Talk:Over the Edge (game)

	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.

Secret of over the edge?

Should this article include information on the big secret in Over the Edge? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.75.159.78 (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Dice Pool Originator

Excuse me, but how in the world can OtE be considered ground breaking with regards to Dice Pools, when Shadowrun predated both it and Vampire: The Masquerade by well over 2 years. I am not saying that the game is not original, but dice pools had been used before it was published Avador 05:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al Amarja

Shouldn't it be worked into the description that Al Amarja is inspired primarily by William Burroughs' "Interzone", from Naked Lunch, and thus bears a significant spiritual debt to Tangier, Morocco, at least so much as Washington D.C.? Baudot (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Product Catalogue

I feel that WP:DIRECTORY does not apply here. This is not about a current/upcoming product list or sales guide, as the products are out of print. It is for informational purposes about the body of literature that constitutes the game. It is encyclopedic knowledge and enhances the article.

More importantly, there is a LOT of precedent for product catalogues. In the realm of rpg games, see Dungeons & Dragons related products, List of Shadowrun books, and List of GURPS books as examples. Musical product lists are a requisite for any musical artist, see Pink Floyd discography, Radiohead discography, Lindsay Lohan discography. For much more frivolous yet surviving articles, see List of Star Wars video games, or List of books to which Stephen King has written an introduction (which survived a request for deletion with recommendation to merge).

If we deleted every product list on Wikipedia, we'd loose a lot of content; more importantly, we'd loose a ton of information. Divinus 23:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm of the opinion that WP:DIRECTORY does apply, both here and in the other examples you mention; that the rule has been inconsistently applied elsewhere doesn't make the list any less listcruft. If the list carried information beyond simply listing the books, I might feel differently, but as it is the page would be better served by an external link to a product listing elsewhere. Percy Snoodle 15:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a list; it's a catalogue. It doesn't just list the items, it also gives SKU numbers, publication date, and, more importantly, allows use of Wikipedia:Book sources to reference the ISBN information. Further information can be extrapolated based on frequency and range of publication dates, and the categories of published items for readers.

Would you please explain which specific section of WP:NOT a product catalogue for a game entirely defined by a series of products violates? In the meantime, I'll request comment from other wikipedians.Divinus 23:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't check back for a while. I'd say a product catalogue for a game line whose only products are books violates, to varying degrees, WP:NOT#DIRECTORY number 3 and the spirit if not the letter of 4, as well as the general guide that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". You say that "further information can be extrapolated" - perhaps the article would be better served by a prose description of that information?

Mentioning #3 certainly narrows it down to 4 of 9 possibilities. Are you referring to Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business?

I'd say Directories or Directory entries, depending on whether you see the list as being the catalogue itself or a page in one. Either way, it shouldn't be here. Also, as a resource for conducting business - perhaps to improve sales on a second-hand bookshop. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. Does giving a list of books in Nikola_Tesla#Further_reading constitute a resource for bookshops to conduct business as well? It may, to some extent, but I think the greater and more important effect is to provide readers a reference to additional knowledge. Since Wikipedia doesn't actually sell anything, a list like this conducts business in the same manner a library's card catalogue file. If providing knowledge of the existence of a book is paramount to selling the book, why do we even have the Special:Booksources tool? Divinus (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Further Reading' sections perform a different function; they are a pointer to more information about the subject, not a list of products which form the subject. If there were a single entry here giving the ISBN of a product catalogue, that would be the equivalent case; but instead we have the catalogue embedded in the article. The book sources tool exists AIUI in order that not all article references need be electronic, rather than as a tool with which to advertise books. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to #4, I hardly think a catalogue like this can be considered a sales catalogue, on the merit that a) the products are out of print, b) it doesn't link directly to any used-book sales sites, c) doesn't list prices or even specific physical books for sale, only titles that were available. That it reads "prices of a product should not be quoted in an article" means implicitly that products may be listed so long that their prices are not, barring few exceptions. Divinus 08:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the products are out-of-print or not doesn't matter. Including lists of products gives new users the impression that it's OK to use wikipedia to advertise their entire catalogues; they should be discouraged. That is what I meant by the "spirit" of guideline #4. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge about commercially available products is not advertizing per se. Wikipedia isn't endorsing products, but it may be providing information about them. If we can, through peer-review and editing, provide an article on McDonald's advertising without advertising McDonald's, isn't it reasonable to think that we can provide a list of sourcebooks to provide encyclopedic reference of a gaming system without advertizing the sellers of those books? Divinus (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the information should be available, but I don't think the catalogue should be embedded in the article. We can have articles on advertising because there is third-party commentary on that topic. If there's third-party commentary on the OTE catalgue, we should include that here. But that's not the same as directly embedding the catalogue in the article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another concern is that without a reliable cited source, a list of books is original research; with one, it's pointless. Percy Snoodle 14:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The data of the catalogue are assembled from several pages of the publisher's site. It serves the purpose of collating information from some 128k spread over 16 URIs into one clean list just under 1k in size. The information is readily verifiable, available, and already listed. Collation is not original research. Divinus 08:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are three methods of cataloguing products in common use. The method we have here currently seems to be the most popularly precedented with game settings with relatively few books (Al-Qadim, Birthright, Dark Sun, Earthdawn, Eberon, Forgotten Realms, etc.) and game systems likewise few books (Arduin, Doctor Who, Paranoia, Seventh Sea, SLA Industries, Spycraft, Starship Troopers, Toon, etc.). Larger games/settings have entire separate pages for these catalogues, like List of Cyberpunk 2020 books, List of Deadlands sourcebooks, List of GURPS books, List of Shadowrun books, etc., but that method applied here would certainly receive recommendation for merging back into this article. A very rare third is to use the category system, as in Category:Greyhawk modules, but that faces the same problems as the second method. The current system seems the best.

Roleplaying sourcebook/product catalogues have broad consensual acceptance. If you really really disagree, I still recommend awaiting comment from others. Otherwise, you have a LOT of deleting to do if you're going to bring all these game articles up to the level of quality with regard to your interpretation of WP:NOT that you're trying to hold this article too. Divinus 08:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of articles which don't meet the guidelines isn't evidence that the guidelines don't apply; just that they haven't been met. However, this may be the direction in which consensus has moved, in which case the guidelines need to change, or at least be made more clear. Hopefully your RFC will sort that out. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the guidelines are indeed applicable, and articles and sections of articles exist that contradict those guidelines, then yes, one or the other should be changed. It might also be that guidelines are more difficult to change than ignore in cases with broad consensus. Unfortunately, I don't think this RFC will cause rewrite or clarification of WP:NOT. I actually suspect that because OTE is such a low-profile topic, this RFC will not produce any comments at all. Our last RFC produced no additional commentary.

I suggest that we agree to recommend List of GURPS books for deletion. I think we might generate more and better discussion about the role of source book lists on Wikipedia than an RFC here has/will, or at least clarify the policy. I think that if we agree, we wouldn't be disrupting WP to prove a point in conflict, but appealing to a more definitive process in concert. What do you think? Divinus (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wary. The List of GURPS books is in theory a condensation of several minor topics, rather than a product listing; it gives coverage to the many GURPS sourcebooks which are only notable when considered together, thereby keeping them from cluttering up wikipedia. However, I note that few of the actual books are given any description, so perhaps it has failed in that task. As another suggestion, perhaps you would prefer to convert my prod of List of Deadlands sourcebooks to an AFD - none of those books have received any description, so the article is a product catalogue, plain and simple. Another would be for me to try to prose-ify the existing list so as to show you what I *do* think belongs here. Perhaps that wouldl make my argument more clearly than tring to state what I don't. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like List of Deadlands sourcebooks at least describes some information about the books' topics, though not as much as List of GURPS books. List of Shadowrun books is probably the most egregious example, in terms of RPGs. I think in a non-rpg theme, List of Star Trek novels could also be a good candidate. It does link to articles about the novels themselves, but that could be done with groups. Regardless, I like your idea for prosifying the information, or maybe we could just actually flesh out the article some more and move the list of sourcebooks to the references section, a la Dungeons & Dragons? Divinus (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the articles, you're absolutely right that the Shadowrun list is a better example. I don't think that a catalogue of books belongs in a references section; it's better to have references which are added in support of specific facts, or else users can hide advertising in a references section. The D&D list is more along the lines of the bibliography-of-references I describe below, and would benefit greatly from use of the {{harvnb}} template. It can be possible to convert an existing list to that format if it is short - I've recently tried to do it with Hol (role-playing game) in this edit - that preserved the links to the books but put them to use as references. That's what I'd like to achieve with a section commenting in prose on the OTE line, with references to the books where they are appropriate; but I don't think that an embedded listing is a step towards such a section. Percy Snoodle (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Citation sounds like a good method, but doesn't Harvard in-text citation sound a bit strange for an RPG? I like what you did with HoL. Divinus (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It is encyclopedic knowledge and enhances the article." Agreed. -- 76.104.46.56 (talk) 05:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliographies

There is a difference between a product catalogue and a bibliography. Bibliographies - a list of sources used in constructing the article - are a good idea in articles which use different pages from the same source as references for different parts of the article. For an example, see Fullstop's bibliography in List of unmade Doctor Who serials. However, a list of products in a product line doesn't constitute a bibliography in this sense. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is, indeed, one definition of 'bibliography'. I was referring to another definition, that being a list of books relating to a subject, author, or publisher, this sense of the word being nearly 140 years old. [1] [2] [3] You may wish to compare the analogus terms 'discography' and 'filmography'.

The now common use of 'bibliography' in the sense meaning 'a list of references' I think makes the term 'catalogue', simply meaning 'list', preferable. I also recognize that 'catalogue' is also a shortened term for 'sales catalogue', which is regrettable. Perhaps 'List of source materials' would be the least ambiguous title for the section? Divinus (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'List of source materials' suggests to me that the entries are sources for the facts in the article - so a bibliography in the other sense, which the section isn't. Probably 'list of products' is the least ambiguous name for the section. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose if they're all books, then 'List of sourcebooks' would be good, but 'List of products' does seem the most standard form here. Divinus (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Is a list of books published for an out-of-print RPG covered under WP:NOT#DIR ?

Please comment and see the Product Catalogue section above for discussion so far.Divinus (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's disingenuous to:

Start an RFC for RPG policy without notifying WP:RPG;
Start an RFC, then modify the article saying "Please stop deleting sections of the article for duration of RFC." - surely you should refrain from editing it too?
Use "I have exhausted my attempts to discuss the disagreement without response." as your edit summary to start the discussion. You've had responses, you just disagree with them.
Describe the complaint as "There is disagreement as to whether a bibliography constitutes a directory" when there's been no mention of bibliographies so far.

I've notified WP:RPG for you. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:OTE-1st-cover.jpg

Image:OTE-1st-cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]