Talk:Iron Heroes

Adam Winsor Link

I am fairly certain the Adam Winsor linked to as current owner is not the right person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.102.60.10 (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Correct - the wrestler and the RPG writer are not the same person. Links removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.240.194 (talk) 06:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Change of Publisher

On March 1st, it was announced that Iron Heroes was sold to Adam Windsor, aka Crowroadaw of the official IH message boards, writer of the IH adventures Dark Harbor and Blood Storm and official errata-maker for the game. It will now be published by Fiery Dragon Productions.

I'll give it a few weeks for the revised PDF to come out, then I'll edit this appropriately. 151.213.177.247 15:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikify/POV

I hate to do this to an article I created and pretty much babied... but a raft of edits by an anonymous user have left the article in serious need of wikifying and POV. It's unacceptable to make statements along the lines of "The armiger is a rushed class" and the like. Unwilling to blanket revert good-faith contributions, and unable to fix the problems tonight (and busy with trying to figure out how to get the CVG workgroup to re-review the Doom 3 article when I'm not up to my eyeballs in classwork), I need to leave this in other contributors' capable hands for now. I will try to fix this mess later; in the meantime, the article stands tagged. Captainktainer * Talk 03:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

POV Work

I remember this page before. T_T This atrocity was brought to my attention from the Monte Cook boards. Over the next few days I'll be running through and trying to get it back to NPOV. I'm a relative newbie to Wiki editting, so any constructive help is more than welcome. If you see something that could be done better, do so and tell me why! Xanthir 9:29, 21 Sep September 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious as to when it was mentioned as an atrocity; vanity demands that I find out what they thought of the version I was working on. Only thing I can suggest is work to use the most concise language possible; encyclopedias provide a general overview. And now I must depart, for I have much stuff to do off-wiki. Captainktainer * Talk 22:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It was mentioned as an atrocity by me. ^_^ Somebody discovered the page for the first time and announced it on the Monte Cook boards. I followed the link to see what was new and saw an extremely bad job done (presumably by the anonymous editor). I've rewritten all the class entries to hopefully provide a nice concise description of each, along with a separate paragraph on each of the 'controversial' classes that I have experience with. Question: Is the information on skills/HP/defense progression useful? I simply stopped putting it in after a while, and think it can probably be removed from the other classes without any loss, the obvious exception being the Thief. Oh, and I haven't cited anything yet, but I'll at least cite the Iron League the couple of times I mention it. Should I cite the controversial classes bit anywhere?

Oh, and I have no particular attachment to my version. If you feel that yours was generally better, feel free to do a complete reversion. Xanthir 23:46, 21 Sep September 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite and such

I've done a fairly substantial rewrite, pruning, POV check, and Manual of Style overhaul. A couple of notes:

• 1) Remember that criticism and analysis needs to be attributed to a reliable source. One of the key policies of Wikipedia is that original research is prohibited; remember that if you expand and move things around. Also, remember that we aren't here to make value judgements, just to report on, summarize, and collect the facts.
• 2) It would be very helpful if we could get a promotional image of the cover. Remember to follow the licensing policy at Wikipedia:Images.
• 3) If we could get high-quality illustrations of some of the more iconic classes (licensed under the GFDL), that would go a long way toward improving the quality of the article.

I'm fairly satisfied with the work done on the article. I think it's great that so many people at the Iron League have put effort into improving the quality of Wikipedia's coverage of Iron Heroes. Captainktainer * Talk 17:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Captainktainer. I guess the 'controversy' bit isn't needed, and it may become dated if we ever receive a second edition as well. Does WP's NOR prohibitition cover stuff like class revisions? It may, which is why I'm still a wiki newbie. ^_^

I can pull a cover image soon. From what I read in one of the guides, cover shots are automatically Fair-Use, correct? Xanthir 19:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Cover shots are fair use, yes. As for class revisions, if it's published in a reliable source (for instance, the publisher's website), the revision may be noted. Value judgments about the revisions (for instance, claiming that the class was "rushed" or "broken") would be original research (and a breach of NPOV), although if notable commentators (which doesn't include RPG.net, from my perspective) say it, we can say that some have claimed a certain thing. A controversy section isn't bad, it's just that controversy on a forum doesn't really qualify. Captainktainer * Talk 21:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Player's Companion

I've added some initial information about new material found in the Player's Companion that was just released. Be gentle with me, this is my first wiki edit ever. ;-) Yergi 03:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Lead

The intro should mention that it was originally published by Malhavoc. Possibly the infobox should include both publishers? Not sure what the convention is there. --128.163.7.132 (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)