Talk:Guardians of Order

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Role-playing games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of role-playing games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Role-playing gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing gamesTemplate:WikiProject Role-playing gamesrole-playing game articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is Guardians of Order Dead?

I pulled the claim that "Dozens of artists and other freelancers are left unpaid for work on many products." It's unsourced, I can't find any compelling evidence online. Given the severity of the claim, it needs some sort of evidence. If someone is looking to dig up that evidence, [1] here seems to be the place to start. Alan De Smet | Talk 04:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On User talk:Alan De Smet, User:Mance basically says that the forums look pretty solid (to which I agree), so what should we do. My opinion: For now, just wait. I don't think this is newsworthy enough to report. And being forum posts, who knows. The George R. R. Martin post could be faked. I'm content to wait; in a few months there should be some more concrete answers. That said, I won't particularlly object if someone else writes up, provided it's carefully phrased to be clear this is primarily hearsay. Perhaps something along the lines of "There are online reports that no one has been able to contact GoO. These reports include claims that George R. R. Martin has been unable to." Then link to the two relevant forum threads. Alan De Smet | Talk 03:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This comment moved from User talk:Alan De Smet:
Hi, I just checked out your edit on the Guardians of Order page, and I fully agree with your reasoning in removing the uncited information for 2006. However, it's sad to say that for the most part, the information in that article is true--if you travel to GoO's website and check their forum (particularly the AGOT section, at the top), you can see different authors and artists that worked on that project coming forward, and even an email from George R R Martin, the creator of the series off which the game is based. But since forums don't count as verifiable sources according to Wikipedia, it creates a problem on citation--what do you think we should do?-Mance 00:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posted by 12.0.45.2, this comment moved from User talk:Alan De Smet:
Perhaps one could at least reference the fact that the last time the website appears to have been updated with company news was February, and several shipping dates on the company iCal have lapsed without product or news.

By popular demand, I've added a section on GoO being unresponsive. Given that the information isn't terribly verifiable I've tried to put it in the most general, uncertain terms. It could probably use an overhaul, but I believe the current wording is more supportable than the old version I pulled. As an added bonus I tried to flesh out the main body. Alan De Smet | Talk 23:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does one go about documenting and citing all of the unpaid creators for the "Game of Thrones" project? I'm involved with a private forum of artists established expressly to discuss their rights regarding their unpaid work being sold in the resulting product. Does anyone doubt GoO is really dead at this point? JeffJonez 12 Apr 2007

Obviously GoO is dead; the article appears to correctly state as much. (If I've overlooked something, please fix it.) The heading above predates the official announcement; no sense in changing it. As for the the unpaid creators; we'd really need some citations. An "official" site from one, or even better, a bunch of the creators would be a good start. Even better would be third party coverage, perhaps in a source that covers the game industry; trade magazines and the like. Indeed, if your goal is to publicize this, getting the word out to these sources would be an excellent start anyway. Once you've got some citations, write up a new section with the citations. Since this is likely to be a matter of some debate, be careful that the writeup is cautiously written, "So-and-so claims the GoO owes them X," and so on. — Alan De Smet | Talk 00:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

goofanforums.com dead?

As of January 9 2008, http://www.goofanforums.com/ is a dead link, returning a "404 Not found" error. This could be transient; Google still has cached copies. If it's still down in, say, a few weeks, it should be deleted. — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke to the owner of the domain. It it temporaily down till he can find a new server for it. Web Warlock (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Caelk added a link to something that claims to be the GFF. I couldn't verify that claim. What was linked to is very small (a mere 400 or so posts) and doesn't allow public access. That's not a terribly compelling resource, so I've removed it. — Alan De Smet | Talk 03:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same site, only now with a new URL and forum software. IF we included GOO Forums before then we should keep this one too. Web Warlock (talk) 11:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a slight statement in its favor. However it still doesn't look like a useful link and probably shouldn't have been there in the first place. 400 posts over 10 or so months is a barely existent forum. That it's closed to the pubilc is another strike against it. — Alan De Smet | Talk 18:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with you really. Yes it is the same place, yes it is barely used. In it's favor it is one of the bigger fan sites for BESM/GOO. Outside of anything better than that though let's agree to keep it out for now. Web Warlock (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History fancruft?

I believe the History section is in need of rewriting. Currently, it is (1) only a big list, and (2) contains far too many small details (possibly all?). Have a look at other company pages - you won't (or at least, shouldn't) find this level of excessive detail anywhere else. CapnZapp (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And oh, please don't just wipe out the templates indicating these problems without making any attempts at improvement and/or successfully arguing the current state of the section is okay as-is. Thank you, CapnZapp (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it needs rewriting. But what details are fancruft that should simply be purged? The list of products? To grab a few game companies off the top of my head -- TSR, Inc, Wizards of the Coast, and Infocom --, a list of games seems pretty reasonable. That the games have brief descriptions? Explaining exactly what it was that GoO published seems helpful. Upon review, there is a lot of unnecessary redundancy, but that's just bad writing and organization, not fancruft. The notes about the companies growth and end? Seems kinda key to coverage of GoO to me. I am simply not seeing the "excessive amount of intricate details" that warrants the template. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new look is much better. Great job, Alan! At least I am much less sensitive to a listing of products that just happens to be complete, than a complete listing of "events" regarding the company. At least this is what I meant; possibly I was using the template inappropriately? Anyway, I have no outstanding complaints and will remove the template I put there in five days, but feel free to remove it yourself sooner. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exported to RPG Museum

On 20 August 2020, the Guardians of Order page and its complete edit history has been exported from here and imported at RPG Museum (page link), a growing wiki on Fandom that intends to be a resource for all tabletop RPGs. RPG Museum is using this content under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Thanks, all! -- Supermorff (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]