This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Does the article Dragons of Glory have sufficient reliable independent secondary sourcing? See the discussion at Talk:Dragonlance modules (DL series)#Merger with individual module articles. Do you know of any other such sources you can add to the article, or any of the others up for merge consideration? BOZ ( talk) 14:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Your input is requested at WT:NOT#Formalized proposal: Changing GAMEGUIDE. This could have a significant impact on our coverage of D&D topics. Thanks! Hobit ( talk) 23:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello, after two AFDs for Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons), which closed on "no consensus", I'm bringing to your attention that after a second AFD with the same result, a discussion on whether to merge or not has opened on the article talk page. BOZ ( talk) 11:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Specifically, I wanted to know it if possible to add a template such as {{ Infobox D&D creature}} to the tables on List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters for the purposes of merging in articles. The idea is to have it collapsible so that it doesn't take up too much space, but at the same time make it available for anyone who wants to view it. I guess I got some inspiration from how pages like List of minor X-Men characters and List of G.I. Joe video games are organized, so I wanted to bring some of that functionality in. Is this a simple "oh, here you go" fix, or am I asking the basically impossible? I asked at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), but didn't get much of a helpful answer, so maybe someone here might know. BOZ ( talk) 14:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the AfD over Death watch beetle (Dungeons & Dragons) and so forth, I wonder sometimes whether Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. Regards, RJH ( talk) 22:03, 20 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)
Just a little progress update on this mini-project:
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:
Regards, RJH ( talk) 19:01, 25 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)
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)
Given the results Wikipedia: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)
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)
(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)
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)
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. |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Does the article Dragons of Glory have sufficient reliable independent secondary sourcing? See the discussion at Talk:Dragonlance modules (DL series)#Merger with individual module articles. Do you know of any other such sources you can add to the article, or any of the others up for merge consideration? BOZ ( talk) 14:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Your input is requested at WT:NOT#Formalized proposal: Changing GAMEGUIDE. This could have a significant impact on our coverage of D&D topics. Thanks! Hobit ( talk) 23:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello, after two AFDs for Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons), which closed on "no consensus", I'm bringing to your attention that after a second AFD with the same result, a discussion on whether to merge or not has opened on the article talk page. BOZ ( talk) 11:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Specifically, I wanted to know it if possible to add a template such as {{ Infobox D&D creature}} to the tables on List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters for the purposes of merging in articles. The idea is to have it collapsible so that it doesn't take up too much space, but at the same time make it available for anyone who wants to view it. I guess I got some inspiration from how pages like List of minor X-Men characters and List of G.I. Joe video games are organized, so I wanted to bring some of that functionality in. Is this a simple "oh, here you go" fix, or am I asking the basically impossible? I asked at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), but didn't get much of a helpful answer, so maybe someone here might know. BOZ ( talk) 14:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the AfD over Death watch beetle (Dungeons & Dragons) and so forth, I wonder sometimes whether Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. Regards, RJH ( talk) 22:03, 20 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)
Just a little progress update on this mini-project:
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:
Regards, RJH ( talk) 19:01, 25 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)
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)
Given the results Wikipedia: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)
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)
(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)
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)
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. |