Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Role-playing games

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

More specific discussions used to take place on these three pages:

For now, though, please place all discussion on this main Talk page.


Help with a bunch of new pages[edit]

IP user 208.47.202.254 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is currently creating a bunch of pages on Judges Guild publications. Notability seems unclear at this stage but since I know nothing about RPGs, I'd appreciate it if someone from the project looked into it. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible new reference work for citations[edit]

Felipe Pepe et al. (2018) have just released "The CRPG Book Project: Sharing the History of Computer Role-Playing Games" in PDF format. Would this be a suitable source for referencing game articles? It's self-published so I'm not certain.

  • Pepe, Felipe, ed. (February 2018), The CRGP Book Project: Sharing the History of Computer Role-Playing Games (PDF), retrieved 2018-02-05.

Praemonitus (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject[edit]

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background[edit]

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Game module?[edit]

Resolved

Do we have nowhere to link for this? Modules (add-on game publications with new "adventures") are a key aspect of role-playing games like Dungeons & Dragons, and are the model for the later advent of DLCs for computer RPGs. Seems like a major omission from the encyclopedia, though we do have an article on the (renamed) concept for D&D in particular. What I've got in Module (disambiguation) right now is:

Good enough for the short term, I guess, but it's just weird that game module and Module (gaming) are redlinks.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, The lead of expansion pack is what you're looking for. --Izno (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah! Nice. I redirected those there, and added the term to the lead.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Traveller (role-playing game)[edit]

This article, which is rightly considered to be of high importance, needs massive work. For some reason, it's been rated 'B', but there is no way that it could be considered at that stage right now. It's minimally sourced, full of possible original research, doesn't provide much actual encyclopedic value, and is generally a mess. Can we at least get a re-evaluation of its grading? Whateley23 (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

You're right. At best it's a "C" class article. Praemonitus (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Should I just make the change unilaterally? I've never messed with WikiProject items before. Whateley23 (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not unilateral if someone agreed with you. :) For the most part, nobody really blinks an eye at this sort of change if it reflects the rating of the article. --Izno (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources[edit]

The reliability of such sources as Designers & Dragons, The Dragon, White Dwarf and Space Gamer is being questioned at AfD and more sources may be questioned at the RSN. It would be good for the project to have more eyes in those venues, since without those key secondary sources it is difficult to keep the articles well-documented, especially for Notability. Newimpartial (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

While you're not wrong, I'm not sure what you are proposing. Yes, attacking the source is the last resort of WP:IDONTLIKEIT crusaders, but I always sort of took that as par for the course on Wikipedia. About the most functional thing I can think of it to keep links handy for where sources might have been vetted through the RS noticeboard (if they have) to forestall the exhaustion of defending the same RS over and over again. Though keeping such a list of such RSes on hand might, in itself, be of value for haggard editors.- Sangrolu (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Sangrolu, like this one? :) Also see the note below about the RSN discussion for Designers & Dragons. BOZ (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Reliability of Designers & Dragons[edit]

The reliability the book Designers & Dragons as a source is currently under discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. [1]

Assistance requested with Rokugan article[edit]

I'm asking for assistance here as the Rokugan article has been removed twice in April without a process such as an AfD request being carried out first. The first time was on April 15th, accompanied. The article was restored by someone on April 20th and the editor who did the original change to a redirect repeated the change, saying that sources should be added before the redirect should be undone.

Before the edits turning the article into a redirect, there were a number of constructive edits being made every year, so I don't consider the article abandoned.

I agree with the request to add more citations to the article, as I think this would be very useful to readers, but I do not believe this article should have been removed from Wikipedia without some sort of discussion and some sort of attempt to seek out editors who could improve the article. Big Mac (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

It may make sense to establish a Wikipedia:Notability (role-playing games) guideline along the lines of Wikipedia:Notability (video games). That way we can have a common consensus on the notability of these subjects. Praemonitus (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd agree with that. I must say though that Rokugan article is pretty poor. It's all in universe and most of it probably should be chucked out. It details obscure creatures for example. A lot of it falls into the Fancruft area. I'm sure it can be made better if it was actually about Rokugan as a world/country and not about the clans and a few denizens. Canterbury Tail talk 15:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

OSR[edit]

Did this edit introduce reliable sources as User:DHBoggs claims? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, the references are to the primary sources mentioned in the article. For example, I mention Dragonsfoot, and linked to that site, which contains the evidence (founding date and content) mentioned in the article. This is no different then mentioning the founding date of an online periodical, for example, and then linking to that periodical for proof of date and general content. DHBoggscontribs) 14:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

It'a source for the founding date, but not for the most important part: a website with a lively forum discussion and free creator content, heralded the resurgence of interest in "OSR" gaming".--Moroboshi (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't have an article, leading to a subtopic occupying the base title?[edit]

I was quite surprised to learn the Chick tract Dark Dungeons had a Wikipedia article, until I clicked the link and saw that it was actually about a satyrical adaptation of the original. It might be the lapsed gamer in me that was big into this stuff in the early 2000s and not so much by the mid-2010s, but is the film really better-known than the comic? Or is this a weird quirk of Wikipedia's notability guidelines and inclusion criteria that the lesser-known film adaptation gets an article but the original does not, leading to article titles that violate WP:LEAST? Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC[edit]

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Frank Frazetta?[edit]

The Frank Frazetta article's talk page indicates that the article falls within the scope of WP:RPG. Is that accurate? Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

There's a D&D 4e adventure module The Adventures of Frank Frazetta’s Death Dealer: Shadows of Mirahan that's based on the Frank Frazetta’s Death Dealer comic book series, so I suppose there's a tenuous connection. Praemonitus (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Mazes & Monsters[edit]

this movie represents the time that the psychology community could have stood up for role-play as one of the fundamental ways in which children learn to navigate life situations to which they do not yet have access, and also as one of the primary tools the science of psychology has used throughout history to allow adults to safely learn to navigate situations that are potentially dangerous triggers in real life.

it seems very ironic, that the WikiProject that would benefit most by reversing the damage done by the PR ScheißeSturm of those days, is now turning its back on the sense of Role-playing that could have dodged the bullet of 3 decades of bad press for rpgs. is this knowing (or unknowing) payback, or is there a more compelling explanation for continuing to invest in the rift that nearly killed role-playing games? Longpinkytoes (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOTFORUM. --Izno (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Also see WP:NPOV. You might find the moral panic article interesting. Praemonitus (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Noir RPG[edit]

Hey good people and fellow pen and paper RPG (tabletop RPG? Which name is better). I've seen presentation of Noir RPG more than 20 years ago somewhere in Eastern Europe.

And after all these years I still got engraved in my memory a picture of protesting un-deads with a banner "Zombies are people to!". Really cool. I checked online - no pdf to buy, price on amazon is $65 (next offer - over $100). Not good. I'm not in the fandom since I became a parent, but iirc there a couple games now which doing the same thing that Noir RPG tried in mid 90s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattness pl (talkcontribs) 10:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a suggested change on Wikipedia? --Izno (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)