| Revision as of 23:09, 28 August 2012 editFolken de Fanel (talk | contribs)6,134 editsm →Another AfD← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:12, 28 August 2012 edit undoJclemens (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers45,423 edits →Another AfD: rNext edit → | ||
| Line 343: | Line 343: | ||
| People may be interested in a new AfD ] -- ] 22:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC) | People may be interested in a new AfD ] -- ] 22:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :Also, since AfDs on D&D creatures seem to always degenerate into "us against them" between the usual suspects (myself included), and that there seems to be some kind of reluctance for some contributors to accept AfD outcomes as consensus on sources, I've started ] to have new views on the question.] (]) 23:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC) | :Also, since AfDs on D&D creatures seem to always degenerate into "us against them" between the usual suspects (myself included), and that there seems to be some kind of reluctance for some contributors to accept AfD outcomes as consensus on sources, I've started ] to have new views on the question.] (]) 23:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::Yes, it would benefit you to recruit other people to the discussion who haven't been subject to your poor conduct, textwalling, editwarring, incivility, and other misbehaviour. After all, if they simply drop in with a non-expert opinion on the texts and then leave, they might not notice how bad your conduct actually is. ] (]) 23:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:12, 28 August 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  |
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)
BTW, if you google "Death watch beetle dungeons & dragons", the Wikibooks entry is now fourth on the list; just below the redirect and a couple of wikipedia images. The ports seem to be gradually moving up the search list. Regards, RJH (talk) 02:23, 1 August 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)
- Thanks for that Sudoghost. I can't find sources for much of this stuff but I hate to see it erased. I'd rather see it transwikied than expunged totally. Sad thing is that most wikis I've seen are pretty stagnant.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 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)
- (e/c)There is no exemption in WP:N for "thirty year old fictional elements" - ALL articles are required to have substantial coverage in reliable third party sources or there should not be a stand alone article for them. Period. Repeated regurgitation by primary sources doesnt matter, this has been settled with the 12-year olds long ago. That it has taken 40-year olds this long to catch on to basic policy is a bit sad.-- The Red Pen of Doom 02:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- They DO have plenty of coverage. You and others just keep saying "primary", "not independent", "not based on RS'es" ad infinitum, without considering whether the sort of sourcing you're requesting is actually appropriate for the fictional elements. I say that the sourcing that's been presented IS independent, IS reliable, and DOES meet the GNG. I know policy perfectly well, and I disagree with your interpretation of it. The textwalling provided in opposition has almost universally disparaged those who disagree with the interpretation and application of notability as not understanding or agreeing with it. WP:POKEMON is not the governing precedent (if Misplaced Pages even had those...) because independent companies continue to publish material based on these fictional monsters. Jclemens (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- "whether the sort of sourcing you're requesting is actually appropriate for the fictional elements. " and again, there is no exception in WP:N or WP:V for "fictional elements" - quite the opposite. The POLICY WP:V is quite clear "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it." -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- They DO have plenty of coverage. You and others just keep saying "primary", "not independent", "not based on RS'es" ad infinitum, without considering whether the sort of sourcing you're requesting is actually appropriate for the fictional elements. I say that the sourcing that's been presented IS independent, IS reliable, and DOES meet the GNG. I know policy perfectly well, and I disagree with your interpretation of it. The textwalling provided in opposition has almost universally disparaged those who disagree with the interpretation and application of notability as not understanding or agreeing with it. WP:POKEMON is not the governing precedent (if Misplaced Pages even had those...) because independent companies continue to publish material based on these fictional monsters. Jclemens (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- ...and yet the number of these articles actually redirected by consensus is..."peculiarly high"...yet I have the WP:IDHT issue because you don't like this fact? Your definition of "editorially-independent" (even if this were the sole definition of an independent source, which is it not and never has been) has been rejected by consensus at both WP:RSN and multiple AfDs, yet again I somehow have the WP:IDHT issue. The fact that you're now resorting to ad hominem "sockpuppetteers" comments speaks volumes. If you think I'm a "sockpuppetteer" then put up or shut up, because otherwise it's just a pointless and disruptive personal attack. - SudoGhost 02:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hi guys, can we all please try to be nice and hold a calm discussion without escalating accusations? Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hi guys, can we all please try to be nice and hold a calm discussion without escalating accusations? Thank you.
- (e/c)There is no exemption in WP:N for "thirty year old fictional elements" - ALL articles are required to have substantial coverage in reliable third party sources or there should not be a stand alone article for them. Period. Repeated regurgitation by primary sources doesnt matter, this has been settled with the 12-year olds long ago. That it has taken 40-year olds this long to catch on to basic policy is a bit sad.-- The Red Pen of Doom 02:30, 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)
I think we're past the point of reasoning with Jclemens and BOZ. Seriously, we had a grouped AfD with lengthy discussions that closed on "redirect" just 4 days ago (and which only reflected what was said at multiple AfDs during the last the month). And despite that, they're still coming back with their arguments that go against policy, telling us to "leave aside" the essential issue of what consitutes a valid source of notability, which was at the core of the recent AfD - as if it never happened. My view on this is that we can let them discuss and waste their time if they want (trying to argue with them will only earn us more bad faith and sockpuppetry accusations, and I think we had enough of those in the AfD), but if they try to restore the articles while specifically ignoring the conclusions that the consensus reached (OGL/D20 campain settings and bestiaries are not secondary independent sources and thus can't prove notability), then we can go report that to WP:AN/I for disruptive editing. As they're both admins they know better than that (at least they should be), I don't think we'll come to that and I take this discussion more as their last desperate cry rather than a serious attempt at impacting articles. We've been discussing the notability issue for more than a month, at RSN and 6 separate AfDs, I don't think anyone can say those supporting redirects have avoided discussion and attempts at consensus-building, however there was a fundamental disagreement that discussion couldn't solve. The last AfD had 28 participants and was a good occasion to settle the dispute once and for all. And it has been settled, notability requires secondary independent sources and the sources proposed by Jclemens and the other don't match that. We have a consensus and I don't see the point in continuing to debate. Yes, consensus can change, but certainly not after 4 days.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Can you place links to the other recent AfDs here so that they are centralized and the consistent application of N is easily noted in the support of future actions? -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- There was no such consensus regarding the overall use of D20/OGL sources in the AfD, FdF. With or without the third-party bestiaries most of the articles did not meet WP:GNG as they only had one source, so somehow inferring that the AfD being closed as a redirect somehow shows that there is "consensus that there is a reliable source" is not credible. At the time the AfD was closed, some more sources were found, but I had expressed doubts that two particular sources were independent of one another, which is not the same as indicting all OGL sources (or all bestiaries, etc.) The closing admin mentioned that part of the reason he closed them as a redirect was that he recognized that research regarding sources is ongoing, which is different from saying that such research was pointless or ill-founded, as you infer. - Sangrolu (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- I never said that trying to locate more sources was pointless. Yes, VernoWhitney said that he closed on redirect "rather than deleting them" (and not rather than keeping them) to allow for the hypothetical inclusion of reliable sources. I do maintain however that D20/OGL books is not where you'll find reliable sources, and VernoWhitney specifically refered to this objection on his talk page ("Now part of the issue covered in general in that discussion was what exactly constituted a reliable source when it came to fictional gaming creatures") and never identified the added sources as reliable. I can only say what I've already said to Jclemens on the question of consensus: the AfD was closed on redirect on the basis of a consensus that argued that D20/OGL books and primary sources on other RPGs in general are not "secondary" or "independent" sources as per definitions in WP:GNG, I have specifically mentionned that to the closing admin who didn't rebut. That more of the same D20/OGL content was found did not change the premise of the "redirect" comments on D20/OGL books, on which the closure is based, and other sources have been discussed in the AfD and acknowledged as insignificant. While the AfD result is clear-cut, if you and others are really not satisfied with it we can always take it to RS/N for more discussion, but we've already done that before and I see no reason for the outcome to be any different, so I'm afraid you will have to find it in yourself to let go...Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- The previous RS/N (I assume you are referring to the one in Talk:Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons)) was specifically with respect to the Pathfinder bestiary, which you should recall I already agreed prior to the RS/N input did not constitute a reliable source because it was just an edit of the original material (i.e., not significant coverage.) That does not mean that other sources cannot include significant coverage. Each deserves to be analyzed on its own merits. - Sangrolu (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- And I've analyzed the other sources with the same criteria as used by the contributor from RS/N and found that the problem was the same as with Pathfinder on Lamia. That content differ in its nature as original fiction or copy/paste is one thing, true, but that doesn't have any effect on the broader assessment per the RS/N criteria. Original fiction for a entirely different game than D&D makes it primary source not about the topic, original fiction for D&D makes it primary source on D&D, copy-pasted fiction for D&D makes it primary source on D&D, copy-pasted fiction for a entirely different game than D&D makes it primary source not about the topic. For different primary materials on a creature bearing the same name to be relevant, you need a secondary independent source (that is, other than the individual sources of said fictions) to comment on that, to bridge the gap. Which is exactly what is required when writing about mythological creatures, for example. What makes them notable (according to WP's standards) is not that they would appear in different writings with different authors, but that researchers have commented on this fact. Otherwise, the creature is not notable by merely existing in notable works of fiction (unless it is used by an author in a certain way, which would have received comments from critics). Again, my view is that the AfD upheld consensus on these assertions, if you want to further discuss this, the best venue that I can see is RS/N, and again, as we already had comments from there before, I can't see why things would turn out different.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- The previous RS/N (I assume you are referring to the one in Talk:Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons)) was specifically with respect to the Pathfinder bestiary, which you should recall I already agreed prior to the RS/N input did not constitute a reliable source because it was just an edit of the original material (i.e., not significant coverage.) That does not mean that other sources cannot include significant coverage. Each deserves to be analyzed on its own merits. - Sangrolu (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- I never said that trying to locate more sources was pointless. Yes, VernoWhitney said that he closed on redirect "rather than deleting them" (and not rather than keeping them) to allow for the hypothetical inclusion of reliable sources. I do maintain however that D20/OGL books is not where you'll find reliable sources, and VernoWhitney specifically refered to this objection on his talk page ("Now part of the issue covered in general in that discussion was what exactly constituted a reliable source when it came to fictional gaming creatures") and never identified the added sources as reliable. I can only say what I've already said to Jclemens on the question of consensus: the AfD was closed on redirect on the basis of a consensus that argued that D20/OGL books and primary sources on other RPGs in general are not "secondary" or "independent" sources as per definitions in WP:GNG, I have specifically mentionned that to the closing admin who didn't rebut. That more of the same D20/OGL content was found did not change the premise of the "redirect" comments on D20/OGL books, on which the closure is based, and other sources have been discussed in the AfD and acknowledged as insignificant. While the AfD result is clear-cut, if you and others are really not satisfied with it we can always take it to RS/N for more discussion, but we've already done that before and I see no reason for the outcome to be any different, so I'm afraid you will have to find it in yourself to let go...Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Brownie (Dungeons & Dragons) was not closed as delete or redirect
I believe the Brownie (Dungeons & Dragons) article was pretty clearly excluded from the AfD per the discussion of the closing admin at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Death watch beetle (Dungeons & Dragons). To quote, "The struck out articles are considered to have their nomination withdrawn". Ergo, the page in question did not arrive at a consensus because of an opinion on the part of the nominator that it should be struck. The persistent revert to the redirect may be bordering on disruptive behavior and should stop. If there is a continuing question of notability, it should be taken through the AfD separately. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- The page in question was not redirected by the admin who closed and redirected the other articles in the mass AfD, true.
- The implementation of the AfD close was brought here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dungeons_&_Dragons#Next_step_regarding_non-notable_creatures to which the consensus appears to be that the results of the mass afd should be applied to other articles in the same condition of not being based on signficant coverage of third party sources, which, certainly still applies to Brownie (Dungeons & Dragons). -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm skeptical about your reasoning because your initial revert was made prior to anything resembling consensus. I will let it pass this time and assume you're not intentionally being disruptive. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) I don't see any consensus in the above section. —Torchiest edits 19:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- I, too, do not see consensus for the redirect. I see assertions, but that's it. Jclemens (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- You really gonna stick by the untennable position and drag everyone through another series of AfD's ??? -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Or you could join us and help improve the coverage of the creatures... Remember, they're not cookie cutters; each has a differing amount of coverage, and the difficulty of demonstrating that coverage varies. Jclemens (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes the coverage by third parties will vary. On a scale of 1-100 most will range between .0001 and .005. And the ones above that will have already had the sources added. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Let's be careful about prejudice here; each article must be judged on its own merits. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- And when the "merits" of one match for "quality" the "merits" of others that have been judged and found lacking, there really is no need to continue to have the same discussions.. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- It looks I'm not making myself clear here: I'm not arguing in favor of either keeping these articles or turning them into redirects. I'm arguing in favor of caution while assessing whether an article should be redirected. Is that clear enough? If an article has at least one independent source, then it may well have more. At that point a review is not harmful, even if it requires a little more time. Feel free to post here any articles where you find said references and we will be happy to check it. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC) ~
- OK, which independent source, then ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Mmm, I'm not clear what you're asking. Something that satisfies WP:INDY, like a review or an independent book. The usual. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- My point is that we haven't found any source of this kind yet, that's why I consider talks of restoration premature. I was not particularly in favor of redirecting Brownie and the like as soon at the AfD was closed, but on the other hand, calling for another AfD would seem to be contradiction with the conclusions reached in the last one.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Mmm, I'm not clear what you're asking. Something that satisfies WP:INDY, like a review or an independent book. The usual. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- OK, which independent source, then ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- It looks I'm not making myself clear here: I'm not arguing in favor of either keeping these articles or turning them into redirects. I'm arguing in favor of caution while assessing whether an article should be redirected. Is that clear enough? If an article has at least one independent source, then it may well have more. At that point a review is not harmful, even if it requires a little more time. Feel free to post here any articles where you find said references and we will be happy to check it. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC) ~
- And when the "merits" of one match for "quality" the "merits" of others that have been judged and found lacking, there really is no need to continue to have the same discussions.. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Let's be careful about prejudice here; each article must be judged on its own merits. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes the coverage by third parties will vary. On a scale of 1-100 most will range between .0001 and .005. And the ones above that will have already had the sources added. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Or you could join us and help improve the coverage of the creatures... Remember, they're not cookie cutters; each has a differing amount of coverage, and the difficulty of demonstrating that coverage varies. Jclemens (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- You really gonna stick by the untennable position and drag everyone through another series of AfD's ??? -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay. In that case I can perform an independent check of the listed sources from the history archives and if I run across any concerns I'll bring them up here for discussion. No matter. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, some of these articles will be more notable than others. Due diligence should be taken before applying a mass redirect. If an article has at least one independent source, then it should probably be verified. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- The aim of the recent AfD was to reach a consensus not only on individual articles, but on the overall meaning of "secondary independent sources" related to the notability of acticles about fiction.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've read the nomination. Misplaced Pages:Other stuff exists cuts both ways here; I am merely requesting due diligence and not abject prejudice. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Really? Well, then it failed to articulate that goal, and failed to achieve it as well. Jclemens (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- You're not using Misplaced Pages:Other stuff exists appropriately. The point isn't that other articles don't exist, but that WP:GNG set sourcing standards that the proposed sources don't match. And Jclemens, yes, the nomination did articulate that goal ("Books published specifically to be used for a game system are not independent sources for that game system; there are no sources giving third-party commentary or analysis of these subjects, just primary sources: the sourcebooks for the game itself.") and was achieved by an acknowledgment of a consensus to redirect based on the argument that "there are no sources giving third-party commentary or analysis of these subjects, just primary sources".Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- The aim of the recent AfD was to reach a consensus not only on individual articles, but on the overall meaning of "secondary independent sources" related to the notability of acticles about fiction.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, some of these articles will be more notable than others. Due diligence should be taken before applying a mass redirect. If an article has at least one independent source, then it should probably be verified. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
No, I believe I am. To quote, "In various discussions regarding a wide variety of articles, editors will inevitably point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular article or policy." You were applying a ruling about a limited set of articles to all articles of the same type. Again, I will have to insist on due diligence and not abject prejudice. If you check properly then I won't have a concern. If you blindly start redirecting articles that are notable, then we will have an issue. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- The ruling was not, as I explained, only about a limited set of articles, but about the nature of sources used to assess notability for articles about fiction, as stated in the nomination rationale.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- You keep saying that; I keep not believing that the closing admin ever asserted anything of the sort. Can you please either back up your assertion or drop that as a contested point? Repeating it doesn't make it any more true. Jclemens (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Why was the AfD closed on redirect, then ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Um, you really need me to answer that? Because the closer interpreted redirect as the consensus outcome, of course. That's all. No adjudication of sourcing arguments was made, nor are closing admins expected or required to do so. Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Good, that's exactly where I was coming at, the closer interpreted "redirect" as the consensus outcome.AfDs are not head counts, they are decided on the strength of arguments and the argument on which the "redirect" consensus was elaborated was that all the sources presented were not secondary independent and thus could not make the articles notable. Unless you want to make this even more drawn-out than you already have, I'm not gonna quote each reference to this argument in every single "redirect" recommandation, I think you have enough good faith and self-respect not to deny that this indeed was THE argument put forth by those who supported redirection. And you're right, closing admins are not expected or required to say anything else besides determining where consensus went, except in cases where said consensus would go against community-consensus on a wider scale (but that exception did not happen in our case). Your only basis for contesting a consensus on sources was that the admin didn't specifically refer to that, and since you've just terminated that by yourself stating that "closing admins expected or required" to do so, then I can't see how you could continue this argument without resorting to bad faith (denying that AfDs are based on strength of argument, for example).Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- The closer didn't say "the sources are inadequate". No matter how you slice it or dice it, trying to make it say something it does not is simply original research. You can want it to be something it's not... but the argument from silence is not logically valid. Jclemens (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- The closer did not say "the sources are adequate", quite the contrary because he redirected the articles. And we're back to why redirect, because consensus, and why consensus, because strength of argument, and why strength of argument, because we said it wasn't adequate and your contention that it was adequate didn't convince the closing admin.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- To repeat myself, the argument from silence is not logically valid. Jclemens (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- "the argument from silence is not logically valid"...that means that "The closer didn't say "the sources are inadequate"" is not logically valid, then. By your own admission. And for the second time. You seem to be ready to sacrifice all credibility just for the sake of having the last word...And so I will ask you why the article was kept, and you'll say because consensus, and why consensus ? because strength of argument. There is a point when you just have to learn to drop it because the articles got redirected whatever you could say. Sources are either adequate or they're not, if they're adequate there is no ground to redirect, so take it up with the closing admin.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, all I've ever said is that you've drawn conclusions which do not follow from the actual closing statement, and repeated those unsupportable assertions even when called on it. Above, you again propose that I should go beyond the closer's statement in the other direction, which I again decline to do. The closer said what the closer said; nothing more. There's no particular desire to "get the last word" here, but I am patiently refuting repeated assertions that exceed what was actually said by the closer. I'd be happy to be done if you would. Jclemens (talk) 02:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ok so you refuse to take the issue to the closing admin, so indeed you just want to get the last word over me. Of course my statements are unchanged, I stick to what I said, but you can add whatever nonesense you want after my comment and I won't answer you, if it makes you feel better. Enjoy yourself.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- You're entirely correct: I didn't take anything to the closing admin for clarification. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ok so you refuse to take the issue to the closing admin, so indeed you just want to get the last word over me. Of course my statements are unchanged, I stick to what I said, but you can add whatever nonesense you want after my comment and I won't answer you, if it makes you feel better. Enjoy yourself.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, all I've ever said is that you've drawn conclusions which do not follow from the actual closing statement, and repeated those unsupportable assertions even when called on it. Above, you again propose that I should go beyond the closer's statement in the other direction, which I again decline to do. The closer said what the closer said; nothing more. There's no particular desire to "get the last word" here, but I am patiently refuting repeated assertions that exceed what was actually said by the closer. I'd be happy to be done if you would. Jclemens (talk) 02:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- "the argument from silence is not logically valid"...that means that "The closer didn't say "the sources are inadequate"" is not logically valid, then. By your own admission. And for the second time. You seem to be ready to sacrifice all credibility just for the sake of having the last word...And so I will ask you why the article was kept, and you'll say because consensus, and why consensus ? because strength of argument. There is a point when you just have to learn to drop it because the articles got redirected whatever you could say. Sources are either adequate or they're not, if they're adequate there is no ground to redirect, so take it up with the closing admin.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- To repeat myself, the argument from silence is not logically valid. Jclemens (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- The closer did not say "the sources are adequate", quite the contrary because he redirected the articles. And we're back to why redirect, because consensus, and why consensus, because strength of argument, and why strength of argument, because we said it wasn't adequate and your contention that it was adequate didn't convince the closing admin.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- The closer didn't say "the sources are inadequate". No matter how you slice it or dice it, trying to make it say something it does not is simply original research. You can want it to be something it's not... but the argument from silence is not logically valid. Jclemens (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Good, that's exactly where I was coming at, the closer interpreted "redirect" as the consensus outcome.AfDs are not head counts, they are decided on the strength of arguments and the argument on which the "redirect" consensus was elaborated was that all the sources presented were not secondary independent and thus could not make the articles notable. Unless you want to make this even more drawn-out than you already have, I'm not gonna quote each reference to this argument in every single "redirect" recommandation, I think you have enough good faith and self-respect not to deny that this indeed was THE argument put forth by those who supported redirection. And you're right, closing admins are not expected or required to say anything else besides determining where consensus went, except in cases where said consensus would go against community-consensus on a wider scale (but that exception did not happen in our case). Your only basis for contesting a consensus on sources was that the admin didn't specifically refer to that, and since you've just terminated that by yourself stating that "closing admins expected or required" to do so, then I can't see how you could continue this argument without resorting to bad faith (denying that AfDs are based on strength of argument, for example).Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Um, you really need me to answer that? Because the closer interpreted redirect as the consensus outcome, of course. That's all. No adjudication of sourcing arguments was made, nor are closing admins expected or required to do so. Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Why was the AfD closed on redirect, then ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- You keep saying that; I keep not believing that the closing admin ever asserted anything of the sort. Can you please either back up your assertion or drop that as a contested point? Repeating it doesn't make it any more true. Jclemens (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
White Dwarf as a source
- Specifically on the Brownie article, why is the White Dwarf citation being disregarded as significant coverage in reliable secondary sources? Unlike some of the other sources, which have been subject to debate, that is a pretty clear cut case. —Torchiest edits 20:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- because "The brownie was written up as a player character race" is not significant coverage. The content of of the WD article cannot be used in any way to meet the "based on third party sources". and the coverage is still entirely in-game. in other words, fail WP:N -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Can you explain what an instance of appropriate coverage would look like? —Torchiest edits 20:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Besides, the issue raised about White Dwarf in the AfD is that it's a Games Workshop publication, GW being an official D&D publisher for the UK, that makes it first-party and thus not independent of the subject or the creator.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Publisher? Try "distributor", which gives a financial relationship, but not one which allows them editorial control over content. Jclemens (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- and having merely a financial interest in the subject still identifies the source as not third party. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Only to the same extent we would discount the New York Times' coverage of a subject because it accepted paid advertising from the subject. Such ridiculously high standards for non-connectedness for licensing and incidental revenue are part of the problem here: there is simply no reasonableness to be had from those arguing for non-notability. I can understand people disagreeing with me about certain facets of notability, but to try to impeach White Dwarf as a source because the two companies had a distribution agreement flies in the face of common sense: Independence is not a hammer with which to drive all interrelated industry publications out of the encyclopedia, it's designed to keep from publishing press releases and other COI materials. Jclemens (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- If the advertiser was responsible for 60-80% of the NYT's revenue we certainly would. 21:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- And where's that documented? Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- that we would not accept NYT coverage as independent of an advertiser that constituted 60-80% of there revenue? We can go check the RS Notice boards if you have any doubt. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, the assertion that 60-80% of GW's revenue was from D&D (or TSR games as a whole) is unsourced. Jclemens (talk) 05:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- you are the one who made the comparison to NYT advertisers as somehow magically resulting in some distributor relationship for which there would be no financial conflict of interest /independent third party status with which we should be concerned. At 60-80% or even 10-15% we wouldnt use the NYT about that advertiser. The relationship between a game distributor and the largest RPG creates a de facto concern for which those wishing to claim the relationship is not an issue need to provide the evidence. -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- So then the 60-80% rate was just a number pulled from the air, rather than an indication of anyone's belief as to how much revenue GW ever derived from TSR product distribution? Thanks for the clarification. Jclemens (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- you are the one who made the comparison to NYT advertisers as somehow magically resulting in some distributor relationship for which there would be no financial conflict of interest /independent third party status with which we should be concerned. At 60-80% or even 10-15% we wouldnt use the NYT about that advertiser. The relationship between a game distributor and the largest RPG creates a de facto concern for which those wishing to claim the relationship is not an issue need to provide the evidence. -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, the assertion that 60-80% of GW's revenue was from D&D (or TSR games as a whole) is unsourced. Jclemens (talk) 05:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- that we would not accept NYT coverage as independent of an advertiser that constituted 60-80% of there revenue? We can go check the RS Notice boards if you have any doubt. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- And where's that documented? Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Notability indicates attention "in the world at large", the world at large doesn't end with companies having direct financial interest in the product. GW used its WD publication to promote its D&D sourcebooks, and used the reader base of its D&D sourcebooks to promote its own publication. Such obvious self-promotion is among the cases excluded from WP:GNG. Jclemens, argue as long as you will, you're not close to reach a consensus, even those who usually agree with you don't support you on this one.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- We get it: you don't think any of these are notable because non-genre publications haven't covered each individually in painstaking detail. Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- I never said "non-genre", I said "non-independent", which is quite different. Please stop misrepresenting my comments.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please name me one FRP genre magazine independent of TSR? Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- that the genre is
essentially a walled garden"ITICCDMPRIPR" does not exempt it from WP:N-- The Red Pen of Doom 10:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)- So let me get this straight, for clarity and specificity's sake: It is the belief of those arguing against the notability of independent D&D creatures that the web of cross-promotion, licensing, and revenue agreements within the FRP industry between the 1980's and today render no publication sufficiently "independent" to be used as an independent source per Misplaced Pages guidelines for any matter related to FRP? This is an important point--please correct me if I've misphrased or over-sold what you actually are saying here, because if that's really your position it would have pretty huge impact for many other hobbies. Jclemens (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- It is my belief that the standard examples that have been offered have serious issues regarding whether or not in the general and standard terms described under WP:N and WP:V they meet the criteria for independence and that WP:V and WP:N do not make exceptions for genres/
walled gardens"ITICCDMPRIPR" to support stand alone notability. If the only sources presented about specific elements of a religious sect was the holy documents of that religious sect, we would not be able to write stand alone articles about those elements. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- It is my belief that the standard examples that have been offered have serious issues regarding whether or not in the general and standard terms described under WP:N and WP:V they meet the criteria for independence and that WP:V and WP:N do not make exceptions for genres/
- So let me get this straight, for clarity and specificity's sake: It is the belief of those arguing against the notability of independent D&D creatures that the web of cross-promotion, licensing, and revenue agreements within the FRP industry between the 1980's and today render no publication sufficiently "independent" to be used as an independent source per Misplaced Pages guidelines for any matter related to FRP? This is an important point--please correct me if I've misphrased or over-sold what you actually are saying here, because if that's really your position it would have pretty huge impact for many other hobbies. Jclemens (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- that the genre is
- Please name me one FRP genre magazine independent of TSR? Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- I never said "non-genre", I said "non-independent", which is quite different. Please stop misrepresenting my comments.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- We get it: you don't think any of these are notable because non-genre publications haven't covered each individually in painstaking detail. Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- If the advertiser was responsible for 60-80% of the NYT's revenue we certainly would. 21:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Only to the same extent we would discount the New York Times' coverage of a subject because it accepted paid advertising from the subject. Such ridiculously high standards for non-connectedness for licensing and incidental revenue are part of the problem here: there is simply no reasonableness to be had from those arguing for non-notability. I can understand people disagreeing with me about certain facets of notability, but to try to impeach White Dwarf as a source because the two companies had a distribution agreement flies in the face of common sense: Independence is not a hammer with which to drive all interrelated industry publications out of the encyclopedia, it's designed to keep from publishing press releases and other COI materials. Jclemens (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- and having merely a financial interest in the subject still identifies the source as not third party. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Publisher? Try "distributor", which gives a financial relationship, but not one which allows them editorial control over content. Jclemens (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) It would look like something that would support an encyclopedia article. An ideal set of sources would be by multiple third parties and would contain an analysis of how the fictional part worked in-game for balance (or how it was broken and abused by players.) It would contain commentary from the designers about how they decided to create the various aspects to address in game concerns (or how they completely ignored game mechanics becuase they loved the concept of X critter). The source would would contain content about how the design of the element impacted later versions of the game with new lines of powers/equipment/playstyles. The sources would contain commentary from notable gamers about how the critter played a memerable role in their gaming experience or why it made them leave the game. They would contain content about how the element was inspired by real world fairy tales or specific fictional works, and how it differed. They would show how the element expand from use in D&D and impacted "the real world"TM or how protests/lawsuits from "the real world"TM caused it to be changed from one edition to another. It would be something that you could see and expect to grow into something like one of these Misplaced Pages:WAF#List_of_exemplary_articles or at the very least something from a third party that showed that the critter was at least notable within the fictional game sphere and not be a mere list of edited for clarification"It appeared in a game book (ref: the primary source a game book where it appears) and another game book(ref: the primary source another game book where it appears) and a third game book (ref: the primary source a third game book where it appears)" and be sourced solely to a game book, another game book and a third game book. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Your bar is fairly high. Would you demand that all sports coverage only count if it was not in sports sections/magazines? Hobit (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- "or at the very least something from a third party that showed that the critter was at least notable within the fictional game sphere " - I dont think that is an exceptionally high bar. we demand that web content indicate why its subject is important or significant in the real world, or it is subject to speedy deletion. Requiring a fictional component to at least be important within its fictional sphere would seem to be a rather low bar. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- and as a note I have slightly edited my initial comment to be more clear what I was intending by "game books as a source". -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think TRPOD ever mentionned coverage would only count if it was not in RPG sections/magazines (I take it that's what you meant with your sports analogy). The thing is that you can't even find RPG magazines (again discarding the obvious self-promotions that are Dragons, Dungeons or White Dwarf) that contain significant mentions of these creatures...Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- I see. White Dwarf has historically be considered acceptable since it had independent editorial control from TSR (as far as I can tell). I certainly consider White Dwarf and Pathfinder to be independent and can't be considered "self-promotions" of TSR or WoTC they are presently utterly independent (always for Pathfinder, most of its history for WD). It is a small field so sources are fairly limited... Hobit (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your premise is wrong. GW being the UK publisher of D&D, they are a first-party source, and of course, being contractually linked with TSR, they had no editorial independence. Moreover, GW being the UK equivalent of TSR as far as copyright-holding is concerned, their publication White Dwarf was not editorially independent...given that its editors in chief are all GW employees (the first e.i.c was even the co-founder of GW), they have of course absolutely no freedom to say anything bad on the other products that their boss would distribute. On the contrary, they have a financial interest in promoting D&D. Besides, WD was a source of original content for the D&D game, so completely affiliated. As for Pathfinder, they are not independent of the subject either, since it's a primary source (and the content itself is D&D copy-pasted).Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- YOUR premise is wrong. They did have editorial independence. Basically this is just your belief on a topic you actually don't know much about. So this is really only your opinion, something that runs counter to the people that have been working on these articles for years. Your assertions have far less weight than you think they do. Web Warlock (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your premise is wrong. GW being the UK publisher of D&D, they are a first-party source, and of course, being contractually linked with TSR, they had no editorial independence. Moreover, GW being the UK equivalent of TSR as far as copyright-holding is concerned, their publication White Dwarf was not editorially independent...given that its editors in chief are all GW employees (the first e.i.c was even the co-founder of GW), they have of course absolutely no freedom to say anything bad on the other products that their boss would distribute. On the contrary, they have a financial interest in promoting D&D. Besides, WD was a source of original content for the D&D game, so completely affiliated. As for Pathfinder, they are not independent of the subject either, since it's a primary source (and the content itself is D&D copy-pasted).Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- I see. White Dwarf has historically be considered acceptable since it had independent editorial control from TSR (as far as I can tell). I certainly consider White Dwarf and Pathfinder to be independent and can't be considered "self-promotions" of TSR or WoTC they are presently utterly independent (always for Pathfinder, most of its history for WD). It is a small field so sources are fairly limited... Hobit (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your bar is fairly high. Would you demand that all sports coverage only count if it was not in sports sections/magazines? Hobit (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Besides, the issue raised about White Dwarf in the AfD is that it's a Games Workshop publication, GW being an official D&D publisher for the UK, that makes it first-party and thus not independent of the subject or the creator.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Can you explain what an instance of appropriate coverage would look like? —Torchiest edits 20:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- because "The brownie was written up as a player character race" is not significant coverage. The content of of the WD article cannot be used in any way to meet the "based on third party sources". and the coverage is still entirely in-game. in other words, fail WP:N -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Specifically on the Brownie article, why is the White Dwarf citation being disregarded as significant coverage in reliable secondary sources? Unlike some of the other sources, which have been subject to debate, that is a pretty clear cut case. —Torchiest edits 20:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. As far as I'm aware, there has been a clear historical consensus that White Dwarf is considered a good source to meet WP:GNG requirements. It is only in these recent discussions that WD has been disputed. —Torchiest edits 00:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, at least that's consistent with how some of you consider primary sources such as supplementary campain settings, for example. But consensus can change, and looking at the last AfD, that's exactly what happened.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- the fact that the RPG industry is
a little walled garden"ITICCDMPRIPR" means that we need to take a lot of care and consideration about any assumptions made when considering "independence" -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)- White Dwarf in the late 1970s and early 1980s was independent of TSR. It reviewed products of TSR and other RPGs of a variety of gaming systems such as D&D, RuneQuest and Traveller. The argument that it is not independent as they gain financially by promoting is true of about 3/4s of the worlds' popular press WRT some product or other (eg. film mags, gardening mags etc.), and hence invalid. Hence I regard it as a secondary source. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Games Workshop was the only licensed publisher of D&D material in the UK in the 1980s. TSR didn't publish any material for the UK, only Games Workshop did. White Dwarf, being the Games Workshop magazine, was not independent of Dungeons & Dragons. Third-party sources (such as independent magazines) "gain financially" in that they sell a magazine, but they are neutral in terms of what they are reviewing because they have no ties to what they're discussing. Non-independent sources (such as White Dwarf and Dragon) "gain financially" in that they sell a magazine, but also because they are financially tied to the product they are discussing, they aren't impartial. Unlike an independent magazine, they aren't going to say "this product our company is publishing is crap, don't buy it". - SudoGhost 14:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- They were licensed to print from Feb 1975 to 1980, but that deal fell through in the mid 1980 when TSR UK was formed. Source "Designers & Dragons: A History of the Roleplaying Game Industry" by Shannon Appelcline, Mongoose Publishing, 2011. Web Warlock (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, you're right, TSR UK opened in early 1980 after merger talks fell through. I don't think pre-1980 White Dwarf would be independent though. Later today I'll be able to get my hands on a 1980-ish copy of White Dwarf; I'll take a look and see what it says in the small print. - SudoGhost 15:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- In fact this split led TSR UK to print "Imagine" magazine for 31 issues. I have Issue #26 of WD right here in front of me from Aug/Sept 1981. The fine print says that it (WD) is copyright by Games Workshop. IT mentions in the next line that "Dungeons & Dragons is a trademark of TSR Hobbies inc." Would you like a scan of the editorial page? Web Warlock (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- I am not really sure what the "the next line that "Dungeons & Dragons is a trademark of TSR Hobbies inc." " is relevant for. Every issue of Dragon published by TSR itself has "'Dungeons and Dragons', 'Advanced Dungeons and Dragons', 'Advanced D&D' are registered trademarks owned by TSR, Inc." in their masthead notice section. Its the standard disclaimer/notice. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, that's fine. I'm not doubting you, I just wanted to take a look at what it said (plus it gives me a chance to look at older gaming magazines, which is always enjoyable). - SudoGhost 15:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- That's good cause I can't get the scan loaded in to my sandbox anyway. Here is a blurb that has appeared on the first page of the "Open Box" reviews since about issue 17. "Open Box examines Science Fiction and Fantasy games and rulebooks currently in the shops. The reviews are written by independent authorities who also give the product an overall rating on a 1-10 scale, taking all factors into consideration." Web Warlock (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- In fact this split led TSR UK to print "Imagine" magazine for 31 issues. I have Issue #26 of WD right here in front of me from Aug/Sept 1981. The fine print says that it (WD) is copyright by Games Workshop. IT mentions in the next line that "Dungeons & Dragons is a trademark of TSR Hobbies inc." Would you like a scan of the editorial page? Web Warlock (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, you're right, TSR UK opened in early 1980 after merger talks fell through. I don't think pre-1980 White Dwarf would be independent though. Later today I'll be able to get my hands on a 1980-ish copy of White Dwarf; I'll take a look and see what it says in the small print. - SudoGhost 15:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- They were licensed to print from Feb 1975 to 1980, but that deal fell through in the mid 1980 when TSR UK was formed. Source "Designers & Dragons: A History of the Roleplaying Game Industry" by Shannon Appelcline, Mongoose Publishing, 2011. Web Warlock (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Games Workshop was the only licensed publisher of D&D material in the UK in the 1980s. TSR didn't publish any material for the UK, only Games Workshop did. White Dwarf, being the Games Workshop magazine, was not independent of Dungeons & Dragons. Third-party sources (such as independent magazines) "gain financially" in that they sell a magazine, but they are neutral in terms of what they are reviewing because they have no ties to what they're discussing. Non-independent sources (such as White Dwarf and Dragon) "gain financially" in that they sell a magazine, but also because they are financially tied to the product they are discussing, they aren't impartial. Unlike an independent magazine, they aren't going to say "this product our company is publishing is crap, don't buy it". - SudoGhost 14:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- White Dwarf in the late 1970s and early 1980s was independent of TSR. It reviewed products of TSR and other RPGs of a variety of gaming systems such as D&D, RuneQuest and Traveller. The argument that it is not independent as they gain financially by promoting is true of about 3/4s of the worlds' popular press WRT some product or other (eg. film mags, gardening mags etc.), and hence invalid. Hence I regard it as a secondary source. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- the fact that the RPG industry is
- Sorry if I have come into this late; WP:DND was not on my normal buffet of WP pages (but it is now.) I'm am one of the ones who expressed reservations at the White Dwarf's "editorial independence" during the period of the magazine's publication, but I will note that is based on "first blush" impression. I think if a company has an exclusive license for distribution, that it is reasonable to infer they have an editorial relationship (or, more difficult to infer that they don't). But my one perspective is not the consensus, and it appears that closing admin chose to accept the compromise as it was originally proposed, so it probably can be construed as disruptive to redirect the article without further discussion.
Editorial independence is a stable of WP:RS, and I would be willing to support a redirect on that basis. That the particular article was about Brownies as a PC race should not enter into it; if the nature of the publication were such that I could attest to editorial independence, if the article makes any noteworthy commentary related to the D&D creature, that should be sufficient. I definitely think it's not appropriate to dismiss it on the topic or title of the article alone. - Sangrolu (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)- There are (at least) 2 avenues of discussion going on. 1) the independence (or lack thereof) of the publisher 2) the significant/more than trivial encyclopedic value of the content within the sources.
- "about Brownies as a PC race " is in regards to point 2) whether there is anything of encyclopedic value within the source. If all that we can gain from the source is to say "they gave game stats for non official PC race", even if they were fully independent, it would still fail to provide enough content to create an article about the topic of this article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- The coverage in question for the Brownie article is not a "review" contrary to what by Web Warlock said, but a "character conjuring", and as such does not discuss real-world perspective, or "the notability, significance or "out of universe" context" of the Brownie creature (per a comment from WP:RS/N). It just provides a summary of the creature's in-game characteristics and of the ways to play it as written in Monster Manual, it is a game walkthrough that indeed never adresses the development or reception of the creature, and takes it at face value, fully within the context of a gaming session, rather than as the result of a writer's creative process within the broader context of a distanced, critical analysis. As such I can't consider it as "significant coverage" since it doesn't allow to write "more than a paragraph or a definition of that topic". If the Brownie article was to go to AfD in its current state, it would still not meet WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's not required to be a review, and it's explicitly per WP:GNG not required to be the main topic of the article: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." I'll note here that I don't have the article, so I don't know that what is there constitutes significant coverage, but it's certainly not appropriate to dismiss it because the article is about retooling the creature as a PC race. - Sangrolu (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- while it is not required to be a "review" it is required to be encyclopedic. If the only source for Actress X is a 50 page interview, but the only thing in the interview is her talking about her favorite color and how she likes tatoos and the fact that it is raining today but that is nice becuase the weather had been sooooo hot lately, we still couldnt make an encyclopedic article about her. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- You're stating a lot of things as facts that I think are better characterized as your opinions about what Misplaced Pages policies ought to say. Jclemens (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Misplaced Pages is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information.-- The Red Pen of Doom 00:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your quote is noted, but I find nothing in it that supports your assertion. In fact the "editors may reach a consensus..." bit would tend to support the argument that desires of inclusion or non-inclusion may better be characterized as opinions than direct readings of policies. Jclemens (talk) 00:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Are you reading the whole statement in context? Opinions, or maybe more properly interpretation of WP:NOT, may come into play in particular situations. AFTER significant coverage in third party independent sources has been provided, meeting the presumption that the subject could be a stand alone article, editors may still determine that the subject fails to meet the WP:NOT policy and thus is not suitable for a stand alone article. The directions clearly do not state that editors can ignore a lack of significant coverage in third party sources and just decide to let the article stand anyway. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your quote is noted, but I find nothing in it that supports your assertion. In fact the "editors may reach a consensus..." bit would tend to support the argument that desires of inclusion or non-inclusion may better be characterized as opinions than direct readings of policies. Jclemens (talk) 00:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Misplaced Pages is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information.-- The Red Pen of Doom 00:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- You're stating a lot of things as facts that I think are better characterized as your opinions about what Misplaced Pages policies ought to say. Jclemens (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- while it is not required to be a "review" it is required to be encyclopedic. If the only source for Actress X is a 50 page interview, but the only thing in the interview is her talking about her favorite color and how she likes tatoos and the fact that it is raining today but that is nice becuase the weather had been sooooo hot lately, we still couldnt make an encyclopedic article about her. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that's interesting! I was going to check and see if I had a copy of that White Dwarf issue, but I guess since Folken has already read it and disseminated its contents here, there's no need. On second thought, maybe I better read it for myself after all. BOZ (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Most excellent, BOZ. My experience with these types of articles in Dragon is that they're generally pretty thorough, multi-page pieces. I also have not read the White Dwarf article, so cannot comment on it, but whoever added the original cite might be able to help out here with some details. —Torchiest edits 18:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sangrolu, Web Warlock specifically referred to the "review" section of WD magazine, which was incorrect, and I've already said in what "character conjuring" are different from reviews. WP:WHYN already goes into detailing what can be expected from significant coverage, and it is certainly appropriate to dismiss sources which don't conform to that, and my conclusion about WD remains unchanged. As for the WD issue, for the purpose of this discussion I obtained it through "alternative" means and I guess it would be easy for everyone to do the same. To answer Torchiest it's only one column in one page, and doesn't include anything else besides what I've said. The only instance of external authorial instance that I could find was "I feel it is more appropriate for Player Characters to adopt the system used for dwarves, gnomes and halflings". Everything else is pure regurgitation of fiction and gaming characteristics from Monster Manual. You know, the closing admin is the second non-involved contributor to mention the benefits of "real world coverage" in sources. I don't think continually ignoring external inputs will prove an efficient long-term strategy.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Wait, what? I get the feeling people are conflating two discussion here. White Dwarf did have reviews, and WebWarlock mentioned them above, but that wasn't what I was referring to and I don't think he called the Browie article a review. Certainly the reviews in WD would be a useful resource, but I would want some assurances there is a degree of editorial independence (which looking at the above discussion a bit closer, there does appear to be some argument for, but certainly deserves some further discussion.) - Sangrolu (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- To clear things up, at one point the discussion on WD's independence or not centered on its reviews, and I was only pointing out that the character conjurings that are used in the articles are not the same as the reviews that came to be discussed here by Web Warlock. I did not say covergae needed to be labelled a "review", only that reviews have better chance at meeting requirements, and that we don't have either reviews or anything else on Brownie that could meet those requirements.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Wait, what? I get the feeling people are conflating two discussion here. White Dwarf did have reviews, and WebWarlock mentioned them above, but that wasn't what I was referring to and I don't think he called the Browie article a review. Certainly the reviews in WD would be a useful resource, but I would want some assurances there is a degree of editorial independence (which looking at the above discussion a bit closer, there does appear to be some argument for, but certainly deserves some further discussion.) - Sangrolu (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sangrolu, Web Warlock specifically referred to the "review" section of WD magazine, which was incorrect, and I've already said in what "character conjuring" are different from reviews. WP:WHYN already goes into detailing what can be expected from significant coverage, and it is certainly appropriate to dismiss sources which don't conform to that, and my conclusion about WD remains unchanged. As for the WD issue, for the purpose of this discussion I obtained it through "alternative" means and I guess it would be easy for everyone to do the same. To answer Torchiest it's only one column in one page, and doesn't include anything else besides what I've said. The only instance of external authorial instance that I could find was "I feel it is more appropriate for Player Characters to adopt the system used for dwarves, gnomes and halflings". Everything else is pure regurgitation of fiction and gaming characteristics from Monster Manual. You know, the closing admin is the second non-involved contributor to mention the benefits of "real world coverage" in sources. I don't think continually ignoring external inputs will prove an efficient long-term strategy.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Most excellent, BOZ. My experience with these types of articles in Dragon is that they're generally pretty thorough, multi-page pieces. I also have not read the White Dwarf article, so cannot comment on it, but whoever added the original cite might be able to help out here with some details. —Torchiest edits 18:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's not required to be a review, and it's explicitly per WP:GNG not required to be the main topic of the article: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." I'll note here that I don't have the article, so I don't know that what is there constitutes significant coverage, but it's certainly not appropriate to dismiss it because the article is about retooling the creature as a PC race. - Sangrolu (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- The coverage in question for the Brownie article is not a "review" contrary to what by Web Warlock said, but a "character conjuring", and as such does not discuss real-world perspective, or "the notability, significance or "out of universe" context" of the Brownie creature (per a comment from WP:RS/N). It just provides a summary of the creature's in-game characteristics and of the ways to play it as written in Monster Manual, it is a game walkthrough that indeed never adresses the development or reception of the creature, and takes it at face value, fully within the context of a gaming session, rather than as the result of a writer's creative process within the broader context of a distanced, critical analysis. As such I can't consider it as "significant coverage" since it doesn't allow to write "more than a paragraph or a definition of that topic". If the Brownie article was to go to AfD in its current state, it would still not meet WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Pathfinder
(This has nothing to do with the above discussion.) How relevant do you think the Pathfinder material is for D&D? They are often very closely related, as you would expect. But should they be kept completely independent or are there cases where they can be combined? Regards, RJH (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- It should have significant coverage about it by reliable third party sources, just like every other article. Or are you talking about something else? -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Something else. But please do lecture us some more. You clearly have much to teach us. RJH (talk) 04:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think the "(Dungeons & Dragons)" articles could probably be mass-renamed "(Fantasy Role Playing)" to indicate that 1) there are independent, derivative games that use the same material, and 2) they're similar enough games such that the creatures can be most adequately covered in such an article. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Doing that won't remove the issue, the derivative games will just be primary sources on the topics.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- As was mentioned in the first sentence, this has nothing to do with the above discussion. The question is regarding content rather than notability. I hope that is clear. Now would you and RPoD kindly stop trying to hijack this discussion? Thank you. RJH (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed. If your interest is in improving encyclopedic coverage of RPG monsters, by all means contribute. If not, then please let those of us who are trying to collaborate on the project without harranguing over points on which we all agree that we disagree. Jclemens (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- As was mentioned in the first sentence, this has nothing to do with the above discussion. The question is regarding content rather than notability. I hope that is clear. Now would you and RPoD kindly stop trying to hijack this discussion? Thank you. RJH (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Doing that won't remove the issue, the derivative games will just be primary sources on the topics.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- As a derivative game I think it's fairly relevant; Pathfinder is essentially a slightly tweaked 3rd edition of Dungeons & Dragons. Short of actually using the trademarked term Dungeons & Dragons (which they can't do for obvious reasons) Paizo describes the game as "The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game is an evolution of the 3.5 rules set of the world's oldest fantasy roleplaying game...The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game has been designed with compatibility with previous editions in mind, so you'll be able to use your existing library of 3.5 products with minimal effort. In fact, the Pathfinder RPG is designed to smooth over a number of the rough spots in the 3.5 rules set, making several existing books even easier to use." There are no "previous editions" of Pathfinder, so they're talking about Pathfinder as if it is a continuation (or derivative) of Dungeons & Dragons. They use the same rules through the OGL, they just modified these rules through playtesting (as a player the changes seem large, but as part of the big picture they are minor changes especially when you compare the differences between D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder to the differences between D&D 3.5 and D&D 4th edition). - SudoGhost 15:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes that's true. I don't know about the idea of doing a mass rename of the D&D articles to accommodate Pathfinder, but possibly it may be useful for a few of the high-level D&D articles to have a section of information specifically related to the Pathfinder. They could discuss key differences in implementation, for example. In that sense it's similar to a movie article that discusses a remake. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- As a derivative game I think it's fairly relevant; Pathfinder is essentially a slightly tweaked 3rd edition of Dungeons & Dragons. Short of actually using the trademarked term Dungeons & Dragons (which they can't do for obvious reasons) Paizo describes the game as "The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game is an evolution of the 3.5 rules set of the world's oldest fantasy roleplaying game...The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game has been designed with compatibility with previous editions in mind, so you'll be able to use your existing library of 3.5 products with minimal effort. In fact, the Pathfinder RPG is designed to smooth over a number of the rough spots in the 3.5 rules set, making several existing books even easier to use." There are no "previous editions" of Pathfinder, so they're talking about Pathfinder as if it is a continuation (or derivative) of Dungeons & Dragons. They use the same rules through the OGL, they just modified these rules through playtesting (as a player the changes seem large, but as part of the big picture they are minor changes especially when you compare the differences between D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder to the differences between D&D 3.5 and D&D 4th edition). - SudoGhost 15:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted hobbies and WP:Walled Gardens
Above, at least one editor has asserted that the FRP hobby amounts to a walled garden. There are several problems with that assertion:
1) WP:Walled garden refers to a specific effort at constructing articles without references to the encyclopedia at large. I doubt anyone can assert in good faith that the coverage of D&D and other FRP games intentionally seeks to isolate itself from the rest of the encyclopedia.
2) There are any number of game hobbies based on copyrighted material where the major vendors own the only regularly published magazines. Consider collectible card gaming, for example. Preserving corporate control of a copyrighted source was, by all accounts, an intentional intellectual property and marketing decision.
The term "walled garden" is simply not an appropriate term to describe the integrated corporate coverage designed to maximize profitability while retaining intellectual property rights, and should be discontinued. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- 1) I did not use WP:WALLEDGARDEN,
- 2) from now on, for Jclemens benefit, I will instead use "incestuous and tightly integrated corporate coverage designed to maximize profitability while retaining intellectual property rights" or ITICCDMPRIPR. -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
|
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
- Jclemens – Yes, I agree. It concerns the same issue as WP:ORPH, but on a larger scale. Fortunately, D&D has had a respectable influence outside of the purely RPG industry, so I'd hardly consider the collection of D&D articles as a walled garden any more than I would, say, professional football (gridiron). Finally, I'd note that the WP:WALL document is an essay, not a policy. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
News from the Eastern Front
Okay, this is turning out to be a fairly lengthy project. I think I finally have a nearly complete list of the existing 197 monster name redirects for porting:
Of those, 47 have already been completed:
I spent a little effort trying to build a useful field-guide-style table around them; hope you like it. (I'll probably split the table into separate articles once it gets long enough.) If you spot any other redirects that need to be added, please let me know (or you can add them to the list yourself). Regards, RJH (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- BTW, a large majority of the Misplaced Pages monster article redirects were implemented by anonymous user 204.153.84.10 prior to 2010. Hence, not a "member" of this WikiProject. FYI. Regards, RJH (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Dwarven subraces
Can anyone provide a list of sources for all the subraces and campaign-specific dwarves at Dwarf (Dungeons & Dragons)? I'm trying to figure out a way to trim those sections back to the essentials without losing good information. Thanks. —Torchiest edits 16:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm wondering if primary sources can be used in that context. As long as the entire article is not based on primary uses, then my understanding is that those can be used in certain circumstances. After notability is established, then a key goal is reliability, which primary sources can be useful for establishing. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- (ec x 2) Yes, I think that's correct. It would just be helpful if people familiar with all the sourcebooks could post where in them the information comes from. I've got the Forgotten Realms campaign setting books, and I'll be going through those later to get the information for those subraces, but I don't have the others mentioned. —Torchiest edits 22:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK, rolling it back to where we began a few days ago:
- Aleithian dwarves - http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psb/20030926a
- Azers - see that article's publication history list
- Badlands dwarves - Sandstorm: Mastering the Perils of Fire and Sand (2005)
- Deep dwarves - Complete Book of Dwarves (1991), Player's Option: Skills & Powers (1995), Monster Manual (2000)
- Dream dwarves - Races of Stone (2004)
- Duergar - see that article's publication history list
- Frost dwarves - Planar Handbook (2004)
- Glacier dwarves - Frostburn: Mastering the Perils of Ice and Snow (2004)
- Hill dwarves - should be obvious
- Mountain dwarves - Monster Manual (1977), Monstrous Compendium Volume Two (1989), Monstrous Manual (1993), Player's Option: Skills & Powers (1995), Monster Manual (2000)
- Seacliff dwarves - Stormwrack: Mastering the Perils of Wind and Wave (2005)
- Need anything else?
- Good work on the article so far, by the way. Hopefully you can lend a hand on Bruenor Battlehammer as well, now that it's at AFD. BOZ (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, that's a good start. I'm hoping to get page numbers and such as well. As for BB, I've started looking, but I'm not finding a whole lot beyond what's there already so far. —Torchiest edits 22:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- I see you're adding sources now. So that's what the additional reading links were there for! Thanks! —Torchiest edits 22:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I don't have the books in front of me, but I will do what I can. BOZ (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- That's fine. I'm angling for trying to get the article to good status at this point. Does that make me a bad person? :) —Torchiest edits 22:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- LOL, not at all. More power to you! BOZ (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- That's fine. I'm angling for trying to get the article to good status at this point. Does that make me a bad person? :) —Torchiest edits 22:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I don't have the books in front of me, but I will do what I can. BOZ (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Nymph (Dungeons & Dragons)
I've added some sources to Nymph (Dungeons & Dragons), one of the articles that were redirected, but I'm still looking for more reliable sources. If anyone has some non-sourcebook sources that could help establish notability, I'd greatly appreciate it. I've spent the past few hours pouring through tons of references looking, but I'm sure other people have access to sources that I don't. Any help with sources for the article would be greatly appreciated. - SudoGhost 01:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for doing that; I appreciate you taking the time and adding content like that. I know how time-consuming it can be. Jclemens (talk) 01:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
AfD notice
To ensure that everyone is aware, there is an AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Adherer regarding 3 articles that had been listed but were removed from consideration a recent mass AfD. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the notification. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Scope Expansion/Rename Proposal
In various AfD's on D&D creatures, one or two editors have been complaining both that 1) there are a lack of independent (non-TSR) sources for such creatures, and 2) non-TSR sources like Paizo/Pathfinder are out of scope because they're not D&D sources. While each individual argument might have merit, taken together they reveal a problem with the scope of the project that can be easily remedied in a couple of ways:
Proposal 1: Rename WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons to WikiProject Fantasy Role Play
Dungeons and Dragons is clearly the first RPG that popularized fantasy role play, and would remain the primary focus of the Wikiproject. TSR created a number of the earliest commercially viable role playing games regardless of genre, and several other publishers of fantasy role playing games, including Palladium, Iron Crown, Mayfair, Games Workshop, Steve Jackson Games, and Chaosium. Likewise, many of these publishers have themselves branched out beyond "fantasy" role play--indeed, GURPS and Rifts, by Steve Jackson and Palladium games respectively, focus widely on the cross-genre possibilities of a universal RPG system.
At the same time, by expansively naming the Wikiproject "Fantasy Role Play", it becomes abundantly clear that the scope is not limited to TSR-published content, and thus articles on RPG topics will not be so limited. Downsides include losing the D&D specific branding and associated enthusiasm.
Proposal 1: Support
- As proposer. I suppose I could indicate relative preferences between the 1.x series of proposals, but I think any of them would adequately address the objection, so I leave it to the community's input as to which, if any, should be adopted. Jclemens (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Proposal 1: Opposed
- I don't think this will satisfy the one or two complaining editors, per RedPen's response below, and my own reservations. Although I do think that a WP:FPRG would be a great task force for WP:RPG, if there is anyone interested in being involved in that. BOZ (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think this would overlap with WikiProject Role-playing games too much. - SudoGhost 22:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Proposal 1: Extended discussion
Proposal 1.1 Rename and move Wikiproject Dungeons & Dragons to a Fantasy Role Play task force under WikiProject Role-playing games
This is a bit more of a drastic move than proposal 1, but also acknowledges that there are more similarities than differences between D&D and other FRP games, and RPG's in general. At the time Wikiproject RPG (Jan 2006) and Wikiproject D&D (Oct 2006) were started, the trend was to have a "flat" Wikiproject namespace, with overlapping Wikiprojects and no task forces.
The downside is that we lose the D&D distinctive branding, and that may be a real drawback to some folks because of the game system's longevity and popularity.
Proposal 1.1: Support
- Per my support for proposal 1, above. Jclemens (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Proposal 1.1: Opposed
- This is more drastic than proposal 1, and I wasn't in favor of that to begin with. BOZ (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Proposal 1.1: Extended discussion
Proposal 1.2 Move Wikiproject Dungeons & Dragons to a Dungeons & Dragons task force under WikiProject Role-playing games
The reasoning here is mostly per 1.1, with the added caveat that the D&D specific naming is retained, even though the scope is somewhat clarified by the adoption of this move. All D&D specific "branding" is simply renamed from a WikiProject to a Task Force.
Proposal 1.2: Support
- Per my support for proposal 1, above. Jclemens (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- If there's an imperative for move, I'd support this one as it doesn't look like a territory grab. Basic Proposal 1 looks like some sort of assertion over all FRP games (which I don't think is the intent of this at all), and 1.1 loses the D&D-specific nature of the project. Intothatdarkness 21:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I do like this idea. This WikiProject is basically just a more narrow version of WikiProject Role-playing games, and it appears that everything that falls under this WikiProject also falls under the Role-playing games WikiProject (D&D video games have their own taskforce). Having a more centralized page for articles would make it easier for collaboration and discussion, while keeping the D&D specific focus for the task force. - SudoGhost 21:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Proposal 1.2: Opposed
- This idea has been brought up before, but I don't remember when or how thoroughly it was discussed. Maybe it's just my personal preference to keep this project organized the way it has been for the past several years, but I do like it this way. If we can keep all the stuff we've got now (like the main Wikiproject page, and everything else specifically created for WP:DND), then you might convince me, but I don't see any compelling reason to make this change. BOZ (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- As part of the MUD Wikiproject->Task Force, it was pretty seamless as far as I was concerned on that transition. The project page hierarchy can stay substantially intact, keep redirects, and just change titles and locations. Jclemens (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Proposal 1.2: Extended discussion
comments
Widening the scope of articles will STILL not address the fact that multiple primary sourcebooks do not satisfy the "independent coverage" clause of the the GNG. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please stay on topic; notability issues have nothing to do with this proposal. Jclemens (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry I thought by initiating this discussion with "In various AfD's on D&D creatures, one or two editors have been complaining both that 1) there are a lack of independent (non-TSR) sources for such creatures" you were attempting to come up with a solution that would address the complaints of one or two editors about the lack of independent sources; and that by pointing out that none of these proposals would do anything to change the basis and source of those complaints that I WAS on topic. But if you do not actually expect this project realignment to address the root concern of the complaints, then I will let you on your merry way. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Proposal 2: Every version of D&D is a separate game
- One problem that I've seen with scope in the D&D universe is that it is not one game. It is at least five games published by TSR: D&D (in its various incarnations), AD&D, AD&D 2nd edition, D&D 3.0/3.5, and D&D 4.0. Add to this a number of compatible products by other publishers (e.g. Rolemaster's Arms Law), SRD/d20 products produced independently under license, and "retro-clones" and other systems, and it's clear that discussing "Dungeons & Dragons" as if it were a single entity creates problems for sourcing and clarity.
- D&D versions are not cross-compatible While material may be generally adapted from one to another and mechanics are similar, core rulebooks have been reprinted for each major revision.
- D&D has been published by more than one company Both TSR and Wizards have published multiple versions, and multiple companies have published unofficial and/or licensed supplements, game aids, and adventures for each of the versions.
- Thus, it is clear to me that the best way to consider D&D is that each separate major revision, requiring new core rulebooks and/or requiring conversions to use supplemental material from other major revisions, is a separate fictional work or product for all Misplaced Pages purposes.
Proposal 2: Support
Proposal 2: Opposed
- I think that spreads the content too thin; would create a lot of unnecessary overlap and would make it more difficult for readers to find what they were looking for. - SudoGhost 21:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't think it would cause any more confusion, or require any more change than, covering each game in a subheading such as in Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons). Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I share SudoGhost's concerns about this one. Or maybe it's just unclear to me. BOZ (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- This renders D&D versions independent of each other, and consequently clarifies that e.g. Wizards only had editorial control of D&D versions 3.0 and up. Jclemens (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- absolutely no - based on the jclemens response above this is an attempt to create artificial "independence" by fiat of the wikiproject. as such, even if the project declared it so, it would have no credence as a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that directly contravenes all common sense and the wikipedia project-wide consensus requiring truly independent third party sources to establish notability. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- per Sudoghost. I understand the rationale but overkill I think...Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- As a textbook example of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS if it is planned to be used in AfDs, as it seems to be the case per Jclemens' clarification. Nitpicking about differences between versions is not going to obscure facts: all products belong to the same intellectual property and each and every book is still a primary source on D&D and thus not independent. TSR effectively became WotC when they were sold, many staff members and full copyrights were transfered to WotC, claiming this equates to independence would be a major violation of WP:N, WP:COI and an attempt to bypass a lot of AfD outcomes.
Regardless of use in AfD, I agree with SudoGhost that it would likely be detrimental if each D&D edition had to be covered in a separate article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)- No one ever proposed covering creatures in separate articles. Jclemens (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'd say they're really just evolutions. Much like the rules of baseball have changed over the decades, and distinctions are made between different time periods, e.g. the "dead ball era", it's all still considered the same fundamental game. I do think there is an interesting nugget in here, namely the distinction between the two editorial eras. Not sure what that would imply, however. —Torchiest edits 22:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I would consider AD&D pre-Unearthed Arcana vs. post-Unearthed Arcana to be "the same fundamental game". To be sure, there are differences, but characters, monsters, and adventures did not need fundamental reworking to interact with the new material. The same cannot be said of the major revisions--the fact that several "classic" adventures have been reworked for newer versions of the game would seem to support that. Likewise, while a 1980 Honda Civic and a 2012 Honda Civic are both "Honda Civics" but one would be hard pressed to find any interchangeable parts between them. At what point would you say we have reached a situation where we have a "Dungeons and Dragons family of games", acknowledging the commonalities and fundamental differences in major revisions? Jclemens (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, the more I think about it, the more sympathetic I'm becoming to your position. I've seen conversions between 1st and 2nd edition, which isn't too difficult, but looking at 1st vs 4th, it's clear there's a pretty significant difference. The former is a modified table top wargame, the latter is a table top take on MMORPGs. —Torchiest edits 00:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Proposal 2: Extended discussion
So under this proposal would Talk:Beholder be under something like "Project D&D", "Project AD&D", "Project D&D3E"? -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Not in the least. There is only one Wikiproject, and none of the 1.x series of proposals would splinter it. This proposal is focused on clarifying that D&D is at least five products, not one. Subjects can and should still be covered in articles appropriate to length and notability guidelines. Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I am still not clear exactly what this proposal is supposed to do, but going back to your premise for starting this proposal ("In various AfD's on D&D creatures, one or two editors have been complaining both that 1) there are a lack of independent (non-TSR) sources for such creatures, ") the Wikiproject cannot declare by Fiat that D&D is separate and utterly independent of AD&D; and therefore appearance of a monster in sourcebooks from both editions meets the "independent coverage" of WP:GNG and so the complainers will have nothing to complain about. If your goal is to address the root cause of the complaints, you will need to do something else. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- You're right that we can't do anything by fiat. All we can do is point out that separate products are, well, separate products. Ever since the AD&D Monster Manual was published D&D has been multiple products, and that's 35 years gone now. Jclemens (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- you can point all you want, but it will not make farcical claims of independance true. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- You're right that we can't do anything by fiat. All we can do is point out that separate products are, well, separate products. Ever since the AD&D Monster Manual was published D&D has been multiple products, and that's 35 years gone now. Jclemens (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I am still not clear exactly what this proposal is supposed to do, but going back to your premise for starting this proposal ("In various AfD's on D&D creatures, one or two editors have been complaining both that 1) there are a lack of independent (non-TSR) sources for such creatures, ") the Wikiproject cannot declare by Fiat that D&D is separate and utterly independent of AD&D; and therefore appearance of a monster in sourcebooks from both editions meets the "independent coverage" of WP:GNG and so the complainers will have nothing to complain about. If your goal is to address the root cause of the complaints, you will need to do something else. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Proposal 3: Rename all "(Dungeons & Dragons)" creature articles to "(Fantasy Role Play)"
This serves as an adjunct to the series of 1.x proposals, to clarify that all creature articles currently tagged with the "(Dungeons & Dragons)" title disambiguator should appropriately include all relevant material from the entire genre of fantasy role playing games, broadly construed. This would include not only D&D-like or D&D-compatible games like Pathfinder, but other fantasy role playing games such as Rolemaster, Palladium FRP, GURPS, Fantasy Hero, and the like. This scope clarification will allow a broadening of coverage, without any corresponding expansion in the number of articles for creatures as represented in the various fantasy role playing games.
Proposal 3: Support
- As proposer. Jclemens (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Proposal 3: Opposed
Proposal 3: Extended discussion
And again, going back to your premise for starting this proposal ("In various AfD's on D&D creatures, one or two editors have been complaining both that 1) there are a lack of independent (non-TSR) sources for such creatures, ") - when the topic of an article is expanded to ("fantasy role play") that shift then throws ALL fantasy role play sourcebooks into the category of non-independent sources for that article and so none of them can be used to meet the "independent coverage" clause of the GNG. It does significantly open up the possibility that SOME truly independent source has covered at least one version of the fantasy critter from one of the game systems so that rather than needing the third party coverage about the fantasy critter to be about "the D&D critter" the coverage could be about the critter in any particular game system or just the critter in fantasy gaming in general.-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, it does precisely the opposite: Each is independent of all incarnations of a creature save one. Jclemens (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I dont have a clue what you are trying to say. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- If the topic is "Centaur (Fantasy Role Play)" every D&D, Palladium, Rolemaster, etc. reference to Centaurs in their fantasy role play products is independent of the topic, because e.g. TSR/Wizards, while a player does not control "Fantasy Role Play" any more than Ford Motor Company controls "Automobile". Problem solved! Jclemens (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I laughed, that was a good one.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- It looks like someone needs a course in Independent Sources 101. If the article topic was "automobile" and the only sources available were published by Ford, Toyota and Volkswagen, then the topic of "automobile" would fail WP:GNG. However, for "automobile", (unlike "brownie (D&D)" or "brownie (fantasy RPG)") there have been numerous third party sources completely 'independent from the creators of "automobiles"' who have considered the subject of "automobile" important enough to write about it at considerable length. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- If the topic is "Centaur (Fantasy Role Play)" every D&D, Palladium, Rolemaster, etc. reference to Centaurs in their fantasy role play products is independent of the topic, because e.g. TSR/Wizards, while a player does not control "Fantasy Role Play" any more than Ford Motor Company controls "Automobile". Problem solved! Jclemens (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I dont have a clue what you are trying to say. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Another AfD
People may be interested in a new AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ant lion (Dungeons & Dragons) -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Also, since AfDs on D&D creatures seem to always degenerate into "us against them" between the usual suspects (myself included), and that there seems to be some kind of reluctance for some contributors to accept AfD outcomes as consensus on sources, I've started Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Dungeons_and_Dragons_rulebooks_and_manuals to have new views on the question.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it would benefit you to recruit other people to the discussion who haven't been subject to your poor conduct, textwalling, editwarring, incivility, and other misbehaviour. After all, if they simply drop in with a non-expert opinion on the texts and then leave, they might not notice how bad your conduct actually is. Jclemens (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)