| Revision as of 01:29, 31 July 2012 editRJHall (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers90,673 edits →Arbitrary break← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:12, 31 July 2012 edit undoJclemens (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers45,423 edits →Next step regarding non-notable creatures: more IDHTNext edit → | ||
| Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
| :::Jclemens, I agree with you, both on the nature of sources and what should be done with the articles for which they were found. However, I think it will be impossible to just unredirect any of those articles and add the sources we have, because these guys will just reject such attempts and redirect them again anyway. ] (]) 01:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC) | :::Jclemens, I agree with you, both on the nature of sources and what should be done with the articles for which they were found. However, I think it will be impossible to just unredirect any of those articles and add the sources we have, because these guys will just reject such attempts and redirect them again anyway. ] (]) 01:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::Unless the articles become ''based on'' independent sources, they'll just be redirected again, because they were redirected for failing to meet ] and ], not just for ]. Adding a questionable source doesn't circumvent that consensus. The three articles removed from the AfD were not "quite appropriately improved", and were not removed from the AfD because they were improved to sufficient notability standards, and if those aren't improved then they're likely going to discussed at AfD. I have no doubt that these three are not notable, but I want to give editors a time to find sources before opening another AfD. Improving ''those'' articles is the "obvious" thing to do, instead of adding a questionable source to a recently redirected article (this is assuming your talking about adding the kind of sources that were added to the three articles that were removed), because your definition of independent sources isn't supported by any policy, guideline, essay, or consensus anywhere on any level, and ] completely rejected your above definition of an independent source. If the intent is to undo a consensus in this manner instead of attempting to improve the existing articles, I would recommend discussing the proposed sources at ], and if they agree that the sources you're adding are independent sources, and the article is at least somewhat based on such sources, that would be justification to undo a redirect. - ]] 01:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC) | ::Unless the articles become ''based on'' independent sources, they'll just be redirected again, because they were redirected for failing to meet ] and ], not just for ]. Adding a questionable source doesn't circumvent that consensus. The three articles removed from the AfD were not "quite appropriately improved", and were not removed from the AfD because they were improved to sufficient notability standards, and if those aren't improved then they're likely going to discussed at AfD. I have no doubt that these three are not notable, but I want to give editors a time to find sources before opening another AfD. Improving ''those'' articles is the "obvious" thing to do, instead of adding a questionable source to a recently redirected article (this is assuming your talking about adding the kind of sources that were added to the three articles that were removed), because your definition of independent sources isn't supported by any policy, guideline, essay, or consensus anywhere on any level, and ] completely rejected your above definition of an independent source. If the intent is to undo a consensus in this manner instead of attempting to improve the existing articles, I would recommend discussing the proposed sources at ], and if they agree that the sources you're adding are independent sources, and the article is at least somewhat based on such sources, that would be justification to undo a redirect. - ]] 01:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :::Really, this is tiresome. You're close to asking for a Time Magazine article on each individual critter, which is excessive. These fictional elements have, in some cases, 30+ years of sourcing in the industry, have changed over 6 editorially-independent editions of the game itself published by multiple companies, numerous magazine articles and sourcebooks published by other companies... and that's not enough, according to your arguments. The level of ] involved in the arguments for redirection is... peculiarly high, and reminds me of some banned sockpuppetteers, actually. ] (]) 02:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:12, 31 July 2012
 | Dungeons & Dragons Project‑class | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| WikiProject | Portal | Assessment | Cleanup | References | Mergers |
| Watchlist (changes) | Article alerts | Article hits | Where did the articles go? |
 Archives |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
 | WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons
| ||||||||||||
| Dungeons & Dragons Project‑class | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45Auto-archiving period: 31 days  |
Lamia
Hello, after two AFDs for Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons), which closed on "no consensus", I'm bringing to your attention that after a second AFD with the same result, a discussion on whether to merge or not has opened on the article talk page. BOZ (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Article replicated to Wikibooks:Dungeons & Dragons/Monsters/Lamia. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Field Guide to Dungeons & Dragons?
Regarding the AfD over Death watch beetle (Dungeons & Dragons) and so forth, I wonder sometimes whether Misplaced Pages is the best place for these types of articles? They keep coming up for deletion discussions and it often proves difficult for them to satisfy WP:GNG. However, there is a Dungeons & Dragons entry over on Wikibooks. Maybe it would be constructive to build that into a "Field Guide" type of work that contains article entries such as the death watch beetle? There's a lot of trimmed or deleted material we could probably recover and migrate to such a book, giving it some real depth. Plus we can link to the individual chapters from the higher level articles on Misplaced Pages. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- We could perhaps make a start by always migrating any AfD'd D&D articles over there for safe keeping, sans the fair-use images (unless somebody wants to replicate the justification templates on the image pages). Regards, RJH (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Also any redirects to List of... articles will likely have articles buried in the history. I can also see deleted articles and transwiki if necessary. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, Casliber. As an experiment, I copied the death watch beetle article over to wikibooks:Dungeons & Dragons/Monsters/Death watch beetle. Most of the links needed to be converted into transwiki links. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Also any redirects to List of... articles will likely have articles buried in the history. I can also see deleted articles and transwiki if necessary. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, the entire list of AfD'd articles have been replicated to b:Dungeons & Dragons/Monsters, with some editing and so forth. Only the images are missing. If necessary, we can use interMediawiki links to those articles using:
- ]
I'm not familiar with the redirect/deletion history for this project. Is there anything else we want copied over? Regards, RJH (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like your good-faith efforts were taken the wrong way. BOZ (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, it just looks like a modified argument possibly originating in confirmation bias. His preference was the same either way. I definitely don't support getting rid of those monster articles, although I do expect they will keep coming up for AfD (and so will suffer from attrition). Ergo, the WikiBooks site may serve as a safe harbor of sorts for what are otherwise valid contributions; my attempt at a pragmatic solution.
Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, it just looks like a modified argument possibly originating in confirmation bias. His preference was the same either way. I definitely don't support getting rid of those monster articles, although I do expect they will keep coming up for AfD (and so will suffer from attrition). Ergo, the WikiBooks site may serve as a safe harbor of sorts for what are otherwise valid contributions; my attempt at a pragmatic solution.
- Looks like your good-faith efforts were taken the wrong way. BOZ (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
Just a little progress update on this mini-project:
- There's a process on Wikibooks with the shortcut "WB:RFI" where a helpful admin will import an article from Misplaced Pages, along with its revision history. You can then revert back to the version you want to keep and perform the requisite format modifications. It's pretty nice.
- I put together a little write-up on the conversion process I have been using out on the B:Talk:Dungeons & Dragons/Monsters page. Most of the kinks have been worked out, I hope. I'm planning to restore a number of other monster articles from their redirect histories. These are currently red-links on B:Dungeons & Dragons/Monsters. I'll probably try the WP:RFI method for those.
Finally a poll question: as an experiment, I tried adding a couple of footnotes to the WikiBooks monster articles on the List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–1976) article. (See this note for example.) Would people prefer that I:
- continue to do this using footnotes,
- directly link the monster name (in the table) to the Wikibooks article using an intermedia link, or
- not do it at all?
Regards, RJH (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- As for me, I'm not too concerned with what you do or how you do it, but in future please wait for a deletion discussion to be over before you transwiki - if only because an article already moved to another wiki is one that some people can argue "doesn't need to be here anymore". If it's redirected, the text is still in the edit history, and if it's deleted I can give you the text. BOZ (talk) 11:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- This is problematic for me because once the discussion is closed and the decision becomes to delete, the topic is removed and I no longer have access. Likewise, the fact that a copy is on WikiBooks is irrelevant to the resolution of the AfD discussion. It either satisfies WP:GNG or it doesn't. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- If it closes as delete, I can give you a copy, so that's no big deal. :) BOZ (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- There's a whole slew of articles that have already been redirected, so I'll be busy enough (slowly) migrating those without worrying about new deletes. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- If it closes as delete, I can give you a copy, so that's no big deal. :) BOZ (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- This is problematic for me because once the discussion is closed and the decision becomes to delete, the topic is removed and I no longer have access. Likewise, the fact that a copy is on WikiBooks is irrelevant to the resolution of the AfD discussion. It either satisfies WP:GNG or it doesn't. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Adding a collapsable infobox to a table
Specifically, I wanted to know it if possible to add a template such as {{Infobox D&D creature}} to the tables on List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters for the purposes of merging in articles. The idea is to have it collapsible so that it doesn't take up too much space, but at the same time make it available for anyone who wants to view it. I guess I got some inspiration from how pages like List of minor X-Men characters and List of G.I. Joe video games are organized, so I wanted to bring some of that functionality in. Is this a simple "oh, here you go" fix, or am I asking the basically impossible? I asked at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical), but didn't get much of a helpful answer, so maybe someone here might know. BOZ (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- A consideration is how much impact that would have on the download time for handheld devices. The actual implementation probably isn't that hard; the template already has a 'collapsible' option. I'd just try it out on a copy in your sandbox. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Good point, so I probably wouldn't want to go overboard with it. Actually, I added the "collapsible" option to the infobox, and probably rather clumsily at that; I tried it out on beholder and it didn't seem to work, unless I'm just doing that wrong. I'll give it a shot in my sandbox when I have a chance and see if I can get it to work. BOZ (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:Infobox D&D creature
The {{Infobox D&D creature}} template could perhaps use a little better documentation because it is not immediately obvious how some of the parameters are intended to be employed. (At least before they appear in an article.) Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I gave it a go... don't shoot me! RJH (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Next step regarding non-notable creatures
Given the results Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Death watch beetle (Dungeons & Dragons), what is the next step to address the same notability issues regarding a vast majority of similarly non-notable creatures that will cause the least disruption? -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm...
- Right, well assuming that this project is still interested in retaining information of this type, I'll just comment that it is only mildly *COUGH*retarded *COUGH* distracting to have to jump over to WikiBooks in order to view it. The drawbacks are that it's a non-trivial, slightly time-consuming port to do the cross-links and re-formatting. Project editors will need to get their account working on WikiBooks and it will be more difficult to monitor and maintain the D&D information in two places rather than one. (It'd be awesome if we could have merged watch lists!) But WikiBooks has the decidedly positive benefit that we can write information in the form of a book, rather than using the more constrained form of an encyclopedia. My 2cp worth. Regards, RJH (talk) 01:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- The next step is just to start redirecting any article without independent, WP:RS sources showing that they meet WP:GNG. If anyone objects to a redirect we can have another AFD with a list of articles. Do them all at once or in batches, it doesn't matter. DreamGuy (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'd appreciate it if you could publish a list of the redirects that are created. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- If you go to one of the category pages, , the redirects are the ones in italics. You would need to click on their histories to see if there was ever any salvageable content, but if there was any, its not lost. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- But i guess that would only help if the category is left on the page when the redirect is created. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- RJHall, I'll make a list of any redirects I can find that have had any content in their history and place them at User:SudoGhost/Sandboxes/Orange, so that you can have access that content. If anyone does redirect an article in this way for any reason, please feel free to add it to this sandbox. - SudoGhost 01:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- If you go to one of the category pages, , the redirects are the ones in italics. You would need to click on their histories to see if there was ever any salvageable content, but if there was any, its not lost. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'd appreciate it if you could publish a list of the redirects that are created. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- The proper next step is to actually go through the sources, as were added in the AfD, to demonstrate notability. I understand that there are some participants here who don't think that licensed material constitutes an independent, secondary source, but leaving aside individuals not interested in actually using fictional-element appropriate sources to discuss fictional elements, the fact remains that a number of items were quite appropriately improved during the implausibly large AfD. Given that a few of them have been improved, there is obviously a reasonable chance that any of them can be. The ones which have been improved seem to be the ones with the most unique names. So, the obvious thing to do next is to approach all of the intially-redirected articles, and find the remaining, as-yet unlocated independent reliable sources and add them to the articles, un-redirecting in the process. Jclemens (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Jclemens, I agree with you, both on the nature of sources and what should be done with the articles for which they were found. However, I think it will be impossible to just unredirect any of those articles and add the sources we have, because these guys will just reject such attempts and redirect them again anyway. BOZ (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Unless the articles become based on independent sources, they'll just be redirected again, because they were redirected for failing to meet WP:GNG and WP:SOURCES, not just for WP:GNG. Adding a questionable source doesn't circumvent that consensus. The three articles removed from the AfD were not "quite appropriately improved", and were not removed from the AfD because they were improved to sufficient notability standards, and if those aren't improved then they're likely going to discussed at AfD. I have no doubt that these three are not notable, but I want to give editors a time to find sources before opening another AfD. Improving those articles is the "obvious" thing to do, instead of adding a questionable source to a recently redirected article (this is assuming your talking about adding the kind of sources that were added to the three articles that were removed), because your definition of independent sources isn't supported by any policy, guideline, essay, or consensus anywhere on any level, and WP:RSN completely rejected your above definition of an independent source. If the intent is to undo a consensus in this manner instead of attempting to improve the existing articles, I would recommend discussing the proposed sources at WP:RSN, and if they agree that the sources you're adding are independent sources, and the article is at least somewhat based on such sources, that would be justification to undo a redirect. - SudoGhost 01:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Really, this is tiresome. You're close to asking for a Time Magazine article on each individual critter, which is excessive. These fictional elements have, in some cases, 30+ years of sourcing in the industry, have changed over 6 editorially-independent editions of the game itself published by multiple companies, numerous magazine articles and sourcebooks published by other companies... and that's not enough, according to your arguments. The level of WP:IDHT involved in the arguments for redirection is... peculiarly high, and reminds me of some banned sockpuppetteers, actually. Jclemens (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)