# Talk:The Staff of Karnath

Image:Staff-of-karnath-1.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 insure 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You might also want to consider the large chunk of plot quoted from the instructions (I assume) goes beyond what fair use would cover. Perhaps it could be paraphrased or something.--Malcohol 12:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right.  I've cut a big chunk out, but perhaps paraphrasing it would have been a better idea?  Although my trimming has reduced it down all you need to know to play the game!  ;-)  Thanks for flagging this up.  Cheers, --Plumbago 13:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Staff-of-karnath-1.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 insure 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) 06:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

@Rhain:, you say in your reverting edit summary "That's not what the article says" - where in the article does it say that the game was developed by Ultimate as an entity, not the Thomas brothers?  I've read through it fairly carefully, and there is no implication that anybody other then the Thomas brothers - who were not part of Ultimate, but showed them their games on spec - did any development.  The article specifically states "The game was programmed by Dave Thomas and the graphics were designed by Bob Thomas" - no mention of any other involvement, in fact is again states "Dave Thomas recalled that every game they produced was met with little interference from Ultimate".  Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens: It says it in the infobox, and has done so since the article's creation, which is enough for me to question any major changes like that. I'm not familiar enough with the topic to make a final judgement, though; I'd say Jaguar is the man for that job. – Rhain ☔ 10:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that.  The infobox also goes against the article content and needs to be changed as well then.  What makes you think that I'm not familiar enough with the topic to make final judgement?  That's why I changed it, because it's wrong - and my change is supported by the article content, rather then as it currently stands which is a contradiction.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
You can make the change and I won't revert it further, but the article has undergone a GA review and most of its content was written by Jaguar, so I think it's only fair that I ping him—especially considering the fact that this also appears to impact Entombed, Blackwyche (both also GAs from Jaguar), and Dragon Skulle. – Rhain ☔ 11:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Nothing against pinging an editor, but to suggest that they have "final judgement" is a bit dubious, regardless of how much they contributed.  Not sure if you noticed, but I'd also made the same changes to Entombed and Blackwyche - but not initially Dragon Skulle, as I'd not realised the error in that article.
One final thing - I notice you put a space between your indents and starting a sentence.  Might be an idea not to do that, as it can mess up formatting on occasion:  "::: You can make the change"  Certainly on a newline without indents it's a bad idea.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
I didn't mean to infer that Jaguar had "final judgement", just that he was more familiar with the topic and could therefore contribute more appropriately to this discussion than myself. Yes, I noticed your changes to the other articles too. And I'm aware of how a leading space works, thank you. – Rhain ☔ 10:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding this edit - why should the possessive not be part of the link?  Surely the point of a link is to include the entire word for completeness?  Why would we intentionally exclude part of a word?  I can't actually find anything in MOS:PIPE, Help:Link or any of the other support articles that say the apostrophe should be excluded - where are you getting this directive from?  The closest comment I can find is Wikipedia:Linking dos and don'ts which states Use piping to fit link text into prose - including the apostrophe does just that, and the example for cheese in Help:Link#Piped_link which shows that (as we both know) appending an "s" to the end of a link includes the "s" in the link without further action.  This shows that plurality should be included in a link - by your argument, it should not?  What's the difference between possessive and plural?  As the apostrophe breaks the flow of the link, the only way round this is to pipe:

[[cheese]]s (label = target + extension ["s"], no pipe needed)
produces cheeses, linked to the article Cheese.
So, not a pipe, but converting the plural to a link regardless.
Can you clarify?  Thanks.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

H:PIPE (a how-to guide, not a guideline) only references common nouns like "cheese", not proper nouns. There's no "converting the plural to a link" either; that's just how links work. I've never seen the possessive form piped into a link like that before. It seems far more logical to link only the name; after all, his name is Lovecraft, not Lovecraft's. Simpler links are generally preferred too. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Disagree - it seems both more logical and neater to link to the entire phrase, because although "Lovecraft" is his name, the prose refers to his work, hence it makes sense for the link to include the entire text.  I also disagree with your comment that There's no "converting the plural to a link" either; that's just how links work - they work by converting to a plural if you append the letter "s".  I admit that it works by including any text to the link - but if (as you say) that's just how links work why should the same principle not be applied to apostrophes - that is including text placed directly after the actual link phrase?  Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I considered that too—but, unless the link is specific to his bibliography (i.e., influenced by H. P. Lovecraft's work), I don't think the rest of the prose is really relevant. It just seems like unnecessary piping just to have two extra characters in the link (in a manner that's generally not done anyway, and doesn't really seem logical to me). My comment was correct—that is how links work. That's not an opinion, it's just how wikitext is outputted. Whether it's written [[cheeses]] or [[cheese]]s, the output is still cheeses. Apostrophes are different, as that requires manually piping a link for a specific output—and one that I find unnecessary. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 11:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm glad we agree on at least one thing - apostrophes are different which requires manual pipes, and one that I think improves the project by linking an entire word - which happens for non-apostrophe appended text.  If you think they're unnecessary, don't add them in, but I don't see why you have to take an active stance in removing them when they're not proscribed.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict)PS:  You still haven't shown documentation to support the claim that piping apostrophes shouldn't be done - which was my original ask.  If you can provide MOS or a guideline that proscribes it, then I'll abide by it.  I believe that linking an entire word is in fact simpler to the reader, if not to the creator - but I'm prepared to do the extra work to neaten the project.  I'm not asking you to do so as well.  So far, I haven't seen anything to support your stance, apart from I've never seen the possessive form piped into a link like that before.  I'm pretty sure that's not a guideline either?  :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaheel Riens (talk • contribs) 13:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
The same could be said to someone taking an active stance in adding them. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Then show me where it says I shouldn't.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
At no point have I claimed there was a guideline directing my edit—just as there doesn't appear to be one directing yours. I simply see no logic in linking the possessive form alongside the name, and I certainly see no reason to specifically make an edit to do so. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
If you don't see the point, then don't make the edit.  I think opposite - however, I think that both viewpoints can co-exist.  I'll not revert your changes removing the pipe, and you don't revert my changes adding it in.  So long as we don't crossover in this regard, but can exist in lieu of MOS.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)