Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Role-playing games/Archive 3

message: I have been reading through many articles about D&D lately and they seem to all be focused on the newest edition. I have made my concenrs on the D&D talk page about how the articles primarily speak of 3rd/d20 system edition seeming more like a commercial for the latest in-print version of the game rather than neutral content about the games that have gone under the name Dungeongs and Dragons in general. They seem to favor the d20 system variant either because it is allowed by the OGL/SRD for the system, or the other edition are not legally reproducible under that same license. Is this the reason? Most articles say they are for the 3rd edition rules, but I have a hard time finding anything about rules to previous editions. While they may not be legal to reprint their rules in as must informatino that has been provided for 3rd edition, does that mean the whole of D&D articles should only contain the latest edition and ignore the previous editions of the game? I use the term editions lightly as each edition was in fact a new game in and of itself with just the basics of play. The articles would seem to suggest that all D&D is player under the same rules, while they are only played under the same concept as every other RPG. Most of the fictional characters, worlds, cities, magic, etc names are reused through these editions but they are not totally compatible with each other. Also each game bred its own style of game play from its ruleset. The only article, that I have found; that really touches on the differences and the older editions is the Editions of Dungeons & Dragons article. All others appear to pertain only to the lastest edition as though it were the only thing considered to be D&D, and only acceptible method for playing the game. This will greatly mislead people into propoganda that should they be interested in playing; all the evidence provided shows that only the new game exists and previous editions have been neglected by all to use only the newest version. This is not true. What could be done within the limits of legallity to make the D&D related articles show more fact and look less like an advertisement for the newest edition of the game? shadzar|Talk|contribs 05:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's so much legal issues, as much as it is a classic case of systemic bias. A lot of the editors here have either discovered D&D at 3.0+, or migrated to it. There isn't many people anymore who still play older editions. Now, I'm all for slaying systemic bias dragons as much as the next guy, let's find some decent reliable sources and write some good articles about older editions. --Roninbk t c e  # 07:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  This is a known bias in wikipedia - see Wikipedia:Recentism.  I'm also a little concerned about the D&D/not-D&D split in articles.  Is wikipedia heavily biased in favour of D&D, or does the D&D-heaviness reflect real-world market share?  I don't know, and I don't know where to look. Percy Snoodle 08:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *Well that ain't true! What kind of sources would you consider reliable? http://www.kcrew.org/~shadzar/dnd/c/index.html this is part of my collection that I have catalogued when trying to make sure I didn't buy too many extras on eBay. Would those books themselves count as reliable resources? Also how would correcting or creating new articles for D&D work? It was suggested that the D&D article to be split into its own editions. Maybe someone from here could suggest ways to improve it there to better remove the systemic bias you speak of, and come up with a direction of creating new articles that comply with the RPG Wikiproject? PercyS: What do you mean by D&D/not-D&D split in articles?shadzar|Talk|contribs 08:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I mean is, most RPGs have (and deserve) only one article, whereas there are a great many articles about D&D - hundreds of them.  While I'd be mad to claim that D&D isn't notable, and I'm fairly happy that the campaign settings are notable, I'm not sure that all of the details deserve their own articles, for example, any of the individual character classes; I certainly can't think of any notability guideline they pass.  However, I could just be ignorant of some evidence that says they are; I'm certainly not going to start a 200+ article AfD to find out. Percy Snoodle 09:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. That was my point about removing the biased parts to cut the fat as it were and strip away all 3rd/d20 specific information and get back to the basics since D&D is the father of modern PnP RPGs. The articles should not remove the need for the books to play the game, but should give enough info to seperate it from other RPGs. Probably that bias grants D&D more articles since maybe less people have heard of other games. shadzar|Talk|contribs 10:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dungeons and Dragons articles biased. 

message: I just put together a page on the game Blue Planet (role-playing game) as I noticed it didn't have an entry before - and it was widely regarded as significant and groundbreaking at the time of it's release.
I'd welcome additional edits. Also I was trying to pin down the  Origins nomination - as I believe it did actually win something as well - but the archive Origins/GAMA reference links appear to be down/no longer valid. This is my first contribution --Cunnington A 22:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blue Planet 

message: Hi. Doing some Newpage-patrol, I noticed the creation today of the articles Abysmal ooze, Ooze demon, Aquatic ooze, Jelly wraith, Jelly curd, Jelly quasit, Blood pudding (Dungeons & Dragons) all by . I think it would be good if someone from your project cleaned all of this up and explained to him why that is counterproductive. Thanks for your help. Pascal.Tesson 20:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also Oozoid. These have all been added to the AfD for Dreadmire so they may sort themselves out soon. Cheers --Pak21 14:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ooze articles 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages: 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
*User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
*User:Badbilltucker/Science directory
and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory.
The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. 
It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Directory 

message: *I'm personally not sure such as massive, D&D-specific undertaking is within the scope of this Wikiproject. Perhaps this issue would be best addressed if all interested parties joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons--which is, as I noted above, a wikiproject that is sorely needed.  This would leave the RPG wikiproject free to deal with more general issues and articles that cover roleplaying as a whole, while the D&D-oriented Wikipedians can have a place to address more D&D-specific stuff--Robbstrd 21:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly agree, but there is not, now, any other place to address the rampant merge-tagging of D&D-related articles. If you create a D&D WikiProject, I'll join and redirect the conversation there, happily. -Harmil 21:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Within the scope of WPRPG?

message: Birthed and just brought home the D&D project exists and the RPG project has a new child. Hopefully we can get advise from other RPGers here to develop a good project. Please add any ideas or inquires to the new projects talk page. (including any D&D sections here that crowd out the general RPG project.) shadzar|Talk|contribs 21:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons]] 

message: While not an incredibly popular game system, CORPS was available in many game stores and was influential in the creation of EABA.  I would encourage project participants to vote to keep this article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CORPS
Allegrorondo 14:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[CORPS]] listed for deletion

message: Hi, I'd like to have an Infobox for the WoD Garoutribes. The articles layout would graetly benefit from that. Does anyone know how to create such a template ? Heinrich k 10:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably should take a look at Help:Infobox.  I'd also recommend considering making a minor topics list rather than giving each splat its own article; see List of Doctor Who aliens for an example. Percy Snoodle 10:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I now made a Box for each tribe (there are just a few) but somehow i'd like it better, if i knew how to design a template insead of defining a new box every time. I'd too would like tho make the descriptions more uniform.Heinrich k 09:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That information can be found by reading Help:Infobox and following its links. Percy Snoodle 10:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure it can. But i didn't find it and after looking for it for a while i grew impatiend, so I did stop looking. I also developed some intimidating awe by the all offically look of all the templates listed, regarding the fact, that mine was just for some roleplaying game. Heinrich k 15:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  INFObox 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: I came across the article Pantheon role playing game on new page patrol- it could do with some attention- it probably needs moving, it needs sourcing, it could do with a little cleanup and some added info, or it might even need to be deleted, I will let you be the judge of that! Thanks. J Milburn 01:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been working on it and adding info for it. All help welcome! I'm looking for an image of the cover, but I'm not sure if I can pull one from Hogshead Publishings page or not. Tajoman 01:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article