Talk:Role-playing game/Archive 4

message: Hello.
My link (Mysticrpg.net) has been removed through out the day and I have been enjoying adding it back when I find the chance, however, instead of being annoyed as it seems many of these people are *snickers*, I am amused. The following is my plea for this link to be added to the Roleplaying games list.
Actually my point is the link is not merely advertising for my Roleplaying Game, but offering the world an interactive resource that offers origional rules, FAQ section, help in ways to role play... over all a benifit to the RP community. 
We conduct a professional RP community dedicated to improving the writing skill of our players. This is a learning community as well as entertainment. Wikipedia is about teaching and offering knowledge through these resources. MysticRPG does the same.
I am here to formally request that my site be added to the list because it is useful for the benifit of future rpers.--Katastrofy 00:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:EL states that editors should not add links to sites they own or maintain. If you can gain consensus for the site's inclusion here on the talk page, feel free to add the link back. Until then, please respect Wikipedia's guidelines and refrain from adding the link to the article. Regards. --Muchness 00:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi, thanks for understanding. I should have mentioned the guideline about sites owned or maintained by editors when I initially contacted you on your talk page. As far as adding your site is concerned, that really depends on if/when other users express an opinion on this issue.  Regarding getting someone else to add the link, this kind of activity is generally frowned upon in Wikipedia - see the section on "meatpuppets" at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. --Muchness 02:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, you can make a Mysticrpg article but please make sure the site meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines (see also Wikipedia:Notability (web) and WP:CVG article guidelines) - if the site is non-notable the article will be deleted. You may want to consider making a Mysticrpg article on a dedicated gaming wiki instead, like strategywiki, gameinfo, or egamia. --Muchness 03:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There are articles covering these subjects at Online text-based role-playing game and simming. --Muchness 04:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MysticRPG 

message: Hi guys... why keep a history paragraph when there's a whole section ? Gylfi 19:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History? 

message: The Events section is currently a list of cons, which will probably get quite crufty if we let it.  I think it would be better if someone could write a "community" section explaining cons and their place in the roleplaying community, as well as some of the more notable RPG websites, and then we can move the list to List of role-playing conventions or something like that.  Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the con community to do this - is there anyone out there who could? Percy Snoodle 08:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try to work on it when I get time, but if anyone else could do it that would be much better. Also, I just noticed that PrinceCon says it is "approaching" 32 years. It should reference the first year of the con, not how many years old it is, for obvious reasons. Vampyrecat 06:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Events section 

message: I added a link to Myth Weavers, however it was deleted. I do not understand why that is the case, especially when there is already a link to RPOL. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Small Monkey (talk • contribs) 10:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the site because it's a fairly low traffic play-by-post gaming site, rather than a general role-playing game resource site. The link to RPOL should probably go too. --Muchness 11:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, especially as RPOL has its own article, with an exlink there. Percy Snoodle 12:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I found an RPG Theory stub and expanded it, and Percy Snoodle has helped edit it some.  He says that I should ask for permission here to put the RPG tag back on the site.  I did add a little in the history paragraph of this page about theory including a link to it.  I don't want to cruft up the main RPG page too much, but it seemed worth a little to me.  What do you folk think? Bmorton3 13:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The RPG tag in question is ; and by WP:RPG guidelines, it should only appear on the articles that appear on it.  So, the question is, should role-playing game theory be linked to from ?  Percy Snoodle 13:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RPG Theory

message: What is the cut off date that makes an RPG newer or older depending on which side of that date it was published? Beyond that, do we know for a fact that the newer roleplaying term was not used before that date?<BR />—Asatruer 16:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which instance of newer/older do you mean?  Usually in the article it seems to be used to contrast RPGs with other RPGs, rather than to divide them into categories.  Most often, it's contrasting D&D with other RPGs; since D&D was the first, all the others are newer.  If it's unclear we should reword it, though Percy Snoodle 18:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry - I see the edit you mean now. The edit was referring to the way that in the start, they were all called "role-playing games" but nowadays they're almost all "roleplaying games"; the cut-off point is just the point at which they stopped using the older term. Percy Snoodle 18:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: role-playing as a term is at least as old as 1951, see my footnote in rpg theory, and I think I saw it in a 1949 article, but I can't the reference. "Role playing" as seperate words without a hyphen was still used sometimes as late as 1981.  In fact I can document heavy usage for both the hypen and the space in 1979.  My guess is that shift happened right around 1979.  I can't find a single use of "roleplaying" as a single word prior to 1991, but I don't have that much here in my office.  Bmorton3 20:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: White Wolf uses "roleplay" in 1991, WotC's 1992 Primal Order used it, as did Atlas Games Over the Edge (which used both hypen and oneword).  I haven't yet found a published use before 1991, but keep looking.  Most of my 80's games are gone, check Ars Magica 1988 and see which it uses, if you've got it.  TSR kept using "role-playing" fairly consistently at least to 1998 The Illithid  I'd guess they used it til they were bought out.  The only games after the 90s I can find that use the hyphen other than TSR are Kult in the 1993 English translation, and BESM in 2000.  3rd Ed D&D, in 2000, works hard to avoid both phrases and sticks to saying "the game" and "playing the game" most of the places I can find, but does use "roleplaying."  I'm guessing this transition happened between 1991 and 2000, and had as much to do with different corporate practices as anything else. Bmorton3 14:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The '89 edition of Ars Magica studiously avoids using the term - the only mention is in the name of an origins award it won - that uses the hyphen.  Percy Snoodle 19:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newer/Older RPGs 

message: Citations are needed for many of the assertions made. I will try to go through the article and note where cites are missing. --Vampyrecat 14:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations