Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Role-playing games/Notability

message: Question: Percy's current suggested guidelines, which I'm in favor of using, says "Coverage from an online review website can be considered non-trivial for the previous criterion if the coverage includes work by at least one professional reviewer or writer." Does "professional" here mean that the reviewer has reviewing role-playing games as a source of income? I don't know of any such reviewers, not on RPGnet and in any Swedish role-playing magazines. The most respected reviewers usually get the games they review for free, but that's about it. But RPGnet still certainly has reviewers that could be viewed as authorities. Should we keep the word "professional" or try to reword it to include these reviewers? Jonas Ferry 16:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had meant it to mean that the reviewers wrote reviews for a living, but not necessarily the reviews in question.  That was the way I had understood people to mean when they said there were professional reviewers on RPGnet - was I wrong? Percy Snoodle 15:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not 100% certain and would definitely need to check, but I think that RPGnet has what they call "staff writers" (or maybe it's "staff reviewers").  I don't know that these people receive any pay, or what is the exact distinction between a "staff writer" and someone who doesn't have this title.  I'd probably also want to give this guideline some more thought as well.  --Craw-daddy | T | 19:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm worried about apparent over-reliance on RPGnet as the prototypical review site.  The practices there do not, for example, apply to Pyramid magazine, which pays free-lance reviewers but has only one staff member (the editor).  JackofSpades 22:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think staff reviewers (paid or not) should be enough here.  Enworld has a handful for certain.  Hobit (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professional reviewers 

message: With regard to WP:BK#Not yet published books, is there not a case for a "Not yet published games section"? You are probably aware of Afd for The Dresden Files, but I think you need to add this in too. --Gavin Collins 16:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, good idea.  I'll see whether any of the other "other considerations" are suitable Percy Snoodle 10:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not yet published books

message: I might disagree with the statement that "Multiple reviews on a single website do not impart additional notability".  What about the case when a new version of an RPG comes out, and a new review appears?  Does this matter (especially if there are noticeable differences between versions that are discussed in a review)?  There are a few examples I've run across on RPGnet where there are at least a couple of reviews (about what seems to be the same RPG book) but they're done by different reviewers.  They have "playtest reviews", "capsule reviews", and (normal?) reviews, and these sometimes seem to be done by different people too.  I don't quite understand the exact distinctions between these reviews that qualifies one type from the other.  In any event, I thought I'd throw this out and see what people think.  In general, however, the guidelines appear rather sensible on first read-through (subject to my other comment above).  (Thanks Percy!)  --Craw-daddy | T | 19:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I put that note in was to avoid the situation where a game achieves notability just by releasing lots of editions or supplements.  If a new edition comes out and a review covers the differences, that's a great reference for a section on the differences between the editions, but I don't think it makes the game more notable on its own.  Perhaps I should have been more clear in what I meant - that multiple reviews on one site don't count towards "multiple" but do count towards "substantial" - so perhaps "Multiple reviews on a single website should be considered as a singe review for the purposes of these guidelines".  So the only time it would be important would be if there were no substantial independent references anywhere else; and if that's the case even after a new edition comes out, I think it's pretty good evidence that the game isn't notable.  Percy Snoodle 10:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple reviews from the same website

message: I think that proposed rule 4. "The game's designer or setting is so historically significant that any officially associated works may be considered notable; or it is the focus of an active WikiProject" will result in conflict (see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability is inherited). AnteaterZot (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly it's one that we'll have to pin down well with explanatory notes.    Have there been similar problems with the equivalent rule from WP:BK?  Also, I'm concerned now that you've pointed it out that it may open a floodgate for all the Star Wars and Star Trek MUDs. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "notability is not inherited" thing is a guideline, although it believed in very strongly by many. It really depends on how "works" is defined. AnteaterZot (talk) 10:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean that the book guidelines (WP:BK) contain a similar rule, and wondered whether it has caused problems.  I definitely think WP:NOTINHERITED is in general correct, but I think the exception is made in WP:BK because to give a notable author sufficient coverage, it is necessary to cover their works.  Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would have to disagree as many famous authors have published non-notable books. The acid test must rely on reliable secondary sources to provide evidence of notability outside of the game designer's cannon, otherwise you will end up with lots of articles about games that are only of interest to a limited number of RPG fans, not to the wider readership. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  I'm having a hard time thinking of truly famous authors that have published non-notable books after they've published notable ones.  Bad ones, sure, but non-notable?  Hobit (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed rule 4

message: I feel that this section needs to be expanded, becuause there is considerable misunderstanding and debate about how notability is demonstrated by the citation of reliable independent secondary sources. This debate has raged on many fronts: AfD's, in discussions about the use of notability template. 
In my view, for a source to be classed as independent and non-trivial, the source should have been peer-reviewed in some way (this excludes self-published sources, such as fansites) and the source should be cited to support a specific claim of notability. The source itself should be non-trivial, e.g. it should make a case for the notability of the subject with reasoned arguments, analysis and or critisism. 
A passing mention of the subject matter is not classed as secondary source, particulary if the source articles is related to another subject matter; some of the 'sources' used in RPG articles are actually primary sources, since they are restatement of the original source material. 
Also the the quality of the citation is always important; for example if the magazine says "Buy this adventure now! Its a really great game!", then it cannot be classed as a secondary sources, as advertorials are not considered to be reliable. Could I propose a seperate section to address these issues? --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I will agree that the sourcing issues must get nailed down, ASAP.  Right now, there's too much middle ground.  We need to determine what sources, if any, are acceptable to establish proper notability for RPG stuff.  If we can shore up on that, a whole lot of these debates will end.  Either some sources not currently considered notable will be considered notable (allowing a lot of articles currently considered questionably notable to exist in peace), or these sources will be officially considered not notable (sending most of the currently questionable articles to the RPG graveyard).  Honestly, I'm tired of the arguing on that subject and would like to see a resolution one way or another. (see recent AFDs on Rod of Seven Parts, Red Hand of Doom, Dwellers of the Forbidden City, and Menzoberranzan for some idea of what I'm getting at.) BOZ (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I have had a plan. I have been wanting to work on this very topic and have wanted to go to the sources and see what is going on, what qualifies, what doesn't. The trouble is I am too busy saving article from pointless AFD debates and constantly playing catch-up to devote what free time I have for this for anything more productive.  To properly do this is going to take time and it is going to have to be done on the schedules of the people doing the research. I have been doing Ph.D. level research now for years, so I have an idea of what is a good source and what isn't, but to apply it to this topic is going to take me a bit to do it right.  If you are serious about wanting it done then my proposal to you is this. No more AFDs from you or Pilotbob for the entire month of Janurary to give the community a chance to work these issues out.  Web Warlock (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I agree this is important, I don't think that the RPG notability guidelines are the right place to nail this down - the question of what counts as a reliable, independent source is of far wider importance and should be discussed either at the village pump or the WP:RS talk page. Also, I don't think that having some leeway in the matter is necessarily a bad thing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Percy Snoodle (talk • contribs) 15:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:   With all respect to Gavin, my initial reaction to this statement is "hogwash".  There's plenty of reviews (for books, CDs, etc, etc) that say "[Don't] Buy this [book, CD, etc] because it's [not] great and here's why...."  Most all reviews make some recommendation as to whether or not to buy the reviewed product, and is usually what most people think of when they see the word "review".  Provided the review goes beyond a mere recommendation (positive or negative), and gives reasons why that recommendation has been made, then to me it constitutes something beyond an "advertorial" and places it in the realm of a secondary source (provided, of course, that it's independent of the publisher).  What exactly constitutes "peer review" in this context?  Articles in the New York Times aren't peer-reviewed by the definition of the word that I'm familiar with (having a Mathematics PhD, the phrase "peer-reviewed" has a very precise meaning to me, and essentially only academic journals are going to fall into that context, so articles in the New York Times, Los Angeles Post, New Yorker, Guardian, etc, etc are going to fail this criteria).  --Craw-daddy | T | 02:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  What would you suggest instead? --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought that I spelled it out above.  Reviews with substance, i.e. reviews that specify why they make their recommendation, are perfectly valid to me.  And we mustn't confuse a summary of a review with the review itself.  Lots of newspapers, for example, have a "summary" of their review of a movie or book (e.g. "3/5 stars", or "C+" or whatever), but typically have a more substantial review that goes along with it.  I think it's also perfectly valid to quote these short summaries in articles, provided there is the appropriate reference provided (so that it can be verified).  The essence of my statement is that (to me, at least) the words "peer-reviewed" typically apply only to academic journals, i.e. scholarly articles that have been reviewed and/or edited by someone else in your field of study.  --Craw-daddy | T | 22:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: And speaking as someone working on their 2nd Ph.D. we very well could argue that RPG.net IS peer reviewed (after a fashion).  There have been cases of people posting reviews that are basically nothing more than ads or “buy this game it is great!” and the community at large have called them to task on it.  All the points Hobit made above are valid. Major RPG sites should count (RPGNet for example), Dragon, Dungeon, White Dwarf, Pyramid, Games Unlimited, The Dungeoneer (for really old articles) and maybe Rifter and ESP (but they are more insular than Dragon and Dungeon).  Web Warlock (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to Hobit "For example, staff reviews from "major RPG" sites should count, as should reviews in White Dwarf, Dragon Magazine, Games magazine, etc." I must vehemently oppose allowing 'reviews' in Dragon Magazine to apply to Dungeons and Dragons and other TSR/WotC products. NOT at all an independant third party source for that material, even when Paizo was publishing the mag. GundamsRus (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of curiosity, what is the basis for this statement?  Is it that the editorial board wasn't independent of TSR/WotC?  I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the change in control/publication of Dragon, and ask for this reason.  Thanks.  --Craw-daddy | T | 01:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dragon (and Dungeon) Magazine were always part of the same publishing firm that produced D&D materials - TSR and later Wizards of the Coast (and then Hasbro). For a while the company Paizo published the magazines under an 'official liscne' from WotC. In no way can any of these magazine publications be considered 'independent' from the creators of the products. GundamsRus (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, Paizo chose their own content for the magazines, rather than printing what was handed down to them.  As it was explained to me, Paizo would take several articles to WotC, and say, "Which ones can we use?" and WotC would either approve or disapprove.  While that's debatable in terms of independence from the main publisher, it's not the same as being spoon-fed and "regurgitating" information. I will, however, agree that the magazines outside of the Paizo peroid should not be considered independent sources. BOZ (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed - Dragon is a reliable source, it's just not an independent one for WotC/TSR products. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur!  For anything non-TSR that they reviewed, they should be considered an independent source.  So really, it'll be a case-by-case basis for Dragon. BOZ (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:RS|Reliable Secondary Sources]]

message: Third party source books should be acceptable for purposes of notability.  If a third party felt that the topic was notable enough to spend money to cover, that's a strong vote for notability.  Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, but for me it's not a matter of spending money; it's one of making money.  By publishing a sourcebook on a topic they give themselves a financial interest in the topic, so they're no longer independent.  Additionally, to my mind, if they only provide stats or in-game information on the topic, then they're a primary source rather than a secondary source.  However, if they also provide significant notes on the history or influence of the topic from a real-world perspective (say, in an introduction or appendix) then that could constitute non-trivial coverage.  It should probably be judged on a book-by-book basis, but I think the presumption should be that sourcebooks don't contain that because mostly, they don't. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not seeing a need for "real-world" coverage.  The purpose of WP:N is to figure out if things are notable.  Anyone writing a book on a given topic has an interest in selling that book.  Same with newspapers or anything else.  Should we rule all of these out because of the financial interest?  It's the decision to write the book/article/review that indicates notability.  As long as it isn't pushing the original work I think it's good.  Hobit (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true that WP:N exists so we can figure out if things are notable, but there are differences between (a) notability within a game setting, (b) notability within a gaming community and (c) notability in the world at large. WP:N only counts (b) and (c), and even then (b) isn't always enough if the community in question is too narrow.  Sourcebooks in general are primary sources for (a) and circumstantial evidence of (b); only if a reliable secondary source exists to show they have been actually read does their existence show notability.  Now, it's possible that the sourcebook itself might talk about the popularity of their topic amongst gamers in the real world, in which case they would count as containing coverage of the material from a real-world perspective, but in my experience sourcebooks don't usually contain a non-trivial amount of discussion in that topic, but rather save the space for the stats and in-universe descriptions that their buyers actually want.  If they do contain real-life descriptions, only then do we need to worry about whether they are independent of the topic.  You say that "as long as it isn't pushing the original work I think it's good", and I agree with you to a certain extent, but we should also consider whether they are pushing their own work.  A publisher shouldn't be able to take a minor element of a game, publish two books on the topic, and then claim that that means that they are allowed to advertise here.  That's why we only consider sources that are independent of the topic - so to show that a topic is notable, we need secondary sources devoting coverage not to the topic but to the primary sources on that topic.  To give an example, let's say that TSR/WotC include a throwaway mention of a Notability Elemental in the new edition.  So far, not notable.  Now let's suppose that I want to make some cash so I first publish the Complete Guide to Notability Elementals, which no-one buys, and then the Ecology of the Notability Elemental, which devotes several pages to how great the first book was, and which again no-one buys.  At this point, you would argue that the topic is notable and hence include an article on them in wikipedia, and I would be able to advertise my books here.  However, I don't think the topic would have met WP:N yet, because there's no independent coverage from a real-world perspective.  Now suppose that the Guardian and the Telegraph publish detailed reviews of my books, explaining what a Notability Elemental is and saying how huge numbers of people have bought books about them on the back of the wikipedia advertising.  Now the topic is notable.  That may seem excessive to you, but that's what the requirement of reliable, non-trivial coverage from a real-world perspective in multiple independent secondary sources entails, and we shouldn't weaken it when we provide an RPG-specific version just because we all happen to like RPGs. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: *Percy, was that supposed to be a tongue in cheek description of Randy Richards?  ;) (heh, sorry, couldn't help myself). BOZ (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: *This "real world" thing seems made up in WP:FICT (which remains highly disputed in any case).  Can you find policy to back that notion up? It sounds like all your comments hang on it.  Hobit (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *WP:FICT attempts to clarify WP:N, in that the notability that WP:N seeks is from a real-world perspective (b or c above).  Is it your position that (a) should be counted?  I would understand in that case why you think that most sourcebooks are evidence of notability.  However, you ask for a separate policy to back that up, so I'll remind you that WP:N itself requires secondary sources, and I'll quote for you from the definitions of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources at Wikipedia:No original research, an official policy document: "Examples of primary sources include [...] administrative documents, and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs."  That means that the in-universe content of sourcebooks is primary source material and hence doesn't count under WP:N.  However, as I say above, it's possible for a sourcebook to contain secondary coverage of topics in older products, though most of them don't.  Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Third party source books

message: I made a few changes which I think match the thoughts of the discussion here.  If you disagree, please comment here. Hobit (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Those look good.  Thanks. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Some changes

message: * Meta question: Why is real world coverage important?  Hobit (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Read WP:FICT and WP:BK and understand this is not D&D Wiki. There must be reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *give it up Gavin, you have said the same thing over and over again. We are working on it. Go away till we are done. Web Warlock (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Real world coverage

message: Has this been proposed to the wider community yet? If yes, wherabouts and to what reaction? If no, why not and/or when will it be? Just out of interest, because the requirements look good, and it'd be useful to have "official". SamBC(talk) 13:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposing to the wider community 

message: The wording on splitting articles is not consistent with the current thinking at notability fiction, nor with what I think is the consensus of editors: major characters and other major elements of articles about at least the most important games can be split without running afoul of notability--the articles are viewed as a while with respect to notability, and it is matter of editing decisions in each case about what is appropriate. the current wording is much too restrictive. DGG (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why those elements deserve articles if they don't have secondary coverage.  Notability is not inherited, so they should need to demonstrate notability in their own right.  Of course, if they can do so, then the articles are a welcome addition.  Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to the above, I believe you refer to WP:FICT#Summary style approach for sub-articles.  I can see how that section, particularly the last sentence of it, supports your reading, though I disagree with what it's trying to do; since it's still under heavy discussion I invite all interested parties to discuss it on that article's talk page. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Subarticles

message: A number of the older TSR game supplements and novels were reviewed solely in TSR house organs, but still had a great effect on the outside gaming community. I don't recall, for example, seeing reviews for the original Ravenloft module outside of Dragon, nor did I ever come across reviews for, say, Dragonlance. Until the advent of the Web, I generally expected to see reviews of TSR products in Dragon, reviews of SJG games in Pyramid, and so forth. The appearance of TSR products in other magazines, and other products in TSR magazines, was haphazard and frequently not related to the product's quality or influence. I understand the desire not to overbloat the RPG section with every supplement ever printed, and at the same time suggest that we find a guideline to include a broader range of the pre-Internet materials. 
I am not suggesting that we include every supplement, for, say, Karameikos, but at least the major projects should be listed. Snuppy 01:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The major products are listed, because they've received independent coverage.  If a product is notable, it will have received independent coverage since its release, even if there was no source at the time.  Remember that notability is not temporary.  So I don't think that there's any need to consider the TSR coverage for purposes of the notability of TSR products; although they can still provide useful references to back up claims. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Returning to the question of house organs

message: The fifth footnote says:
:"Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is reliable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur. Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source.
This looks like a definition of "reliable" not "non-trivial".  Non-triviality is covered by the previous footnote, for "subject".  Thoughts?  Powers T 13:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, good point.  That came from WP:BK, and is still an issue there too.  I'm not sure how best to proceed, as being the "subject" of an article is not easy to define.  Any thoughts? Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think footnote 4 covers it sufficiently.  Changing the text of footnote 5 to say "reliable sources" instead of "non-trivial", and changing the text of the criterion to: "The game or topic has been a subject[4] of multiple, non-trivial, reliable[5] published works whose sources are independent of the game or topic,[6] with at least some of these works serving a general audience." should be all that is needed.  Powers T 18:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but footnote 4 doesn't define "subject", it just talks about what is and isn't trivial.  We need a definition of "subject". Percy Snoodle (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I dont agree with that "general audience" part -- tis is not a requirement in any other subject. Works on C++ are not addressed to a general audience, only to people who program in C++. Work on the history of the Byzantine Empire are also not usually written for a general audience, but for scholars interested in that subject. Books on making pottery are for hobbyists who make pots. Importance in it's field is all that is asked for here.DGG (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  definition of "non-trivial"? 

message: Any articles which contain information but don't meet the test for notability would be welcomed over at the RPG Talk Wikia. Pawsplay (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: rpgtalk.wikia.com welcomes refugee articles