Role-playing games Project‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Wow, some excellent stuff there. (Broke this out further for easy replies.) Now, do we really need a seperate RPG category, or can we incorporate this under books? Do we bring it up on their talk page? Etc. Haven't had a major policy clarification (note - not change) that I have been directly working on before. Turlo Lomon 12:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, we agree that specific guidelines are useful for articles pertaining to an RPG in general, and I agree very much with Percy's guidelines. As for individual RPG books, I am not sure that WP:BK as they are are completely applicable. First of all, they quite explicitly excludes reference books and manuals, which RPG manuals in some measure are. Moreover, the distribution, the kind of shops selling them, the kind of periodicals covering them are quite quite different for RPGs and for books. And of course hardly any RPG book "is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs" and so on. So, a sub-section of Wikipedia:Notability (RPGs) might specify the criteria for RPG books, of course mimicking those for general books. (On a more "philosophical" level, for book it is very rare--has it ever happened?--to have to evaluate an article for a particular book as opposed to the literary work it embodies.) -- Goochelaar 15:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Question: Percy's current suggested guidelines, which I'm in favor of using, says "Coverage from an online review website can be considered non-trivial for the previous criterion if the coverage includes work by at least one professional reviewer or writer." Does "professional" here mean that the reviewer has reviewing role-playing games as a source of income? I don't know of any such reviewers, not on RPGnet and in any Swedish role-playing magazines. The most respected reviewers usually get the games they review for free, but that's about it. But RPGnet still certainly has reviewers that could be viewed as authorities. Should we keep the word "professional" or try to reword it to include these reviewers? Jonas Ferry 16:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
With regard to WP:BK#Not yet published books, is there not a case for a "Not yet published games section"? You are probably aware of Afd for The Dresden Files, but I think you need to add this in too. -- Gavin Collins 16:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I might disagree with the statement that "Multiple reviews on a single website do not impart additional notability". What about the case when a new version of an RPG comes out, and a new review appears? Does this matter (especially if there are noticeable differences between versions that are discussed in a review)? There are a few examples I've run across on RPGnet where there are at least a couple of reviews (about what seems to be the same RPG book) but they're done by different reviewers. They have "playtest reviews", "capsule reviews", and (normal?) reviews, and these sometimes seem to be done by different people too. I don't quite understand the exact distinctions between these reviews that qualifies one type from the other. In any event, I thought I'd throw this out and see what people think. In general, however, the guidelines appear rather sensible on first read-through (subject to my other comment above). (Thanks Percy!) --Craw-daddy | T | 19:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that proposed rule 4. "The game's designer or setting is so historically significant that any officially associated works may be considered notable; or it is the focus of an active WikiProject" will result in conflict (see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability is inherited). AnteaterZot ( talk) 10:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I feel that this section needs to be expanded, becuause there is considerable misunderstanding and debate about how notability is demonstrated by the citation of reliable independent secondary sources. This debate has raged on many fronts: AfD's, in discussions about the use of notability template.
In my view, for a source to be classed as independent and non-trivial, the source should have been peer-reviewed in some way (this excludes self-published sources, such as fansites) and the source should be cited to support a specific claim of notability. The source itself should be non-trivial, e.g. it should make a case for the notability of the subject with reasoned arguments, analysis and or critisism.
A passing mention of the subject matter is not classed as secondary source, particulary if the source articles is related to another subject matter; some of the 'sources' used in RPG articles are actually primary sources, since they are restatement of the original source material.
Also the the quality of the citation is always important; for example if the magazine says "Buy this adventure now! Its a really great game!", then it cannot be classed as a secondary sources, as advertorials are not considered to be reliable. Could I propose a seperate section to address these issues? -- Gavin Collins ( talk) 14:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Having to get permission to publish an article is proof that it is not an independant third party source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GundamsRus ( talk • contribs) 01:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Quick Question / Clarification - I am going through old boxes of magazines and it occurs to me. A lot of the older Dragons should be fine for any review for a product that was not published by TSR/Wizards. As late as Dragon 250 (where I stopped) they were still featuring other products. Once I get done with my White Dwarf browsing I might go to the Dragon mags. Web Warlock ( talk) 21:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added a little to the independence reference to clarify this matter. Percy Snoodle ( talk) 10:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Third party source books should be acceptable for purposes of notability. If a third party felt that the topic was notable enough to spend money to cover, that's a strong vote for notability. Thoughts? Hobit ( talk) 03:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I made a few changes which I think match the thoughts of the discussion here. If you disagree, please comment here. Hobit ( talk) 03:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I've made this a new section of the talk page because I think defining what constitutes the basic unit of review in the context of RPGs has an impact on how notability is assigned in all respects, and because references to this issue appear in several places already on this talk page interspersed into other issues. I apologise for the length of this.
I would suggest that the album is the basic unit in musical productions, not the song; the individual volumes of a reference work (such as an encyclopedia, or 'The Rise and Fall of the Roman Republic') are not the basic unit; a fantasy series is the basic unit rather than the individual books that constitute the series. Exceptions exist for all this - a single may win an award independent of its album, a particular volume of a reference work may be especially significant, for instance if it is a 'lost' volume of an historical work, and an individual Harry Potter or Tolkien book has its own notable aspects beyond the series of which it's a part (sales, hype, critical review).
However by analogy I'd suggest that a game or game system is the basic unit in RPGs, not the individual books that make it up. With the exception of D&D, which is outside of the usual guidelines because it transcends the rest of the genre due to its overwhelming notability, I'd suggest that individual game manuals should be considered a part of a game or game system rather than independent entities. The fact that they are generally printed as separate 'books' is simply to make them more usable as reference materials, not because the content is inherently distinct and could not be published as part of a single publication.
Assuming that definition is kosher (it may not be, it's just my current thinking), that has implications for notability. Firstly, the Notability (book) guidelines are right out. WP:NOTINHERITED is covered by the fact that something which makes an individual manual notable instead makes the game system as a whole notable. For instance, if the monster manual for a game contains an innovative stat block template, that would be a notable aspect of the entire game, not of the manual itself, since the content of that book is a feature of the whole game - as discussed, the fact that it is included in one specific physical book is just an organisational aid, not an inherent individual quality of the book. This is akin to a controversy about a particular definition in a volume of Funk and Wagnel's Encyclopedia making the whole reference text notable, not the specific volume containing that definition.
This would also bolster the notability of RPG systems generally, as a single system can have multiple notable features scattered throughout its various source books, all contributing to the notability of the entire system. This makes sense to me. If an RPG system is notable for a particularly innovative mechanic, and that mechanic is located in a particular source book, it wouldn't make any sense to say that the game manual is notable while the system that it is a part of is not. Obviously the mechanic is a feature of the game, and it just happens to be presented in a specific manual. If notability attached to books rather than the system as a whole, then under current notability guidelines the vast majority of RPGs would not have articles, and that is clearly not desirable.
This would also open up what constitues secondary sources. Game systems as a whole generate discussion, analysis and review, far more than the individual manuals do - a typical review of a manual evaluates the book in terms of what it contributes to the game as much as by its internal merits. This broadens the number of sources available. For instance, I watched a documentary on table-top gaming a few months ago that mentioned and discussed several less popular game systems; they discussed the systems in toto, meaning that this doco could be a secondary source for the systems, but they didn't mention specific manuals, meaning it couldn't support the notability of those books. Finding a source for an individual splat book, or a third-party add-on, may be tricky, but many game systems are notable specifically because of the large quantity of fan-produced material, third-party books, splat books and the like - trying to justify the notability of the individual manuals in such a case is tricky, but many reviews and articles exist describing the importance of the fan community in a game system as a whole, or discussing the way a particular system is good because it allows for third-party material.
In terms of 'multiple reviews from the one site', instead of having multiple reviews from the same source, what you have now is a series of reviews of different elements of the one game. This wouldn't neccesarily constitute multiple reviews in terms of notability, which is important because there really are very few truly reputable sources for the RPG community - three magazines, one of which is now defunct, and only three or four websites that could really be considered 'significant'. As well as this, other than D&D and, possibly, Vampire: The Masquerade, RPG systems do not have an individual presence in popular culture, meaning that sources outside of these handful of industry publications are very hard to come by. And as has been mentioned, even those few publications that exist could be questioned in terms of their neutrality, which is unfortunate because within the industry they are perfectly kosher, meaning that the industry itself doesn't see the need for more obviously neutral resources - so we're trimming our available secondary resources far more than the industry itself does.
As a final point, the amount that can be said about individual manuals without violating copyright is pretty slim. However an article discussing the whole game or system in general terms, as well as listing the major publications, if any of those publications have notable elements, if there is fan produced content, if there is a fan community, if there are third party publications to support the system, if that system has gone through several iterations or versions, if that system has contributed elements to other systems, if that system has a line of novels associated with it, if any part of that system has won any awards - this is a much more significant article.
I think as a first port of call a game should have an article. If the game system is used in multiple games (such as d20, Storyteller), that should have an article as well. If the games that use a system are not notable enough to sustain an article - the CODA System which I've looked at springs to mind - or where the game system is far more notable than the individual games, then the information about these games could be rolled into the one article on the game system. I'm proposing this because the primacy of the game versus the game system is not always the same or as clear cut as it is in other cases - D&D is more notable than d20, V:tM is more notable than the Storyteller System, but for most of the other games the system is more notable than the game (eg CODA) or the system and the game are one and the same things (eg Mutants and Masterminds).
So the Notability:RPG should take all that into account, in my opinion. Otherwise Wikipedia simply won't have any decent articles on RPGs outside of the Big Two, and those that exist will constantly be called on their notability.
CastorQuinn ( talk) 04:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Has this been proposed to the wider community yet? If yes, wherabouts and to what reaction? If no, why not and/or when will it be? Just out of interest, because the requirements look good, and it'd be useful to have "official". SamBC( talk) 13:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The wording on splitting articles is not consistent with the current thinking at notability fiction, nor with what I think is the consensus of editors: major characters and other major elements of articles about at least the most important games can be split without running afoul of notability--the articles are viewed as a while with respect to notability, and it is matter of editing decisions in each case about what is appropriate. the current wording is much too restrictive. DGG ( talk) 18:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
As an update, contributions are sought at WT:FICT#Guidelines and consensus, to try to determine whether the inclusion of spinout articles without real-world coverage has consensus support. Percy Snoodle ( talk) 10:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
A number of the older TSR game supplements and novels were reviewed solely in TSR house organs, but still had a great effect on the outside gaming community. I don't recall, for example, seeing reviews for the original Ravenloft module outside of Dragon, nor did I ever come across reviews for, say, Dragonlance. Until the advent of the Web, I generally expected to see reviews of TSR products in Dragon, reviews of SJG games in Pyramid, and so forth. The appearance of TSR products in other magazines, and other products in TSR magazines, was haphazard and frequently not related to the product's quality or influence. I understand the desire not to overbloat the RPG section with every supplement ever printed, and at the same time suggest that we find a guideline to include a broader range of the pre-Internet materials.
I am not suggesting that we include every supplement, for, say, Karameikos, but at least the major projects should be listed. Snuppy 01:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The fifth footnote says:
This looks like a definition of "reliable" not "non-trivial". Non-triviality is covered by the previous footnote, for "subject". Thoughts? Powers T 13:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems like it would be a good idea to contribute to Wikipedia:Notability (toys and games) rather than offer our own version. I've merged our work there. Percy Snoodle ( talk) 10:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
If proposal has been merged, then you should remove the proposal tag since it still shows up on the active proposals list It should be redirected or marked as failed. -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 14:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Any articles which contain information but don't meet the test for notability would be welcomed over at the RPG Talk Wikia. Pawsplay ( talk) 19:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Role-playing games Project‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Wow, some excellent stuff there. (Broke this out further for easy replies.) Now, do we really need a seperate RPG category, or can we incorporate this under books? Do we bring it up on their talk page? Etc. Haven't had a major policy clarification (note - not change) that I have been directly working on before. Turlo Lomon 12:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, we agree that specific guidelines are useful for articles pertaining to an RPG in general, and I agree very much with Percy's guidelines. As for individual RPG books, I am not sure that WP:BK as they are are completely applicable. First of all, they quite explicitly excludes reference books and manuals, which RPG manuals in some measure are. Moreover, the distribution, the kind of shops selling them, the kind of periodicals covering them are quite quite different for RPGs and for books. And of course hardly any RPG book "is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs" and so on. So, a sub-section of Wikipedia:Notability (RPGs) might specify the criteria for RPG books, of course mimicking those for general books. (On a more "philosophical" level, for book it is very rare--has it ever happened?--to have to evaluate an article for a particular book as opposed to the literary work it embodies.) -- Goochelaar 15:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Question: Percy's current suggested guidelines, which I'm in favor of using, says "Coverage from an online review website can be considered non-trivial for the previous criterion if the coverage includes work by at least one professional reviewer or writer." Does "professional" here mean that the reviewer has reviewing role-playing games as a source of income? I don't know of any such reviewers, not on RPGnet and in any Swedish role-playing magazines. The most respected reviewers usually get the games they review for free, but that's about it. But RPGnet still certainly has reviewers that could be viewed as authorities. Should we keep the word "professional" or try to reword it to include these reviewers? Jonas Ferry 16:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
With regard to WP:BK#Not yet published books, is there not a case for a "Not yet published games section"? You are probably aware of Afd for The Dresden Files, but I think you need to add this in too. -- Gavin Collins 16:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I might disagree with the statement that "Multiple reviews on a single website do not impart additional notability". What about the case when a new version of an RPG comes out, and a new review appears? Does this matter (especially if there are noticeable differences between versions that are discussed in a review)? There are a few examples I've run across on RPGnet where there are at least a couple of reviews (about what seems to be the same RPG book) but they're done by different reviewers. They have "playtest reviews", "capsule reviews", and (normal?) reviews, and these sometimes seem to be done by different people too. I don't quite understand the exact distinctions between these reviews that qualifies one type from the other. In any event, I thought I'd throw this out and see what people think. In general, however, the guidelines appear rather sensible on first read-through (subject to my other comment above). (Thanks Percy!) --Craw-daddy | T | 19:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that proposed rule 4. "The game's designer or setting is so historically significant that any officially associated works may be considered notable; or it is the focus of an active WikiProject" will result in conflict (see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability is inherited). AnteaterZot ( talk) 10:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I feel that this section needs to be expanded, becuause there is considerable misunderstanding and debate about how notability is demonstrated by the citation of reliable independent secondary sources. This debate has raged on many fronts: AfD's, in discussions about the use of notability template.
In my view, for a source to be classed as independent and non-trivial, the source should have been peer-reviewed in some way (this excludes self-published sources, such as fansites) and the source should be cited to support a specific claim of notability. The source itself should be non-trivial, e.g. it should make a case for the notability of the subject with reasoned arguments, analysis and or critisism.
A passing mention of the subject matter is not classed as secondary source, particulary if the source articles is related to another subject matter; some of the 'sources' used in RPG articles are actually primary sources, since they are restatement of the original source material.
Also the the quality of the citation is always important; for example if the magazine says "Buy this adventure now! Its a really great game!", then it cannot be classed as a secondary sources, as advertorials are not considered to be reliable. Could I propose a seperate section to address these issues? -- Gavin Collins ( talk) 14:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Having to get permission to publish an article is proof that it is not an independant third party source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GundamsRus ( talk • contribs) 01:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Quick Question / Clarification - I am going through old boxes of magazines and it occurs to me. A lot of the older Dragons should be fine for any review for a product that was not published by TSR/Wizards. As late as Dragon 250 (where I stopped) they were still featuring other products. Once I get done with my White Dwarf browsing I might go to the Dragon mags. Web Warlock ( talk) 21:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added a little to the independence reference to clarify this matter. Percy Snoodle ( talk) 10:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Third party source books should be acceptable for purposes of notability. If a third party felt that the topic was notable enough to spend money to cover, that's a strong vote for notability. Thoughts? Hobit ( talk) 03:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I made a few changes which I think match the thoughts of the discussion here. If you disagree, please comment here. Hobit ( talk) 03:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I've made this a new section of the talk page because I think defining what constitutes the basic unit of review in the context of RPGs has an impact on how notability is assigned in all respects, and because references to this issue appear in several places already on this talk page interspersed into other issues. I apologise for the length of this.
I would suggest that the album is the basic unit in musical productions, not the song; the individual volumes of a reference work (such as an encyclopedia, or 'The Rise and Fall of the Roman Republic') are not the basic unit; a fantasy series is the basic unit rather than the individual books that constitute the series. Exceptions exist for all this - a single may win an award independent of its album, a particular volume of a reference work may be especially significant, for instance if it is a 'lost' volume of an historical work, and an individual Harry Potter or Tolkien book has its own notable aspects beyond the series of which it's a part (sales, hype, critical review).
However by analogy I'd suggest that a game or game system is the basic unit in RPGs, not the individual books that make it up. With the exception of D&D, which is outside of the usual guidelines because it transcends the rest of the genre due to its overwhelming notability, I'd suggest that individual game manuals should be considered a part of a game or game system rather than independent entities. The fact that they are generally printed as separate 'books' is simply to make them more usable as reference materials, not because the content is inherently distinct and could not be published as part of a single publication.
Assuming that definition is kosher (it may not be, it's just my current thinking), that has implications for notability. Firstly, the Notability (book) guidelines are right out. WP:NOTINHERITED is covered by the fact that something which makes an individual manual notable instead makes the game system as a whole notable. For instance, if the monster manual for a game contains an innovative stat block template, that would be a notable aspect of the entire game, not of the manual itself, since the content of that book is a feature of the whole game - as discussed, the fact that it is included in one specific physical book is just an organisational aid, not an inherent individual quality of the book. This is akin to a controversy about a particular definition in a volume of Funk and Wagnel's Encyclopedia making the whole reference text notable, not the specific volume containing that definition.
This would also bolster the notability of RPG systems generally, as a single system can have multiple notable features scattered throughout its various source books, all contributing to the notability of the entire system. This makes sense to me. If an RPG system is notable for a particularly innovative mechanic, and that mechanic is located in a particular source book, it wouldn't make any sense to say that the game manual is notable while the system that it is a part of is not. Obviously the mechanic is a feature of the game, and it just happens to be presented in a specific manual. If notability attached to books rather than the system as a whole, then under current notability guidelines the vast majority of RPGs would not have articles, and that is clearly not desirable.
This would also open up what constitues secondary sources. Game systems as a whole generate discussion, analysis and review, far more than the individual manuals do - a typical review of a manual evaluates the book in terms of what it contributes to the game as much as by its internal merits. This broadens the number of sources available. For instance, I watched a documentary on table-top gaming a few months ago that mentioned and discussed several less popular game systems; they discussed the systems in toto, meaning that this doco could be a secondary source for the systems, but they didn't mention specific manuals, meaning it couldn't support the notability of those books. Finding a source for an individual splat book, or a third-party add-on, may be tricky, but many game systems are notable specifically because of the large quantity of fan-produced material, third-party books, splat books and the like - trying to justify the notability of the individual manuals in such a case is tricky, but many reviews and articles exist describing the importance of the fan community in a game system as a whole, or discussing the way a particular system is good because it allows for third-party material.
In terms of 'multiple reviews from the one site', instead of having multiple reviews from the same source, what you have now is a series of reviews of different elements of the one game. This wouldn't neccesarily constitute multiple reviews in terms of notability, which is important because there really are very few truly reputable sources for the RPG community - three magazines, one of which is now defunct, and only three or four websites that could really be considered 'significant'. As well as this, other than D&D and, possibly, Vampire: The Masquerade, RPG systems do not have an individual presence in popular culture, meaning that sources outside of these handful of industry publications are very hard to come by. And as has been mentioned, even those few publications that exist could be questioned in terms of their neutrality, which is unfortunate because within the industry they are perfectly kosher, meaning that the industry itself doesn't see the need for more obviously neutral resources - so we're trimming our available secondary resources far more than the industry itself does.
As a final point, the amount that can be said about individual manuals without violating copyright is pretty slim. However an article discussing the whole game or system in general terms, as well as listing the major publications, if any of those publications have notable elements, if there is fan produced content, if there is a fan community, if there are third party publications to support the system, if that system has gone through several iterations or versions, if that system has contributed elements to other systems, if that system has a line of novels associated with it, if any part of that system has won any awards - this is a much more significant article.
I think as a first port of call a game should have an article. If the game system is used in multiple games (such as d20, Storyteller), that should have an article as well. If the games that use a system are not notable enough to sustain an article - the CODA System which I've looked at springs to mind - or where the game system is far more notable than the individual games, then the information about these games could be rolled into the one article on the game system. I'm proposing this because the primacy of the game versus the game system is not always the same or as clear cut as it is in other cases - D&D is more notable than d20, V:tM is more notable than the Storyteller System, but for most of the other games the system is more notable than the game (eg CODA) or the system and the game are one and the same things (eg Mutants and Masterminds).
So the Notability:RPG should take all that into account, in my opinion. Otherwise Wikipedia simply won't have any decent articles on RPGs outside of the Big Two, and those that exist will constantly be called on their notability.
CastorQuinn ( talk) 04:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Has this been proposed to the wider community yet? If yes, wherabouts and to what reaction? If no, why not and/or when will it be? Just out of interest, because the requirements look good, and it'd be useful to have "official". SamBC( talk) 13:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The wording on splitting articles is not consistent with the current thinking at notability fiction, nor with what I think is the consensus of editors: major characters and other major elements of articles about at least the most important games can be split without running afoul of notability--the articles are viewed as a while with respect to notability, and it is matter of editing decisions in each case about what is appropriate. the current wording is much too restrictive. DGG ( talk) 18:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
As an update, contributions are sought at WT:FICT#Guidelines and consensus, to try to determine whether the inclusion of spinout articles without real-world coverage has consensus support. Percy Snoodle ( talk) 10:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
A number of the older TSR game supplements and novels were reviewed solely in TSR house organs, but still had a great effect on the outside gaming community. I don't recall, for example, seeing reviews for the original Ravenloft module outside of Dragon, nor did I ever come across reviews for, say, Dragonlance. Until the advent of the Web, I generally expected to see reviews of TSR products in Dragon, reviews of SJG games in Pyramid, and so forth. The appearance of TSR products in other magazines, and other products in TSR magazines, was haphazard and frequently not related to the product's quality or influence. I understand the desire not to overbloat the RPG section with every supplement ever printed, and at the same time suggest that we find a guideline to include a broader range of the pre-Internet materials.
I am not suggesting that we include every supplement, for, say, Karameikos, but at least the major projects should be listed. Snuppy 01:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The fifth footnote says:
This looks like a definition of "reliable" not "non-trivial". Non-triviality is covered by the previous footnote, for "subject". Thoughts? Powers T 13:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems like it would be a good idea to contribute to Wikipedia:Notability (toys and games) rather than offer our own version. I've merged our work there. Percy Snoodle ( talk) 10:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
If proposal has been merged, then you should remove the proposal tag since it still shows up on the active proposals list It should be redirected or marked as failed. -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 14:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Any articles which contain information but don't meet the test for notability would be welcomed over at the RPG Talk Wikia. Pawsplay ( talk) 19:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)