draft; feel free to modify it any way that you think is appropriate. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've had a hack at it. I copied/modelled some of it after the "Gavinwarn" document, because why waste the work we put into coming up with that. ;) Also, I believe Vassyana specifically mentioned that we can't use the RfM to point out bad behavior; however, I figured there was no harm in mentioning that mediation was attempted. BOZ (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Seriously, unless you have firm evidence that using {{notability}} over {{importance}} is leading to worthy articles being deleted, I'd drop that entire part of the argument. Concentrate on the edit warring and the accusations of bad faith - those require administrative action, while content disputes (which is what arguments over which tag to use are) are explicilty not handled on ANI. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
-removed indent-Good modifications, thanks! On a slightly different note, I think that one thing to keep in mind in this whole discussion is that Gavin is, in fact, oftentimes correct regarding notability. At this point, the main problems are his going against consensus, accusals of vandalsim/COI, etc. Regardless of how this whole debacle turns out, the D&D articles are going to need a major overhaul; the primary issue is just how... well, unpleasant he is to be working around. Now that the project is aware of the issues, we can clean the articles up without his "assistance" -Drilnoth (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. Now that we have a better understanding of what we need to do, dealing with his unpleasantness is definitely slowing us down. BOZ (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've made some more tweaks and additions; once again, feel free to work on it yourself. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Looks fine to me - not sure what else could be added that would actually be helpful. BOZ (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Okay. I'll probably put it off on the noticeboard tomorrow morning. -Drilnoth (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- OK, no problem. I might be done for the night. I should be around in the late morning and early afternoon, but no promises! :) BOZ (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Um, does gavin editting the Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction) page seem suspicious to anyone else? Atleast, considering the nature of some of our disputes with him? What's weird is that I think he's actually made some constructive edits to that page....(look at the talk page)Kairos (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes it does seem suspicious; Yes, I think he has made constructive edits to the guideleines. Unfortunately, if you look at the talk page, it seems like he's actually come into conflict with the other users there and, once again, seems to be firmly holding his position. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- It does seem rather odd because, since he started "working" on D&D articles, I don't think he's made significant edits to anything that is related to either the notability guidelines or D&D. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- A complaint has been filed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Gavin.collins for anyone who may be interested. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Um, does gavin editting the Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction) page seem suspicious to anyone else? Atleast, considering the nature of some of our disputes with him? What's weird is that I think he's actually made some constructive edits to that page....(look at the talk page)Kairos (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- OK, no problem. I might be done for the night. I should be around in the late morning and early afternoon, but no promises! :) BOZ (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Okay. I'll probably put it off on the noticeboard tomorrow morning. -Drilnoth (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Looks fine to me - not sure what else could be added that would actually be helpful. BOZ (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've made some more tweaks and additions; once again, feel free to work on it yourself. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Reverting notability and importance tags
(Just an FYI) I don't have an opinion about this particular dispute, but I have noticed that some of Gavin's tags have been reverted with an edit summary indicating that the tags are "Vandalism". Whatever you may feel about Gavin's opinions, his edits do not fall under the scope of WP:VANDAL and characterizing them as such is a personal attack. I'm not trying to point out any one person or threaten anyone, but if people are under the impression that those tags are bad-faith edits that needs to be corrected. Protonk (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- This section of the above editors talk page has some good info/advice all may wish to read. shadzar-talk 03:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Exciting news!
Gavin has started using {{importance}} tags on some articles! -Drilnoth (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, that's definitely a good thing, in so far as being willing to compromise (not whether he was right or wrong about the tags in the first place). Now, let's see the other dozen complaints improve and we'll be rolling right along. ;) BOZ (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Jeez
Based on discussion from Gavin's talk page, it seems that reliable secondary sources also have to provide real-world content rather than in-universe text (I don't think that's mentioned anywhere in the notability guidelines, so I've put in a question at WT:N), and that even with its four reliable secondary sources, Hillsfar isn't notable. What is this? -Drilnoth (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- shrug - that's the same sort of Gavinspeak I've been seeing since forever. He has it down to an art. It's littered all over the Notability talk pages, and anywhere else that someone has seen fit to argue with him over his viewpoints. It looks like human language, but I think it's machine generated, personally, so I usually just ingore it rather than try to make sense out of it. :) BOZ (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Request for comment/user conduct
Discussion at User talk:Gavin.collins seems to have come to the conclusion that an attempt at WP:RFC/U is the next step that should be taken, rather than a WP:ArbCom. I think that we should wait another day or two, to see if the WP:AN/I comes up with anything, before starting an RFC.
Before we start an RFC, I think that we should take a look at just who will be willing to participate in it. I certainly will, and I hope that everyone else here is willing to help out however they can with an RFC/U. I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on users before agreeing to help. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Or, maybe an ArbCom would be a more appropriate course of action. I wake up today and check my watchlist only to see three more of his arguements on his talk page, more heated discussion at WP:AN/I, more talk about the notability of Bruenor Battlehammer, a new section at WP:Fiction/Noticeboard regarding the notability of the well-sourced Hillsfar, and more arguments over Dan Willis. This has got to stop. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Just found another edit which illustrates Gavin's disruptive edits and accusations of bad faith, COI, etc. [1]. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- LOL! I like the response he got to that. :) BOZ (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have a draft for the RFC/U started here, if anyone would like to help find examples. It's pretty disheartening going through everything and seeing so much disruptive editing and false accusals, so I personally can't do a whole lot at a time. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Understood. A lot of it needs rewriting for a change of tone, in my opinion, to make it more accurate and generally effective. Nothing necessarily needs to be removed, but more explanation in places and reordering certain things is definitely in order. For example, Gavin is absolutely right to be offended that the opening line demands that he "stops his disruptive editing" because while that is an excellent summary of the sum total of our complaints, it does little to explain the problem and can lead to all sorts of misunderstandings for uninvolved parties - who we want to see what we have to say and get their opinions of the conflict so some resolution can be had. We also need to settle on just what the focus is, and maybe list the more serious complaints with the most concrete evidence first rather than just make a rambling laundry list. I'll have a hack at it and see what I can do. BOZ (talk) 00:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- The reason that that is the first line is because that's how the template is set up. I agree that it shouldn't be the first thing, but I wasn't sure whether we could move it or not. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- How is the Desired Outcome now? Feel free to shorten it up, but I think that's closer to where we should be coming from, and fairly comprehensive. I'll have a look at the rest soon. BOZ (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent! I think that it much better sums up the opinions of everyone involved in the project than my version had. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Good. :) If it feels too long at all, feel free to condense it. I'm going to have a look at the Description section. It needs to be rewritten I think, probably in full. The focus needs to be on the clearly disruptive elements, not just on the things on which we disagree with him, but on the things that the majority of contributors would agree are a problem. The disagreements definitely should be presented, but merely as a backdrop to the problem and not as the problem itself. We should describe what we disagree with him on, and how and why, but we the bad behavior that results from the disagreements should be our main focus. I'll get to work on it. BOZ (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- It seems like the perfect length to me. When writing the summary, I tried to keep the {{notability}} disagreements in the background, but now that I look at it again, it does seem more like a focus. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK, whew, finished! Again, feel free to condense that as needed. I went with the outline of the issues first so that they would not get lost later in the comprehensive history of the dispute. I tried to use as neutral language as possible to be accurate while still getting the point across. What do you think? :) BOZ (talk) 04:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Also now that the longstanding history has been properly established, you could probably use some older edits to show that it's been SS/DD for long enough. As such, while we can't use Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender itself to illustrate any conduct issues, you can mine the Articles involved and Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted sections thereon for diffs and other useful things. I'll be honest when saying I'll probably be too busy to look all over the place for diffs this week, but I can hopefully point you in the right direction. :) BOZ (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- It seems like the perfect length to me. When writing the summary, I tried to keep the {{notability}} disagreements in the background, but now that I look at it again, it does seem more like a focus. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Good. :) If it feels too long at all, feel free to condense it. I'm going to have a look at the Description section. It needs to be rewritten I think, probably in full. The focus needs to be on the clearly disruptive elements, not just on the things on which we disagree with him, but on the things that the majority of contributors would agree are a problem. The disagreements definitely should be presented, but merely as a backdrop to the problem and not as the problem itself. We should describe what we disagree with him on, and how and why, but we the bad behavior that results from the disagreements should be our main focus. I'll get to work on it. BOZ (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent! I think that it much better sums up the opinions of everyone involved in the project than my version had. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- How is the Desired Outcome now? Feel free to shorten it up, but I think that's closer to where we should be coming from, and fairly comprehensive. I'll have a look at the rest soon. BOZ (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- The reason that that is the first line is because that's how the template is set up. I agree that it shouldn't be the first thing, but I wasn't sure whether we could move it or not. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Understood. A lot of it needs rewriting for a change of tone, in my opinion, to make it more accurate and generally effective. Nothing necessarily needs to be removed, but more explanation in places and reordering certain things is definitely in order. For example, Gavin is absolutely right to be offended that the opening line demands that he "stops his disruptive editing" because while that is an excellent summary of the sum total of our complaints, it does little to explain the problem and can lead to all sorts of misunderstandings for uninvolved parties - who we want to see what we have to say and get their opinions of the conflict so some resolution can be had. We also need to settle on just what the focus is, and maybe list the more serious complaints with the most concrete evidence first rather than just make a rambling laundry list. I'll have a hack at it and see what I can do. BOZ (talk) 00:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have a draft for the RFC/U started here, if anyone would like to help find examples. It's pretty disheartening going through everything and seeing so much disruptive editing and false accusals, so I personally can't do a whole lot at a time. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- LOL! I like the response he got to that. :) BOZ (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Just found another edit which illustrates Gavin's disruptive edits and accusations of bad faith, COI, etc. [1]. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
-removed indent-Great work BOZ, much better. ColorOfSuffering, thanks for helping find some more examples. As I said, it's hard to do a lot at once.
Anyway, I think that we certainly can use examples from any point in time, including examples regarding non-D&D articles. This dispute has been going on long enough that each party's actions at all points during it should be considered. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK, cool. If I have time (big if), I'll look at the articles on the RFM page and their talk pages for usable diffs - they've got to be loaded with them. BOZ (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I wouldn't overuse really old incidents - kind of put the most recent stuff first - the old incidents put the dispute in context, but we could easily be accused of dredging up old stuff for no reason if half or more of the diffs are a year old. :) BOZ (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Do you think it's ready? -Drilnoth (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- I meant to do more on it today, add some and maybe remove some. Over the next week, I may be very busy and you might not see a lot of me (not sure yet), but I'll be here when I can. After I have a go at it today, if you feel it's ready to go, you can give it a rip at any point. BOZ (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Do you think it's ready? -Drilnoth (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I wouldn't overuse really old incidents - kind of put the most recent stuff first - the old incidents put the dispute in context, but we could easily be accused of dredging up old stuff for no reason if half or more of the diffs are a year old. :) BOZ (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Main page design update: Tabs
I've added tabs to some of the D&D project pages for easier navigation. Right now they probably won't be of much help, but I plan to create additional subpages in the future that they will be very useful for. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
List proposals
Per the discussion above, the project plans to create lists into which primarily in-universe stubs will be merged. This has already been completed for numerous monsters (thanks BOZ!), although those lists could use some work and the descriptions of monsteres lengthened. Additionally, some method of reorganization by name, type, etc. might be called for so that the same monster doesn't have multiple entries. I've already done this sort of thing with Humanoid (Dungeons & Dragons), Draconic creatures, and Undead (Dungeons & Dragons). The main articles that need merging are:
- Monsters
- Deities
- Locations, primarily Greyhawk locations
- Some characters from various settings (for an example, see Companions of the Hall)
Thoughts? -Drilnoth (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps one for authors and/or books which may not meet the requirements all by themselves? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- That makes sense. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed that a list for books should be present, which would include any relevant material on the authors - I fear a separate list for authors could run into issues with WP:BLP and WP:BIO LinaMishima (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds good; those were the very things I was thinking of getting to. Those particular fictional aspects are the hardest to find sources for regarding notability, except for the most obvious cases. BOZ (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, so what should we focus on first? -Drilnoth (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- I would take the order you've got as it is, I suppose, although some overlap here and there couldn't hurt. :) BOZ (talk) 12:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Monsters it is. So the next question: How should they be organized? Type? Edition? Setting? Name? And should they be formatted more like BOZ's lists or my compilations? -Drilnoth (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have created a new project subpage (accessible through the tabs on the main page), where I hope we can list all of the actual articles that will be a part of the project. Basically, any article that should NOT be merged should be added to the list. This is seperate from the watchlist, which also contains redirects, categories, etc. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting. :) As for monsters, why not start out by doing more of what you were doing before? I'm fine with "by type" for the moment, even if there is a distinct 3E-bias there. I like the compilation articles much better than pure lists, personally. :) BOZ (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sure thing; I'll see how to make it less "recentist" (which was partially why I created Draconic creatures). -Drilnoth (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not going to post links on talk pages of articles that I merge things into so that there is easy access to the old talk pages if the ONLY information on the old talk page is the {{D&D}} tag, unless anyone has any objections. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, that makes a ton of sense... former discussion we may need to see, templates are uninteresting. ;) BOZ (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I think I'll try merging deities first; it looks like it could be a bit easier than monsters and it will give me some more experience in the whole thing. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I personally am going to work something up for magic items today. :) BOZ (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I think I'll try merging deities first; it looks like it could be a bit easier than monsters and it will give me some more experience in the whole thing. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, that makes a ton of sense... former discussion we may need to see, templates are uninteresting. ;) BOZ (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not going to post links on talk pages of articles that I merge things into so that there is easy access to the old talk pages if the ONLY information on the old talk page is the {{D&D}} tag, unless anyone has any objections. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sure thing; I'll see how to make it less "recentist" (which was partially why I created Draconic creatures). -Drilnoth (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting. :) As for monsters, why not start out by doing more of what you were doing before? I'm fine with "by type" for the moment, even if there is a distinct 3E-bias there. I like the compilation articles much better than pure lists, personally. :) BOZ (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have created a new project subpage (accessible through the tabs on the main page), where I hope we can list all of the actual articles that will be a part of the project. Basically, any article that should NOT be merged should be added to the list. This is seperate from the watchlist, which also contains redirects, categories, etc. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Monsters it is. So the next question: How should they be organized? Type? Edition? Setting? Name? And should they be formatted more like BOZ's lists or my compilations? -Drilnoth (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- I would take the order you've got as it is, I suppose, although some overlap here and there couldn't hurt. :) BOZ (talk) 12:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, so what should we focus on first? -Drilnoth (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds good; those were the very things I was thinking of getting to. Those particular fictional aspects are the hardest to find sources for regarding notability, except for the most obvious cases. BOZ (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
-removed indent-Good idea. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- You might be able to salvage some content from pre-redirect revisions of Ioun stones and Ring of regeneration if you're merging things into one article. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Redirect pages
There is a discussion on my talk page going on after Craw-daddy requested deletion of talk pages of D&D-related redirect articles that were tagged with {{D&D}}. All input is welcome. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- More specifically I was requesting deletion of talk pages for articles that had been moved to other names, but the talk pages weren't moved along with them. If the talk pages had been moved at the same time, then there would be a redirect from one talk page to the other one (and not a talk page having a {{D&D}} project template on them). --Craw-daddy | T | 16:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- If you think that a redirect is needed, we could manually add the categories to add them to this lists. For example, Category:Redirect-Class D&D articles has basically the same effect as {{D&D}}. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see the harm in having a talk page linking the redirect to our project. The benefit is minimal, as it's more of a completionist thing, but either way it's nothing to make a big deal over. If it helps us keep track of them, I'm in favor of keeping the talk pages. As Drilnoth states, the template puts them in the redirect-class category. BOZ (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, my point is that I would create pages like Talk:City of the Gods (module) that *is* a redirect to the talk page Talk:City of the Gods. I wouldn't create a talk Talk:City of the Gods (module) and then put a {{D&D}} on it saying that the page is a redirect. The way you had it before is that you had "Talk:City of the Gods (module)" showing up in "Category:Redirect-Class D&D articles" and "Talk:City of the Gods" showing up in (currently as I write this) "Category:Unassessed D&D articles". How is this useful? *Make* one page into a redirect to the other one.
- I personally think that pages that have {{D&D|class=redirect}} on them should be pages like Talk:Maztica which is a genuine redirect from one article to another article with a different name (i.e. it's been merged/included into another related article, but one that has a different name). --Craw-daddy | T | 16:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC) P.S. Apparently I'm in the miniority, or I can't effectively get my point across about the difference. --Craw-daddy | T | 16:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Would it be bad to have both in the redirect category? If one was showing up in unassessed, that just means the "class=redirect" parameter was not added. I understand the difference as you're pointing it out, but I'm not sure whether or not it's a significant one. BOZ (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- The page City of the Gods exists as an independent article, whereas Maztica doesn't. Maztica redirects to another article of a different name, hence (I think) the use of a redirect template is proper on the talk page. At the moment City of the Gods is unassessed, and would likely be assessed as a stub (especially given the stub tag on the main page and need for expansion). This would mean you'd have Talk:City of the Gods in Category:Stub-Class D&D articles and (if the page had remained the way it was) Talk:City of the Gods (module) in Category:Redirect-Class D&D articles and I just don't think that's useful at all. If the page had been properly moved Talk:City of the Gods (module) would redirect to Talk:City of the Gods (which is what it does now that I've recreated the page). --Craw-daddy | T | 16:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Just say the word, and I'll recreate all the pages that were deleted, in the fashion that they existed before as if I had never done anything, but I don't think it's the correct way to go in this case. --Craw-daddy | T | 16:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think that that would be good; it really is a completionist thing that shouldn't be argued over. The way I see it, City of the Gods and City of the Gods (module) are two distinct articles, even if the later was moved to the former, both pages exist separately and should be tagged separately. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, and if the move had been done properly in the first place... Any other opinions? The admins who deleted the pages obviously saw nothing controversial about this, given that the only things that existed on the pages were project templates. --Craw-daddy | T | 16:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think that that would be good; it really is a completionist thing that shouldn't be argued over. The way I see it, City of the Gods and City of the Gods (module) are two distinct articles, even if the later was moved to the former, both pages exist separately and should be tagged separately. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Just say the word, and I'll recreate all the pages that were deleted, in the fashion that they existed before as if I had never done anything, but I don't think it's the correct way to go in this case. --Craw-daddy | T | 16:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- The page City of the Gods exists as an independent article, whereas Maztica doesn't. Maztica redirects to another article of a different name, hence (I think) the use of a redirect template is proper on the talk page. At the moment City of the Gods is unassessed, and would likely be assessed as a stub (especially given the stub tag on the main page and need for expansion). This would mean you'd have Talk:City of the Gods in Category:Stub-Class D&D articles and (if the page had remained the way it was) Talk:City of the Gods (module) in Category:Redirect-Class D&D articles and I just don't think that's useful at all. If the page had been properly moved Talk:City of the Gods (module) would redirect to Talk:City of the Gods (which is what it does now that I've recreated the page). --Craw-daddy | T | 16:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Would it be bad to have both in the redirect category? If one was showing up in unassessed, that just means the "class=redirect" parameter was not added. I understand the difference as you're pointing it out, but I'm not sure whether or not it's a significant one. BOZ (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see the harm in having a talk page linking the redirect to our project. The benefit is minimal, as it's more of a completionist thing, but either way it's nothing to make a big deal over. If it helps us keep track of them, I'm in favor of keeping the talk pages. As Drilnoth states, the template puts them in the redirect-class category. BOZ (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- If you think that a redirect is needed, we could manually add the categories to add them to this lists. For example, Category:Redirect-Class D&D articles has basically the same effect as {{D&D}}. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I've recreated all those pages. May I be excused now? --Craw-daddy | T | 23:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- But of course. Thanks for the help! -Drilnoth (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Frankly, I don't think it's "help" that I've done, but a disservice by recreating them, but obviously I'm alone in this. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Believe me; I understand where you're coming from, it's just that I honestly think that having the pages in the appropriate categories is more important than having them be almost-never-used redirects. Let's just agree to disagree and let the matter drop, shall we? It really isn't all that important an issue. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Frankly, I don't think it's "help" that I've done, but a disservice by recreating them, but obviously I'm alone in this. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, let's not. It is more important to our readers that redirects work properly than that the D&D project has a nice big tally of pages. These should all be nuked with {{db-house}} as soon as practical. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Your argument is logical, so let's try to reach a compromise. I want the articles tagged as part of the project; you want them to be logical redirects. We can redirect them, and then manually add Category:Redirect-Class D&D articles and Category:NA-importance D&D articles to them. That way they'd be tagged redirects. The redirect WT:D&D is an example of something like this. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, let's not. It is more important to our readers that redirects work properly than that the D&D project has a nice big tally of pages. These should all be nuked with {{db-house}} as soon as practical. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Perfect. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Dungeon Master
It looks like much of the Dungeon Master content is also appropriate for the game master article. Only the information in the header and mention of the rules books appears to be unique. The only differences that come to mind (besides the rules) are the amount of source material and the type of dice. Otherwise the roles seem to be pretty much the same. Shouldn't the articles be merged? The D&D-unique qualities could instead be inserted into the Dungeon Master's Guide article.—RJH (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think it really matters if they get merged or not; they are similar enough to merge but different enough to keep separate. Just merge it if you want and if someone doesn't agree, it can always be reverted. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Good call. I've tagged these for the merge: is "gamemaster" definitely the most common name overall for these? I'd have thought "games master", possibly? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Reference needed - Heroic Worlds by Lawrence Schick
For the FAC review of Ravenloft (D&D module), it has been requested that a page number from Heroic Worlds by Lawrence Schick be added to a citation. I don't own the book, and was wondering if anyone else might be able to add the information. The user who originally added the reference hasn't been active since May. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Featured Article Candidate: Ravenloft (D&D module)
Hello there! Since Drilnoth didn't more officially announce it, I figured I would. ;) Ravenloft (D&D module) is up for FAC! Check out any comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ravenloft (D&D module), and help out in any way you can! :) BOZ (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yah, I guess that that was kind of lame on my part not to mention it here. I updated the announcements on the project page, but just didn't put anything here. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Good Article Candidates
Hi! I just wanted to remind everyone that Dragons of Despair is a current Good Article Nominee, and I've just nominated Gen Con at BOZ's suggestion. Any improvements that can be made to those articles would be great! -Drilnoth (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I might provide some (hopefully) useful feedback?
- The lead might be on the short side at a single paragraph. Usually I expect to see a paragraph per major section, although two would probably suffice here.
- There seems to be too many short paragraphs, too many short sections, and too much unnecessary bold-facing of the text. Italics should serve in most cases.
- In the Synopsis section, please explain Solace without the reader having to drill down. Also, what does the second sentence have to do with the party? Please relate the geographic location of Solace to the ruined city of Xak Tsaroth.
- If somebody (that has never played D&D before) started reading "first level of a more traditional style dungeon" or "time based and zone location wilderness encounters", what would they make of it?
- Several of the references are not used for inline citations. Can these either be used to reference text, or be moved to a further reading section?
- Some of the text needs a copy edit.
Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice! I assume that yuo are referring to Dragons of Despair. I'll look into the various issues tonight or tomorrow. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, Dragons of Despair. A good place to get more feedback is Wikipedia:Peer review. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice! I assume that yuo are referring to Dragons of Despair. I'll look into the various issues tonight or tomorrow. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Images for deletion
Image:Beholder.jpg is up for deletion here, if anyone wishes to comment on it. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
What to include?
We have articles on most every 3rd edition book, including stubs like Complete Champion and Spell Compendium. Personally, I think that we should try to add similar coverage of older editions, as I'm working on with The Complete Book of Dwarves. The question then, as brought up here, is whether such articles should be kept on their own or if they should be part of longer articles. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Merge them now, split them if and when they're getting too big and detailed for one article. Otherwise you're just going to see the same cycle of deletion proposals in future. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- My goal was to make them large enough right off the start that the merging wouldn't be needed. I'm still working on The Complete Book of Dwarves, and it will probably be quite a bit longer than it is right now when I'm done. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |