Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Role-playing games/Archive 2

message: I note that a number of Wikiproject: RPG members have been busy editing articles about other types of games - boardgame, wargames and miniatures games etc. This is hardly surprising in itself since gaming as a hobby often encompasses these different types of games. However, I can't help wondering whether, since WikiProject Games appears to be inactive, we shouldn't be adding editing on these sorts of games to our remit given the link between RPGs and other hobby games. I suppose it might involve changing the title from Wikiproject: RPG to Wikiproject: Hobbygames or somesuch, but maybe not. What do other people think? MattDP 08:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would probably be better just to reactivate WikiProject Games than start another.  I'm sure plenty of us would help out.  I think it's a good idea to keep WP:RPG, though, because there may be members who don't want the extra responsibility. Percy Snoodle 10:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't suggesting for a moment that we kill off WP:RPG, only expand it's remit. Clearly, reactivating WikiProject Games would be the best idea but it's about someone finding the time to do it - obviously no-one has stepped up in a long time. It seems a shame that there's nothing organised for gaming as a wider hobby in the meantime, but I take your point. MattDP 10:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wider Gaming Edits

message: I have recently gone through the List of prestige classes article and changed all links which were previously pointing to non-D&D articles (ie because the prestige class name matches some real world concept). I think it may be about time to go through and at least provide an article for each of these prestige classes for people to gain an encyclopedic view of them.
Of course some information needs to be gained before this task can be done:
* Final Fantasy also uses the " (character class)" concept and is clashing in some cases. What should the alternative be?
** Should all D&D prestige classes be changed to "Class name (prestige class)" to avoid all future confusion?
** Should those which clash be changed to " (prestige class)"? leaving the rest as " (character class)"?
** Should some new naming convension be used?
* A template should be written to make this easier, but what should its contents be such that it isn't simply copying it verbatum
** Prestige Class Name
** Suppliment(s) they are found in
** Description (Should this come directly from source?)
** Class Selection requrements
* What should the default article format be?
** Description
** Class Selection
** Abilities
** Epic details
** D&D Minatures
** See Also
** References
** External Links
Comments please Enigmatical 23:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any problem with using "Class name (Dungeons & Dragons)"?-Robbstrd 00:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, good suggestion. Would mean some changes to other files but still a worthwhile possibility. Enigmatical 02:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it too - In many ways, it would be better for all D&D specific articles to use "Concept (Dungeons & Dragons)", if they need disambiguating.  Percy Snoodle 08:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding on D&D Prestige Classes 

message: OK folks.  If Bulbasaur can be a featured article, we really really have to get something RPG-related to featured article status.  :) BOZ
* Gratuatous plug here, but why not the article on the crpg game Neverwinter Nights 2 which is released this october? Enigmatical 04:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be interested in seeing my comments at Talk:Greyhawk where I am, in fact, planning on pushing for FA status eventually, but right now I'm just working on GA. -Harmil 02:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article

message: Bulbasaur is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 14:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Bulbasaur]]

message: I added RPG Theory for peer review in the box at the project page, but haven't added it as a Wikipedia wide peer review. Do you think it's ok to have project peer review that doesn't use the regular peer review procedure for articles that are probably of limited interest (and knowledge) to people outside of the project? Jonas Karlsson 21:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also added High Adventure Role Playing to our Peer Review list, as I made some significant expansion to the article, and I'd like some feedback. --Roninbk 06:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer reviews

message: I've been adding the RPGproject template on the talk pages of articles related to RPGs: articles on games, game designers and so on. Also some category pages seemed to have them, even though the template says it's attached to an "article", so I've been adding it where it's been missing. Anyway, are there any objections to using it on any page related to role-playing games? I think it's good to expose the project to as many people as possible - if someone just checks out a single article they might find their way here. Jonas Karlsson 14:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, now I see why I haven't bothered with this before. The old infobox on game articles linked to the project, but this was removed on 2nd April by User:Paxomen. I'm adding a comment on the RPG infobox talk page about putting it back. Jonas Karlsson 14:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RPGproject note

message: When discussing RPG terms, there are probably few reliable texts that are not specific to a single game. So the next best reference would be the five to twenty (or so) “most prominent” RPG systems, I think. But does anyone know a reasonably reliable source for such a list? Or does anyone have a better suggestion? IMO, without such a source, none of the RPG terms articles would deserve Good Article status. (Most of the info is common knowledge to roleplayers, but this is difficult to prove to outsiders without a written reference text.) —TowerDragon 23:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources for RPG terms in general? 

message: I think the Campaign setting article should be included in the Role-playing games series template, and that template should be added to the article. I just finished overhauling the existing article, and while it needs to be cited (most of the citations will be simple s to the games which are already referenced as examples inline) and possibly further expanded, it's now much more than the stub that it was. -Harmil 18:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support that; in fact, it might be a better place to put the "Genres" section of the main role-playing game article. Percy Snoodle 11:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaign setting in the Role-playing games series 

message: Hi all.  I added myself to this RPG project a while back, and I've been making some small edits here and there.
What I've noticed is that the current catagories provided by the project seem insufficeint.  Generic, universal system like HERO or GURPS tend to have core system books, world books or genre books (Super Hero, Space, Historical WWII, Cinematic 1920 Pulp Action, etc.) and then they add supplements on to those world or genre books.  I don't see how to fit this into the current structure of the catagories.  Can someone provide some insight?  I'd like to see either 1) How should the current catagories be used in this instance?  or 2) What catagories should be added to take up the slack?
Also, I don't see how to add Hero System as one of the RPG systems in your little icon box template thingy.  It keep coming up "custom."  Help?  Markspace 20:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi.  My understanding is that while games are in general notable, and the systems and settings which make them up are usually notable when they're shared by more than one game, the books that make them up generally aren't.  We could do with a better set of notability guidelines to clear this up. Percy Snoodle 12:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systems, Gere/Worldbooks, Supplement 

message: I'm neither a project person nor a sympethizer...but I noticed this wikiproject and its stated goal of getting some RPGs to be Good Articles. It doesn't seem like you all may have noticed Technomancer Press which is an RPG publisher and is a Good Article. I think it is the only RPG publisher listed as a GA...anyway, I thought you all would probably want to fold it into your project somehow, so I thought I'd let you know. 216.254.14.172 03:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA: Technomancer Press