Jump to content

Talk:Wizards of the Coast/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Info

Maybe some info about their web boards is called for. --The Computer Mutt July 6, 2005 20:26 (UTC)

Star Sisterz

If anyone knows anything about these guy's games, I have started a stub at Star Sisterz (as it was a long requested article). Please feel free to contribute. Proto t c 10:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Article

A very nice review of WotC life appeared lately. Check it at http://www.rpg.net/columns/briefhistory/briefhistory1.phtml -- ReyBrujo 07:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Fantasy novel series

I'm a little uncomfortable with this section, since it lists all of the TSR settings, and I'm not sure all of them have been published under Wizard's management. And in comparison, the TSR entry for novels is minimal. Any opinions or information? FrozenPurpleCube 19:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The last of the Dark Sun novels was published in 1996, which would be before the WotC purchase, and yet Amazon lists Wizards as the publisher. I am going to remove at least Dark Sun from the list, but please be bold in correcting any others you find.
—Asatruer 22:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, well, I yanked Birthright, Spelljammer, and Mystara from the list, since they also have no publications after the TSR purchase. I'm still not entirely satisfied with the section though, as I feel it remains a little too heavy on the D&D/TSR related properties and not enough on the Wizard's ones. I'll check Wizard's book publishing section, see what else they've published. At the least, the Magic-novelizations belong somewhere.
It is my understanding that WotC owns the rights to those titles, even though they haven't published anything new since trhe buyout. Thus I think it would be appropriate to list them. --Roninbk t c # 15:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, they do own the rights, but with their name never having appeared on the product, it's a tad inaccurate. At the least, I'd prefer they be seperated out by something like "Wizards also owns the rights to published books for these other intellectual properties" . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FrozenPurpleCube (talk • contribs) 16:39, September 20, 2006 (UTC)
I agree with FrozenPurpleCube, the most obvious interpretation of the list is "books WotC has published." Thus, adding books they own the rights to would be confusing. Furthermore, we don't actually know WotC has those rights. A list of "things WotC has published" is easy to confirm, a list of "things WotC has rights to" is harder. Alan De Smet | Talk 02:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Martial Arts RPG

If I remember correctly, either Wizards of teh Coast or TSR made a Martial Arts RPG back in the early 2000s and releaed it chapter by chapter online for free. Anyone remember what the name of this RPG was and should it be included here?--Jazz Remington 00:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that was Dragon Fist. According to this link, it was sold to Green Ronin. Green Ronin appears to be putting out a new version, scheduled for 2006: [1]. Powers T 15:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

MTG Forums

The "You Make The Card" forum is not a place for players to submit ideas to be used in future sets. For legal reasons, the people who actually work on the sets are not even allowed to look at those forums. I believe MaRo said this in one of his mail bag articles, but I'm not sure. In any case, that section should be changed. --Insane 00:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Reliability of Wizards.com

Please note that this subject is discussed at Reliability noticeboard.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


Citation 1 is not necessary since citation 2 also covers the fact that wotc was sued by palladium.

Citation 1 is a very good article on the history of wizards of the coast, would be extremely use full for someone looking to learn more.

Does anyone have an objection to moving Citation 1 to external links.

"The release of The Primal Order brought legal trouble with Palladium Books suing for references to their game and system.[1] The suit was settled in 1993 by Wizards paying an undisclosed sum to Palladium and agreeing not to mention their products again.[2]" [1]^ a b Tynes, John (2001-03-23). Death to the Minotaur: Part 1 (HTML). Salon Media Group, Inc.. Retrieved on 2006-09-01. Ethyr 16:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Redundant citations aren't a problem. If anything, they support each other, providing an even stronger reference for the fact. I say leave it where it is. — Alan De Smet | Talk 03:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
My only issue is that citations are much less visible than links. It is a very well written and lengthy article on the history of wotc including much information not given in the wiki page. It would be more valuable as a link than as an redundant citation.Ethyr 19:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it really fits given the guidelines for external links. If there is further good information in the article, it should be extracted and included in the Salon article, it should be put into this article with citations. Beyond that potential information, it doesn't seem to provide much else of reference value. If someone wants "further reading," it's right there in the citations, which is where I'd expect to find further reading in any academic work. Either way, the citation should stay in place, even if the link is re-added to the External links. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Would anyone object to adding it to external linksEthyr 23:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Readded the link, I will work on extracting some of information from the link to the article. Ethyr 18:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


Contact Info

Who is currently in charge of WotC and where may I contact him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.86.114 (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Games.

Can someone add a non-online list of video games; NWK, Icewind Dale, Baldur's Gate, etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.236.142 (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Good Article?

I think we can get this one up to GA status. I'm planning on nominating it once we've resolved the GA on Gary Gygax. BOZ (talk) 03:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I have now nominated this article. BOZ (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Coming off of the Gygax article, by the way, I can see this one has a ways to go. But, I can tell you that since it's much shorter than EGG's, it probably won't take as much work to source everything. :) BOZ (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I respectfully decline to work on this article any more than I occasionally do/have on the grounds of personal reasons, but wish you luck BOZ. shadzar-talk 05:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't personally have any great love for WotC, but their importance to D&D, RPGs in general, and CCGs can't be denied; therefore I feel this article should be improved significantly. :) BOZ (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the review has begun, so do begin.  :) BOZ (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I've given it a good start in the right direction, and I think that's enough for tonight. ;) BOZ (talk) 06:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Will do some more tomorrow most likely, in the meantime I started a thread on ENWorld to see what kind of help we could get there; it has already turned up at least Wizards' own account of its history. BOZ (talk) 04:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Finally found some time to work on this. First thing, work with that link immediately above this post. BOZ (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Went to town on this article. It's amazing how many details one would think important were missing from the history section! Next, I'm planning on going over the Peter Adkison article and its sources and see what I can add here from there. Might do more of this tonight, or I might wait until tomorrow or later this week. We'll see!  :) BOZ (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Anyone have any idea if Peter Adkison's bio from GenCon 2007 is archived anywhere? Might be useful, might not. BOZ (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


Split out products into separate list?

In the Gygax article GA, I wasn't so sure about splitting out the list of his works, but in this case it might be a better idea to split out into List of Wizards of the Coast products or something. It makes sense anyway, given things like List of Avalon Hill games, List of GURPS books, List of Shadowrun books, etc. The most notable WotC games/products can be integrated into the article and expanded upon. If no one objects to this, I'm going to do it. :) BOZ (talk) 05:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Since no one has objected yet, I'll split it out; feel free to revert. More edits forthcoming before long. BOZ (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Web community

This section is completely unreferenced. Some of it looks like it might be worth mentioning in the history section, so if there is a source for it I don't mind pulling out the most important parts and sticking them in. BOZ (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This section has been totally unreferenced for over a year, so I am removing it now. If you can find anything in here that you can source, feel free to add it to the article in an appropriate place. I am reproducing the whole text here:
Wizards has a vocal online community. Its members' posts on "magicthegathering.com" sub forum has made Wizards change some of their online employees, contents of articles and even the content of the website.
Wizards of the Coast Dungeons & Dragons game designers have also been known to visit the D20 Character Optimization Board to get information on how character classes have been used, and which ones are considered too powerful.
Wizards Community members have the privileges to:
  • Contribute to "You Make the Card!" project where members create cards of their own that may be chosen to show up in Magic: The Gathering sets.
  • Contribute to "Select Xth Edition" where members present their votes publicly for cards they like to see in Core Sets.
Members run an annual "Urza Awards" competition to recognize the contributions of noteworthy users. Forum moderators also organize "UnCon", Unconventional Convention. Special guests (WotC employees, Artists and Writers) also appear in WotC's "Live Chat'"
From 2007-2008, Wizards' website incorporated a community-focused site called Gleemax.

BOZ (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

controversy?

The constant biannual layoffs at WotC concern gamers on places like ENWorld, many blogger sites, and a few industry and designer personal sites. How should this be included in the article to not interfere with the GA status as the most recent layoffs took another bite of the digital team as well some D&D designers art directors, and the VP of digital gaming himself that was heading up both DDI and Gleemax? (see D&D project page from banner above for more information on the layoffs.)shadzar-talk 00:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Avoid the blogs, stick to the industry press, and stick to an NPOV, and you should be fine. Jclemens (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Ensuring that the word "controversy" is kept out of the article is also a good idea, especially in section headers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm in total agreement with Jclemens and thumperward. I haven't seen any analysis from the industry press about it, but reports aren't too hard to find. Noting that they had two rounds of layoffs this year is accurate, citable, and neutral. Coming to conclusions about WotC's health or future direction will need citations I haven't yet seen. On that note, here are the two citations I can offer at the moment, if someone else wants to look to integrating them (feel free to add to this list, or delete items that are integrated): — Alan De Smet | Talk 06:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Controversy is already in the article header. That is just where I figured this might go. I an not that good at adding material, so was wanting to address it here to how it should be added. I am a much better reader, than writer, and don't want to ruin the work done by the editors to get this article to GA status with my poor grammar, as well ruin the expeirence of wikipedia readers themselves with it. So with the absence of a WotC Press release on the latest round is ICV2 a reliable secondary source for this information? shadzar-talk 07:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

~undent~ For non-subscribers of the digital product for D&D the latest news article talks about the layoffs and some other facts. Digital Insider #18 shadzar-talk 05:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Michael 'elf' Feuell (Former Software Development Manager, Character Builder Lead Developer, and MTGO Rules Engine Lead Developer) identifies himself also removed from WotC staff.[2] shadzar-talk 22:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

RPGnet, RS?

Is RPGnet a reliable source? Shannon Appelcline is cited in a couple books and one journal. He might be notable, but may not be a RS, I don't know. The best thing about him is that he wrote at least one non-fiction book. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that the article by Shannon Appelcline is probably fairly reliable, although I can't be positive. I think that most of RPGnet is created by members, so that wouldn't be reliable and is why I removed the other ref. -Drilnoth (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Featured?

Well, should we give it a go? Would anyone like to give it a critique before any such process starts? Do you think there's even a chance of success? -Drilnoth (talk) 03:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

There's at least a slim chance! :) I say go for it - the worst that could happen is that we get it fixed up better than it currently is, ala Gary Gygax and Ravenloft (D&D module). BOZ (talk) 03:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good! I'll get the process started tomorrow. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Happy New Year. :) BOZ (talk) 04:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
You, too! -Drilnoth (talk) 04:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Count my paltry help in, too. Jclemens (talk) 07:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Great! -Drilnoth (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Um, should we have taken it through a PR first? Jclemens (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't have been a bad idea, considering how the last two FACs sans PR went. ;) BOZ (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Good points; I'll try and remember that in the future. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, regarding sources, we might want to mine the Magic: The Gathering article - it was recently delisted as a GA, but I betcha it's still got a few good RS's. We can check other articles that are related to WotC as well, but I bet they're out there. We might be able to re-source some of the stuff that Drilnoth removed earlier today. :) BOZ (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea; I brifley tried looking for sources for the stuff I removed, but didn't say any in the first page or so of GHITS. I can probably look into finding cites for that stuff in more detail a little later. -Drilnoth (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I saw that one coming too... Well, again, we made a lot of progress, and if we can address the concerns brought up in this FAC, then we can give it another try. :) Ready for the Forgotten Realms GAN? BOZ (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep; and maybe an Unearthed Arcana GAN, if you think that it looks good enough. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
UA is barely good enough to try, if you want to nominate it. :) The Gen Con GAN is likely to close out soon as a fail due to lack of sourcing, so I don't mind taking on another one. BOZ (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Nerds of the Coast

I have heard these guys as "Nerds of the Coast", is there any refereneces for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.54.14 (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there is now :-) Zaphraud (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Lawsuits and PDF sales

I am posting this here for reference in case anyone wishes to follow, or expound on this situation as the months of the lawsuits may roll out. This is in entireity from a post of WotC forums from someone from RPGNow on the PDF sales front of the matters. Original post can be found here: http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=18284879&postcount=1164 I will find any info from the website itself as soon as possible.

Steve Wieck with DriveThruRPG/RPGNow here.

I thought I would respond to a couple items discussed on the thread.
First, there are no "contract negotiations" with Wizards that led to the current situation. We have been doing business with Wizards on downloads for over six years now and always enjoyed a positive and co-operative license relationship. The thread's hypothesis that the situation might be a result of a negotiation issue is a reasonable hypothesis but is incorrect.
On Monday I spoke with Wizards' legal department in a call that I thought would discuss the lawsuits Wizards has filed. We had been co-operating with Wizards to supply information on pirated files for those lawsuits (as allowed under our site privacy policy). Instead I was informed of Wizards' decision to cease all PDF sales at this time. It was a complete surprise to me.
Wizards gave us legal notice to remove their titles. Due to what I'll characterize as a miscommunication on intent, we complied immediately and removed all public access to Wizards' products from DriveThruRPG and RPGNow. In turns out this was not a situation that either we or Wizards desired. I am in discussions with Wizards legal and it looks highly probable that we will be able to offer customers time to come back and re-download prior purchases for their personal archives. We will email and post information on sites once we have final confirmation on this.
I regret that some customers have inferred that our download counts are any guarantee of availability to re-download titles. We really do not like iTunes' approach of "one download, you lose it, pay again" so we do our best to offer perpetual downloads of purchased titles. Our agreements with publishers though do not let us guarantee this - as this situation makes clear. We have learned a lesson here by reading that some customers inferred otherwise, and we will make some changes soon to clarify this on DriveThruRPG and RPGNow.
We are offering full refunds to anyone who purchased a Wizards title from us but never downloaded it. These are extremely rare cases, as most everyone downloaded the goodies as soon as they were originally purchased.
I am otherwise as confused as anyone else here on the rationale behind Wizards' decision. I know there are some smart people at Wizards like Scott who get it, so I can only speculate that there are others who are not as informed and who are making the call on this.
As many other folks on this forum have stated, I also believe that piracy for the foreseeable future is unavoidable for books. So long as printed copies and scanners and torrents exist, rpg books have been and will be pirated. It's sad and fatalistic, but it's true.
Given that rpg books will always be on file-sharing sites, it means that anyone who purchases a legal PDF is doing so because they prefer to make that choice over pirating the file. Thankfully, the number of rpg fans who make that decision are legion and it lets us send payments every month to hundreds of rpg publishers and creators. By making this choice to legally support thier hobby, fans are keeping rpgs alive. I say that without one bit of exaggeration or melodrama. Around seven new rpg titles go live every day at DriveThruRPG and RPGNow. The hobby could not be nearly that prolific if not due to fans choosing to support their hobby.
This makes DRM an extremely poor choice for any publisher. DRM inevitably restricts ease of purchase and ease of use, and anything that tips customer choice from legal purchase toward pirating is a bad business decision. DRM does nothing to prevent pirated files from being available, since the files will already be available anyway from scanned copy.
We already learned lessons on DRM the hard way in the past, so I know the issue intimately. For many years now, we have embraced watermarking as the preferable solution.
The posts by D&D fans across all gaming forums, while angry at times, are ultimately posted out of concern for Wizards and the desire to see Wizards make the best choices. Whether I ever do business with Wizards again or not, Wizards is a big part of the hobby that I love and for that reason alone, I hope that they reconsider. Especially given the ongoing fan feedback on this, I am optimistic that they will.
Steve
www.DriveThruRPG.com
www.RPGNow.com

hopefully this will help other editors in research and finding info from any and all sides of this in regards to WotC and help make this article not bound by rampant speculation of any facts. shadzar-talk 14:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Created the genre

The opening paragraph states

...the company popularized the collectible card game genre with Magic: The Gathering in the mid-1990s...

while this is true, I believe it understates the facts. WOTC CREATED the genre. It should say:

Originally a basement-run role-playing game publisher, the company created the collectible card game genre with the release of Magic: The Gathering in the mid-1990s, acquired the...

What do you think? Hogan (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source corroborating that no collectible card games existed before M:tG? 24.148.0.83 (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The Game Keeper

Wizards of the Coast bought the long-running Game Keeper stores. The retail chain was around for decades before Wizards became anything useful. Strange how there's nothing about a store that every single mall in the US had one of! 68.96.214.115 (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

If you've got a reliable source discussing the stores, feel free to add the info! 204.153.84.10 (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Wizards of the West Coast

There. I've got that phrase in there. It should be somewhere in the main article. 59.167.126.21 (talk) 11:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it, unless the company has used it before. 108.69.80.49 (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
That was the company's original name, which was used until about the early 00's 59.167.126.21 (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Can you provide a citation? Checking my copies of The Primal Order (Published 1992) and Ars Magica (1994), the publisher is listed as "Wizards of the Coast," no "West" present. — Alan De Smet | Talk 16:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it was an informal name, or a name used before they published anything? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Prehistory and early history of WotC

Wizards today linked an early usenet article by Peter Adkison. Very detailed about the early history of Wizards. If you need a source... OdinFK (talk) 09:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Updated CEO

Chris Cocks has replaced Greg Leeds as CEO. I am never great at formatting citations, but have included the url in the citation.[1]Apriestofgix (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! 73.168.15.161 (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/HAS/0x0x885297/839A94EB-5D0A-421E-8F98-6173DBBED238/HAS_News_2016_4_11_Public_Relations_News_.pdf

Should section names be changed?

BOZ I know some areas of improvement have been discussed in Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Wizards_of_the_Coast/1 but should we think of reorganizing the sections a bit? The "Acquisition of TSR and Pokémon TCG" section covers history from 1997-2003 and the "Acquisition by Hasbro" section covers history from 1999-2004 and then there is a separate "2000 – 2010" section which covers things going on not in those two buckets plus everything post 2004. I think this might lead to a readability issue with the History section jumping a bit back and forth in time. Maybe there should be a "1997-2005" section with subsections for the two acquisition bits, then "2005-2013", "2014-present" sections (just based off of Wizards publishing waves). Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. I'm glad this article is getting some attention - probably more attention than it has gotten since I was one of the folks working to get it up to GA in the first place several years ago... and it was showing. ;) I forget since it was several years ago, but I think the reviewer at that time may have wanted us to organize things thematically instead of simply chronological, or maybe that was just what we wanted to do. Either way, I'm not too worried, but any breakdowns you use should not be arbitrary - maybe break it up by major events or new directions for the company or some such. Anyway, it's a lot better now, and properly updated! BOZ (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

unfactual "facts"

"In 2017, 9 million people watched others play D&D on Twitch" this statement is non-factual as it cannot be proven by any means, the number of people that watch/stream D&D on Twitch as it is the catch all for all Tabletop RPGs since Twitch began, and until late 2018 was the only category available, until IRL (In Real Life) category on Twitch was dissolved in Sept 2018 ( https://blog.twitch.tv/introducing-tags-and-new-categories-33744ef7b04f ), and Tabletop RPGs category was created, that was highly populated with more than half the streams and videos in it being either: Pathfinder, Vampire the Masquerade, Star Wars, Call of Cthulhu and many other RPG on the market. D&D only recently has had a 50% share of the content in the D&D category on Twitch, as many complaints have been made over the years that even the SyFy wire article with Greg Tito ( https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/dungeons-dragons-had-its-biggest-sales-year-in-2017 ) (Redacted) While the claim was made, it should somehow be noted in the article that Twitch doesn't consider D&D to be the actual D&D game in its category, and allows anything tabletop RPG related from drawing anime art, painting Star Wars miniatures, building furniture, etc; due to the nature of Twitch being a video game focused website, and treats other entities that appear on it as novelties and have no knowledge of them. Twitch has a vested interest as does WotC to give false information of this nature.

Wikipedia should not be used as an advertisement service to boast false numbers for one company over another, but should present actual facts. so either the wording needs to be changed to reflect the verifiable truth, that it is a claim made with no verified data to back up that claim, or those statements need to be removed. WotC business venture and partnership with Twitch for Twitch's Curse platform DNDBeyond.com means they have a reason to provide such false number to places like Bloomberg cited in the article to dilute the facts, which should not be allowed on Wikipedia, unless it is now about just advertisements rather than factual verifiable information. shadzar-talk 15:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

You would need reliable sources to include any of your claims. I have redacted unsourced claims of illegal activity because we're not here to be a platform for original research or fringe viewpoints; accusations of illegal activity require sources. "Many complaints have been made" is not a source. An article from The Washington Post, CNBC or Bloomberg would be a source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
i provided a link to the Twitch own blog stating about the addition of a category for "not D&D" and when it was first created is Sept 2018, past the date of the year 2017 that is mentioned in the Bloomberg news article referenced. you will have to find someone eloquent enough to add the content from that "press release" for lack of a better word form Twitch to write up about hoe the 2017 numbers aren't factual, or find someone that was willing to report on it as a "credible" resource form the very few Wikipedia allows of mainstream "fake news" media. anyone understanding a calendar should understand 2018 is AFTER 2017, so there is something wrong with the claims made at that point; as to the cited news outlet has made assumptions with no proof in either the SyFy article i posted, or the cited article referenced in the actual article on Wikipedia other than the words of a WotC employee (Greg Tito) that doesn't present any data to display other than his own commentary to those "numbers". maybe check Polygon or somewhere if you can navigate their horrid website beyond the current days posts to find a mention of it, or many other places that you are able and willing to dig through. i am not going to go to those ad-filled sites to get a virus myself, unless it is an archived page that i can see is safe from the archiving websites. Also WotC being a subsidiary of HASBRO, and Twitch being a subsidiary of Amazon, are places so small you wouldn't hear about them on mainstream news outlets unless it were major illegal activity going on, an would have to search the niche news sites for the niche content they provide. Just because a news article or outlet makes a claim, doesn't make it verifiable. so if nothing more than putting a tag on that article linked to say "not verifiable", or whatever method WP has for such vague claims with no data to back it up, then so be it. i surely don't know my way around those WP:cite style things anymore as it has been years since i was made feel unwelcome to editing WP so leave it to others to do the actual editing of articles. shadzar-talk 19:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Wizards of the Coast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Wizards of the Coast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wizards of the Coast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Wizards of the Coast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wizards_of_the_Coast/Archive_1&oldid=1066800982"