Talk:Dwellers of the Forbidden City

message: Again removed notability tag.  I believe that it's ranking (cited in article) by Mona et. al. is sufficient for notability.  Willing to hear other's opinions Hobit (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please discuss before edit-warring, not afterwards. This comes back to the multiply discussed issue as to whether Dungeon can really be considered independent of TSR/WotC. There was a grand total of one non-TSR non-WotC module in that list, after all. --Pak21 (talk) 07:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: So the issue of this source has been questioned before... I would submit that this amounts to it being a questionable source and that  any viable claim to notability should rely on something else. Absent that, the notability concern tag is entirely warranted and should remain until better sources are provided or this article ends up redirected or deleted. Regards, Jack Merridew 12:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Questioned != unreliable --Pak21 (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The question is not about their reliability but to their independence. Please seek a reliable third-party source to establish notability. see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources (specifically the part about are promotional in nature), and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline bulleted point "Independent of the subject". --Jack Merridew 15:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  At the time of publication, Dungeon was third-party, being written and published by Paizo Publishing, who were (and still are) an entirely separate company from Wizards of the Coast. Given that, I think a presumption of independence is fine until such time as it is shown that they were not. --Pak21 (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  Also, the "new sources" you've added fail Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline -- which requires "Significant coverage" — not 3 words or a mere 'rating'. --Jack Merridew 15:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ummm... what I've quoted is a summary of each review, not the entire thing. Stop trying to find fault with absolutely everything here. --Pak21 (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm done discussing this with you for today. This is still not notable and all of these will, ultimately, end up gone. see also: WP:GAMEGUIDE. Regards, Jack Merridew 15:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *You and Gavin both need to learn what WP:GAMEGUIDE is and why a module isn't one.  The notability claims can be argued, but this claim is like calling a horse a type of plant. Hobit (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * I have reviewed all the sources cited at the time of writing and either they are sourced from the publishers (TSR and its related publications) and the 'reviews' are trivial in their coverage. Dungeon can be classed as a reliable source, but in this case the coverage is very trivial as it provides no evidence of notability. Please restate the Template:notability template, as there is no sober justification for its removal. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, the ranking is quite sober justification.  Hobit (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been adding game reviews from White Dwarf which was an independent british internationally-circulated magazine to many of these articles, however they are in boxes in my garage and it's >30C here and humid which makes it kinda frustrating to do too much. The reviews are substantive, and I know this one has had one but the specific WD issues I have moved somewhere. Shouldn't be too long though. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: For this article check out the WDs before issue 23.  I have some gaps in the early ones so I am hoping that there is more there.  WD had a lot of realy good stuff back in the day.  Web Warlock (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I look forward to seeing your contributions, and I hope they will be good ones. the quality of the citation is always important; for example if the magazine says "Buy this module now! Its a really great game!", then it is of no value. However, if it forms a part of a serious article such as "Dwellers of the Forbidden City: Seminal module in the development of D&D" then you have knock out evidence of notability right there; context and analysis are key to establishing this. I will assume you will not try to dress up trivial references to the module as reliable secondary sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability concern 

message: After discussion at WT:DND about getting this up to GA-Class, I think that it is ready for nomination. However, I am not very familiar with the module so I'll let someone else who might know a little more nominate it so that they can better deal with any issues presented during the review. Let me know how else I can help! -Drilnoth (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: About the only thing we're missing is... well, a plot summary. Any plot summary at all. ;) There's a few details mentioned, but someone reading this article would have absolutely no idea what actually happens to PCs in the module. We get that, I'll nom it. I have a lot of D&D books that I'm waiting to get my hands on, including this one, and hopefully it will happen sometime this month. But right now, I'll have to depend on someone else. :) BOZ (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good! I'll make a few final tweaks and then I'm ready for a nomination. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While you're doing that, I was about to get to the nominating. ;) BOZ (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: . Can't wait! -Drilnoth (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I loved this article - go the yuan ti! Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: GAN

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Dwellers of the Forbidden City's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "WD40":
From White Plume Mountain: 
From The Ghost Tower of Inverness: 
From The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed this. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Dwellers of the Forbidden City]]