Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 32

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35

Dragons of Glory

Does the article Dragons of Glory have sufficient reliable independent secondary sourcing? See the discussion at Talk:Dragonlance modules (DL series)#Merger with individual module articles. Do you know of any other such sources you can add to the article, or any of the others up for merge consideration? BOZ (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Your input is requested at WT:NOT#Formalized proposal: Changing GAMEGUIDE. This could have a significant impact on our coverage of D&D topics. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Lamia

Hello, after two AFDs for Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons), which closed on "no consensus", I'm bringing to your attention that after a second AFD with the same result, a discussion on whether to merge or not has opened on the article talk page. BOZ (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Article replicated to Wikibooks:Dungeons & Dragons/Monsters/Lamia. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding a collapsable infobox to a table

Specifically, I wanted to know it if possible to add a template such as {{Infobox D&D creature}} to the tables on List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters for the purposes of merging in articles. The idea is to have it collapsible so that it doesn't take up too much space, but at the same time make it available for anyone who wants to view it. I guess I got some inspiration from how pages like List of minor X-Men characters and List of G.I. Joe video games are organized, so I wanted to bring some of that functionality in. Is this a simple "oh, here you go" fix, or am I asking the basically impossible? I asked at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), but didn't get much of a helpful answer, so maybe someone here might know. BOZ (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A consideration is how much impact that would have on the download time for handheld devices. The actual implementation probably isn't that hard; the template already has a 'collapsible' option. I'd just try it out on a copy in your sandbox. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Good point, so I probably wouldn't want to go overboard with it. Actually, I added the "collapsible" option to the infobox, and probably rather clumsily at that; I tried it out on beholder and it didn't seem to work, unless I'm just doing that wrong. I'll give it a shot in my sandbox when I have a chance and see if I can get it to work. BOZ (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Field Guide to Dungeons & Dragons?

Regarding the AfD over Death watch beetle (Dungeons & Dragons) and so forth, I wonder sometimes whether Wikipedia is the best place for these types of articles? They keep coming up for deletion discussions and it often proves difficult for them to satisfy WP:GNG. However, there is a Dungeons & Dragons entry over on Wikibooks. Maybe it would be constructive to build that into a "Field Guide" type of work that contains article entries such as the death watch beetle? There's a lot of trimmed or deleted material we could probably recover and migrate to such a book, giving it some real depth. Plus we can link to the individual chapters from the higher level articles on Wikipedia. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

We could perhaps make a start by always migrating any AfD'd D&D articles over there for safe keeping, sans the fair-use images (unless somebody wants to replicate the justification templates on the image pages). Regards, RJH (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Also any redirects to List of... articles will likely have articles buried in the history. I can also see deleted articles and transwiki if necessary. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Casliber. As an experiment, I copied the death watch beetle article over to wikibooks:Dungeons & Dragons/Monsters/Death watch beetle. Most of the links needed to be converted into transwiki links. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, the entire list of AfD'd articles have been replicated to b:Dungeons & Dragons/Monsters, with some editing and so forth. Only the images are missing. If necessary, we can use interMediawiki links to those articles using:

[[b:Dungeons & Dragons/Monsters/whatever|whatever]]

I'm not familiar with the redirect/deletion history for this project. Is there anything else we want copied over? Regards, RJH (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like your good-faith efforts were taken the wrong way. BOZ (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it just looks like a modified argument possibly originating in confirmation bias. His preference was the same either way. I definitely don't support getting rid of those monster articles, although I do expect they will keep coming up for AfD (and so will suffer from attrition). Ergo, the WikiBooks site may serve as a safe harbor of sorts for what are otherwise valid contributions; my attempt at a pragmatic solution. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Just a little progress update on this mini-project:

  • There's a process on Wikibooks with the shortcut "WB:RFI" where a helpful admin will import an article from Wikipedia, along with its revision history. You can then revert back to the version you want to keep and perform the requisite format modifications. It's pretty nice.
  • I put together a little write-up on the conversion process I have been using out on the B:Talk:Dungeons & Dragons/Monsters page. Most of the kinks have been worked out, I hope. I'm planning to restore a number of other monster articles from their redirect histories. These are currently red-links on B:Dungeons & Dragons/Monsters. I'll probably try the WP:RFI method for those.

Finally a poll question: as an experiment, I tried adding a couple of footnotes to the WikiBooks monster articles on the List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–1976) article. (See this note for example.) Would people prefer that I:

  1. continue to do this using footnotes,
  2. directly link the monster name (in the table) to the Wikibooks article using an intermedia link, or
  3. not do it at all?

Regards, RJH (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

As for me, I'm not too concerned with what you do or how you do it, but in future please wait for a deletion discussion to be over before you transwiki - if only because an article already moved to another wiki is one that some people can argue "doesn't need to be here anymore". If it's redirected, the text is still in the edit history, and if it's deleted I can give you the text. BOZ (talk) 11:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
This is problematic for me because once the discussion is closed and the decision becomes to delete, the topic is removed and I no longer have access. Likewise, the fact that a copy is on WikiBooks is irrelevant to the resolution of the AfD discussion. It either satisfies WP:GNG or it doesn't. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
If it closes as delete, I can give you a copy, so that's no big deal.  :) BOZ (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
There's a whole slew of articles that have already been redirected, so I'll be busy enough (slowly) migrating those without worrying about new deletes. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW, if you google "Death watch beetle dungeons & dragons", the Wikibooks entry is now fourth on the list; just below the redirect and a couple of wikipedia images. The ports seem to be gradually moving up the search list. Regards, RJH (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox D&D creature

The {{Infobox D&D creature}} template could perhaps use a little better documentation because it is not immediately obvious how some of the parameters are intended to be employed. (At least before they appear in an article.) Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I gave it a go... don't shoot me! RJH (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Next step regarding non-notable creatures

Given the results Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death watch beetle (Dungeons & Dragons), what is the next step to address the same notability issues regarding a vast majority of similarly non-notable creatures that will cause the least disruption? -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm...
Right, well assuming that this project is still interested in retaining information of this type, I'll just comment that it is only mildly *COUGH*retarded *COUGH* distracting to have to jump over to WikiBooks in order to view it. The drawbacks are that it's a non-trivial, slightly time-consuming port to do the cross-links and re-formatting. Project editors will need to get their account working on WikiBooks and it will be more difficult to monitor and maintain the D&D information in two places rather than one. (It'd be awesome if we could have merged watch lists!) But WikiBooks has the decidedly positive benefit that we can write information in the form of a book, rather than using the more constrained form of an encyclopedia. My 2cp worth. Regards, RJH (talk) 01:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
The next step is just to start redirecting any article without independent, WP:RS sources showing that they meet WP:GNG. If anyone objects to a redirect we can have another AFD with a list of articles. Do them all at once or in batches, it doesn't matter. DreamGuy (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you could publish a list of the redirects that are created. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
If you go to one of the category pages, [1], the redirects are the ones in italics. You would need to click on their histories to see if there was ever any salvageable content, but if there was any, its not lost. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
But i guess that would only help if the category is left on the page when the redirect is created. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that Sudoghost. I can't find sources for much of this stuff but I hate to see it erased. I'd rather see it transwikied than expunged totally. Sad thing is that most wikis I've seen are pretty stagnant.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The proper next step is to actually go through the sources, as were added in the AfD, to demonstrate notability. I understand that there are some participants here who don't think that licensed material constitutes an independent, secondary source, but leaving aside individuals not interested in actually using fictional-element appropriate sources to discuss fictional elements, the fact remains that a number of items were quite appropriately improved during the implausibly large AfD. Given that a few of them have been improved, there is obviously a reasonable chance that any of them can be. The ones which have been improved seem to be the ones with the most unique names. So, the obvious thing to do next is to approach all of the intially-redirected articles, and find the remaining, as-yet unlocated independent reliable sources and add them to the articles, un-redirecting in the process. Jclemens (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Jclemens, I agree with you, both on the nature of sources and what should be done with the articles for which they were found. However, I think it will be impossible to just unredirect any of those articles and add the sources we have, because these guys will just reject such attempts and redirect them again anyway. BOZ (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Unless the articles become based on independent sources, they'll just be redirected again, because they were redirected for failing to meet WP:GNG and WP:SOURCES, not just for WP:GNG. Adding a questionable source doesn't circumvent that consensus. The three articles removed from the AfD were not "quite appropriately improved", and were not removed from the AfD because they were improved to sufficient notability standards, and if those aren't improved then they're likely going to discussed at AfD. I have no doubt that these three are not notable, but I want to give editors a time to find sources before opening another AfD. Improving those articles is the "obvious" thing to do, instead of adding a questionable source to a recently redirected article (this is assuming your talking about adding the kind of sources that were added to the three articles that were removed), because your definition of independent sources isn't supported by any policy, guideline, essay, or consensus anywhere on any level, and WP:RSN completely rejected your above definition of an independent source. If the intent is to undo a consensus in this manner instead of attempting to improve the existing articles, I would recommend discussing the proposed sources at WP:RSN, and if they agree that the sources you're adding are independent sources, and the article is at least somewhat based on such sources, that would be justification to undo a redirect. - SudoGhost 01:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Really, this is tiresome. You're close to asking for a Time Magazine article on each individual critter, which is excessive. These fictional elements have, in some cases, 30+ years of sourcing in the industry, have changed over 6 editorially-independent editions of the game itself published by multiple companies, numerous magazine articles and sourcebooks published by other companies... and that's not enough, according to your arguments. The level of WP:IDHT involved in the arguments for redirection is... peculiarly high, and reminds me of some banned sockpuppetteers, actually. Jclemens (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
(e/c)There is no exemption in WP:N for "thirty year old fictional elements" - ALL articles are required to have substantial coverage in reliable third party sources or there should not be a stand alone article for them. Period. Repeated regurgitation by primary sources doesnt matter, this has been settled with the 12-year olds long ago. That it has taken 40-year olds this long to catch on to basic policy is a bit sad.-- The Red Pen of Doom 02:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
They DO have plenty of coverage. You and others just keep saying "primary", "not independent", "not based on RS'es" ad infinitum, without considering whether the sort of sourcing you're requesting is actually appropriate for the fictional elements. I say that the sourcing that's been presented IS independent, IS reliable, and DOES meet the GNG. I know policy perfectly well, and I disagree with your interpretation of it. The textwalling provided in opposition has almost universally disparaged those who disagree with the interpretation and application of notability as not understanding or agreeing with it. WP:Pokémon test is not the governing precedent (if Wikipedia even had those...) because independent companies continue to publish material based on these fictional monsters. Jclemens (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
"whether the sort of sourcing you're requesting is actually appropriate for the fictional elements. " and again, there is no exception in WP:N or WP:V for "fictional elements" - quite the opposite. The POLICY WP:V is quite clear "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we're past the point of reasoning with Jclemens and BOZ. Seriously, we had a grouped AfD with lengthy discussions that closed on "redirect" just 4 days ago (and which only reflected what was said at multiple AfDs during the last the month). And despite that, they're still coming back with their arguments that go against policy, telling us to "leave aside" the essential issue of what consitutes a valid source of notability, which was at the core of the recent AfD - as if it never happened. My view on this is that we can let them discuss and waste their time if they want (trying to argue with them will only earn us more bad faith and sockpuppetry accusations, and I think we had enough of those in the AfD), but if they try to restore the articles while specifically ignoring the conclusions that the consensus reached (OGL/D20 campain settings and bestiaries are not secondary independent sources and thus can't prove notability), then we can go report that to WP:AN/I for disruptive editing. As they're both admins they know better than that (at least they should be), I don't think we'll come to that and I take this discussion more as their last desperate cry rather than a serious attempt at impacting articles. We've been discussing the notability issue for more than a month, at RSN and 6 separate AfDs, I don't think anyone can say those supporting redirects have avoided discussion and attempts at consensus-building, however there was a fundamental disagreement that discussion couldn't solve. The last AfD had 28 participants and was a good occasion to settle the dispute once and for all. And it has been settled, notability requires secondary independent sources and the sources proposed by Jclemens and the other don't match that. We have a consensus and I don't see the point in continuing to debate. Yes, consensus can change, but certainly not after 4 days.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you place links to the other recent AfDs here so that they are centralized and the consistent application of N is easily noted in the support of future actions? -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
There was no such consensus regarding the overall use of D20/OGL sources in the AfD, FdF. With or without the third-party bestiaries most of the articles did not meet WP:GNG as they only had one source, so somehow inferring that the AfD being closed as a redirect somehow shows that there is "consensus that there is a reliable source" is not credible. At the time the AfD was closed, some more sources were found, but I had expressed doubts that two particular sources were independent of one another, which is not the same as indicting all OGL sources (or all bestiaries, etc.) The closing admin mentioned that part of the reason he closed them as a redirect was that he recognized that research regarding sources is ongoing, which is different from saying that such research was pointless or ill-founded, as you infer. - Sangrolu (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I never said that trying to locate more sources was pointless. Yes, VernoWhitney said that he closed on redirect "rather than deleting them" (and not rather than keeping them) to allow for the hypothetical inclusion of reliable sources. I do maintain however that D20/OGL books is not where you'll find reliable sources, and VernoWhitney specifically refered to this objection on his talk page ("Now part of the issue covered in general in that discussion was what exactly constituted a reliable source when it came to fictional gaming creatures") and never identified the added sources as reliable. I can only say what I've already said to Jclemens on the question of consensus: the AfD was closed on redirect on the basis of a consensus that argued that D20/OGL books and primary sources on other RPGs in general are not "secondary" or "independent" sources as per definitions in WP:GNG, I have specifically mentionned that to the closing admin who didn't rebut. That more of the same D20/OGL content was found did not change the premise of the "redirect" comments on D20/OGL books, on which the closure is based, and other sources have been discussed in the AfD and acknowledged as insignificant. While the AfD result is clear-cut, if you and others are really not satisfied with it we can always take it to RS/N for more discussion, but we've already done that before and I see no reason for the outcome to be any different, so I'm afraid you will have to find it in yourself to let go...Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The previous RS/N (I assume you are referring to the one in Talk:Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons)) was specifically with respect to the Pathfinder bestiary, which you should recall I already agreed prior to the RS/N input did not constitute a reliable source because it was just an edit of the original material (i.e., not significant coverage.) That does not mean that other sources cannot include significant coverage. Each deserves to be analyzed on its own merits. - Sangrolu (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
And I've analyzed the other sources with the same criteria as used by the contributor from RS/N and found that the problem was the same as with Pathfinder on Lamia. That content differ in its nature as original fiction or copy/paste is one thing, true, but that doesn't have any effect on the broader assessment per the RS/N criteria. Original fiction for a entirely different game than D&D makes it primary source not about the topic, original fiction for D&D makes it primary source on D&D, copy-pasted fiction for D&D makes it primary source on D&D, copy-pasted fiction for a entirely different game than D&D makes it primary source not about the topic. For different primary materials on a creature bearing the same name to be relevant, you need a secondary independent source (that is, other than the individual sources of said fictions) to comment on that, to bridge the gap. Which is exactly what is required when writing about mythological creatures, for example. What makes them notable (according to WP's standards) is not that they would appear in different writings with different authors, but that researchers have commented on this fact. Otherwise, the creature is not notable by merely existing in notable works of fiction (unless it is used by an author in a certain way, which would have received comments from critics). Again, my view is that the AfD upheld consensus on these assertions, if you want to further discuss this, the best venue that I can see is RS/N, and again, as we already had comments from there before, I can't see why things would turn out different.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Pathfinder

(This has nothing to do with the above discussion.) How relevant do you think the Pathfinder material is for D&D? They are often very closely related, as you would expect. But should they be kept completely independent or are there cases where they can be combined? Regards, RJH (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It should have significant coverage about it by reliable third party sources, just like every other article. Or are you talking about something else? -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Something else. But please do lecture us some more. You clearly have much to teach us. RJH (talk) 04:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the "(Dungeons & Dragons)" articles could probably be mass-renamed "(Fantasy Role Playing)" to indicate that 1) there are independent, derivative games that use the same material, and 2) they're similar enough games such that the creatures can be most adequately covered in such an article. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Doing that won't remove the issue, the derivative games will just be primary sources on the topics.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
As was mentioned in the first sentence, this has nothing to do with the above discussion. The question is regarding content rather than notability. I hope that is clear. Now would you and RPoD kindly stop trying to hijack this discussion? Thank you. RJH (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. If your interest is in improving encyclopedic coverage of RPG monsters, by all means contribute. If not, then please let those of us who are trying to collaborate on the project without harranguing over points on which we all agree that we disagree. Jclemens (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
As a derivative game I think it's fairly relevant; Pathfinder is essentially a slightly tweaked 3rd edition of Dungeons & Dragons. Short of actually using the trademarked term Dungeons & Dragons (which they can't do for obvious reasons) Paizo describes the game as "The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game is an evolution of the 3.5 rules set of the world's oldest fantasy roleplaying game...The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game has been designed with compatibility with previous editions in mind, so you'll be able to use your existing library of 3.5 products with minimal effort. In fact, the Pathfinder RPG is designed to smooth over a number of the rough spots in the 3.5 rules set, making several existing books even easier to use."[2] There are no "previous editions" of Pathfinder, so they're talking about Pathfinder as if it is a continuation (or derivative) of Dungeons & Dragons. They use the same rules through the OGL, they just modified these rules through playtesting (as a player the changes seem large, but as part of the big picture they are minor changes especially when you compare the differences between D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder to the differences between D&D 3.5 and D&D 4th edition). - SudoGhost 15:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes that's true. I don't know about the idea of doing a mass rename of the D&D articles to accommodate Pathfinder, but possibly it may be useful for a few of the high-level D&D articles to have a section of information specifically related to the Pathfinder. They could discuss key differences in implementation, for example. In that sense it's similar to a movie article that discusses a remake. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyrighted hobbies and WP:Walled Gardens

Above, at least one editor has asserted that the FRP hobby amounts to a walled garden. There are several problems with that assertion:

1) WP:Walled garden refers to a specific effort at constructing articles without references to the encyclopedia at large. I doubt anyone can assert in good faith that the coverage of D&D and other FRP games intentionally seeks to isolate itself from the rest of the encyclopedia.

2) There are any number of game hobbies based on copyrighted material where the major vendors own the only regularly published magazines. Consider collectible card gaming, for example. Preserving corporate control of a copyrighted source was, by all accounts, an intentional intellectual property and marketing decision.

The term "walled garden" is simply not an appropriate term to describe the integrated corporate coverage designed to maximize profitability while retaining intellectual property rights, and should be discontinued. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

1) I did not use WP:WALLEDGARDEN,
2) from now on, for Jclemens benefit, I will instead use "incestuous and tightly integrated corporate coverage designed to maximize profitability while retaining intellectual property rights" or ITICCDMPRIPR. -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.
Jclemens – Yes, I agree. It concerns the same issue as WP:ORPH, but on a larger scale. Fortunately, D&D has had a respectable influence outside of the purely RPG industry, so I'd hardly consider the collection of D&D articles as a walled garden any more than I would, say, professional football (gridiron). Finally, I'd note that the WP:WALL document is an essay, not a policy. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dungeons_%26_Dragons/Archive_32&oldid=1249259833"