Jump to content

Talk:GURPS Steampunk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources

[edit]

<--- This may seem random, but you could try asking [User:Sciencefish] first.

<--- In cases like this, the awards are key to the claim to notability, so they need to be foregrounded. :)

Supplements

[edit]

<--- There should be reviews of ScreamPunk, which was well-received as I recall, as well as Masters' Ottoman Empire and possibly SteamTech as well. I'm not sure that the e-releases have been reviewed very much, but they should at least be listed IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GURPS Difference Engine

[edit]

The Difference Engine "is widely regarded as a book that helped establish the genre conventions of steampunk."

<=== Which reminds me: if Ottoman Empire is in-scope (as I feel it must be) then GURPS: Castle Falkenstein should also be mentioned. Newimpartial (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution

[edit]

So I am determined to proceed with this. :) The biggest gaps in the GURPS articles at the moment seem to be this one and GURPS Mage the Ascention, both of which are worth doing. Well, also GURPS Castle Falkenstein, but with care it can be mentioned at GURPS Steampunk. Newimpartial (talk) 05:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, GURPS WWII is an even bigger gap, but I feel less qualified to take that one on. Newimpartial (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw your comment here. I will help! I am unfortunately, not confident that we'll meet WP:GNG, but we can but try. If you have any plans, order of operations, layout, any of that, let me know and I'll follow them, if not, I will just hack away at the best of my ability as my time and effort allows. --GRuban (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm not too worried about Steampunk. We have the award and the Routledge Companion mention, and I've found entries in French and German reference works as well. I was just dreading starting the process from scratch (white page syndrome), but I've decided to begin with the publications related to the line and build my way out. It doesn't technically have to meet GNG anyway - an NBOOK pass would work - but I'm confident to make it to both NBOOK and GNG. That was just avoidance before, but I think I can see how to work my way up to it by doing easier content edits, and even simpler game pages, rather than requiring myself to do just it and nothing else. So don't worry about that one.
On the other hand, GURPS World War II is going to be tough. It was a huge line, but I can't find RS reviews, and even the fan attention seems to have concentrated on Ken Hite's Weird War II entry. Maybe all that can be done is a build-out from List of GURPS books, starting with catalogue information and adding notes from what reviews there are. That still feels like a defeat to me, since GURPS Traveller and Transhuman Space - the other two main lines from the period - have much more comprehensive treatment (in the single-article style, rather than page per book, but that's what I like). But it would take a miracle bigger than a Designers & Dragons entry to make that possible for World War II. So if you have some energy, maybe you could throw it first in that direction. The issues with Compendium I are pretty similar, I suppose, and it may be that a build-out on List of GURPS books (starting with the "GURPS books" template used for the Fourth edition books - I don't see why it shouldn't be used with Third, particularly for the ones without articles) is all we can hope for. Newimpartial (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's looking good! Let me know when you are ready to publish. BOZ (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Boz. So far, GRuban is doing all the work (which was my plan all along, lol), but I would like to add some content about the GURPS Difference Engine project and GURPS Castle Falkenstein before publishing, so can I let you know?
Meanwhile, I have been gnoming away at List of role-playing game designers as a productive procrastination (which I find calming in these trying times); please take a look if you haven't. Newimpartial (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GURPS Book templates?

[edit]

So I haven't yet done this, but my feeling is that the GURPS Fourth edition section would benefit from filling out a full GURPS Book template for each entry (examples of the template can be found at List of GURPS books, in the "Genre Toolkits" section for 4e - yes, I know.) I don't know the back story, but the template insists on the ISBN etc. which I think is especially helpful for publications that might be questioned, like ebooks and PDFs. On the other hand, I would strongly prefer not including covers for the 4e releases, and the template uses I've seen don't have covers.

User:BOZ, could you correct me if I'm not grasping the issues around the GURPS Book template? I don't want the little boxes or the covers for the 4e section, but I do want the rest of the info, and it seems like it could be presented in an organized way using the template. Newimpartial (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I have seen in some infoboxes is that for multiple editions/versions of the same thing, you can put a page break with a header, such as:
Version 1: Blue
Version 2: Red
Or something like that? BOZ (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can, but that isn't what I was talking about in this section. I was just talking about using the GURPS book template to ensure that boilerplate information (but not a cover) is included for entries in this section.
Let me ask in another way: do you know of any reason not to do that? Or is there some other template that would be better for some reason, that also would not create a box for each 4e supplement? Newimpartial (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of a few infoboxes, they look good, but we don't really have a lot on the other works besides Gurps Steampunk proper, a short paragraph each, so on my screen at least, the infoboxes overwhelm the text, so don't want too many. Second, the 4e electronic only covers are pretty plain. I admit, however, to being a long time Hero System and Chaosium fan, so may be just a bit biased. --GRuban (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was concerned about, too many infoboxes can overwhelm a page. It might work OK on something like Player's Handbook where each section has enough material to support a small infobox, but on a shorter article it would be too much. BOZ (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at List of GURPS books, the Genre toolkits section: the GURPS book templates do not produce infoboxes.
So to be very clear: I am proposing five infoboxes, preferably all with covers: one for the main book, two for the two G:F books, and two for the other supplements. On my screen, the coverless boxes look fine, and I think they would also look fine with small cover images. I will look around using different displays later today, so if someone could upload and link the five covers I will play around with sizes. I'd like to actually try this before backing off, if possible.
And so also to be clear, under no circumstances do I want to include the 4e PDF covers. Absolutely not. Newimpartial (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the right answer is for what you are looking for, but if you really want to improve the list of books I would suggest you can take a look at List of Changeling: The Dreaming books, List of Mage: The Ascension books, and List of Vampire: The Masquerade books for ideas as they were all recently successfully made into Featured Lists. BOZ (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those are beautiful, but they are not at all what I'm looking for here ;) (nor do I favor that approach for List of GURPS books, either, though it obviously does need standardization - I think the GURPS list will always need to have different kinds of entries for books that receive more detail elsewhere and ones that do not, at a minimum).
On the other hand, you have given me a great model for List of campaign settings, which should be shoe-horned into a similar format and which I intend to work on as my next "gnoming" project after List of role-playing game designers. So, thanks for that! Newimpartial (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by BOZ (talk), GRuban (talk), and Newimpartial (talk). Nominated by GRuban (talk) at 21:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing: No - I think "longest and most detailed definition of the genre to that point" in the article should be in quotes as a direct quotation of a long-ish phrase (not super sure about this though, what do you think?); also, DYK rules recommend at least one inline citation per "paragraph", any cites for the "published exclusively in electronic format" sentence?
  • Neutral: Yes
  • Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: Yes
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Everything else looks good besides the very minor points mentioned above. Nice work. DanCherek (talk) 04:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DanCherek, Newimpartial, and BOZ: I fixed Dan's first objection by rephrasing, we don't need the direct quote, and I always prefer fewer words to more. However, the second part is a bit rough, as I just can't find a specific reliable source that says "these works were only available in electronic format", even though it's pretty clear from:
  1. the fact that each of these books says "Please purchase only authorized electronic editions" on the front page
  2. the fact that none of them have an ISBN (visible by its absence - the hardcopy printed 3rd edition works each give it on the first or last few pages)
  3. the https://gurps.fandom.com/wiki/Category:GURPS_PDF_Only_Books page - which isn't close to being a reliable source, of course
  4. the fact that Phil Masters, the man himself, who wrote all of them, wrote to me and said "... if you're going to mention that *GURPS Steampunk 1* is only available in electronic form, you should probably say the same about all the other 4th edition material."
But none of that is really citeable as such. I see three options:
  1. we could just remove the sentence/paragraph; it's not really vital to the section, I guess. Or:
  2. we could rephrase to make it even more general, and make it say something like "Phil Masters wrote the following GURPS 4th edition electronic form supplements...", remove the "by Phil Masters" from each book description. We'd then rely on WP:IAR to leave out a specific quote for the paragraph, and implicitly say "well, obviously each book says it's a GURPS 4th edition supplement written by Phil Masters, right on the front page, that's cited to the front page of each book", and just avoid talking about the "electronic form only" part.
  3. we could instead shoehorn the "electronic form" into the first sentence of each book description next to "by Phil Masters", both those would be effectively cited to the first page of each book (per facts 1 and 2), the same way as the "by Phil Masters" is, then we wouldn't have a paragraph without citations, it would just be repetitive (and redundant, and unnecessary, and would say the same thing over and over again )
What do folks think? --GRuban (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like option #2, it feels like a clean solution and all of them are written by Masters anyway so it would remove some repetition within each paragraph. But happy to hear what others think as well. DanCherek (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! I asked Phil Masters if there's a reference that specifies that they're all digital only, and he writes: "For an official list of GURPS books, there's http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/ Which indicates which are in print, out of print, and/or available in digital form. If a book isn't either in print or out of print, it must only ever have existed in digital form." That's not ideal, of course, because it doesn't say that last bit straight out, but it's better than nothing, and that link is good anyway because it clearly shows that they're 4th edition at a glance. Unless Newimpartial or BOZ have a different opinion, I'll go to option 2, and will put in that source. --GRuban (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will support whichever version you think is best. :) Glad to see another DYK for RPG! BOZ (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DanCherek: Done - good? --GRuban (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks awesome, thanks! DanCherek (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:GURPS_Steampunk&oldid=1201024827"