Talk:Wizards of the Coast

message: There is a lot of chatter about the new version of the Open Game Licence somehow deauthorising the original version of the OGL (OGL 1.0a). Supposedly, everyone using the SRD or derivative works (maybe even Pathfinder) will be expected to pay WotC money, if they earn more than $75,000 USD per year.
The article probably needs a section on this, but there are a bunch of shouty people, so finding good neutral point of view ways to present this, might be tricky. Big Mac (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point we're still in the rumor and "sorta/maybe" phase of things.  It's possible (though sadly, I think unlikely), that it all blows over.  I'd say we should wait and put it in once the dust has settled at least a bit.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. But if it does happen as rumored, then showing reactions are perfectly fine, so long as they are stated as such. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup.  If indeed it goes over as currently contemplated, I suspect there will be no shortage of reactions and coverage. Dumuzid (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:   Just want to flag that I've been updating this over at Open Game License (split between the history section & the impact section). While a small paragraph in the Wizards of the Coast#2020–present section probably makes sense, I don't think it needs its own section. It might be good to add a small section on this at Dungeons & Dragons controversies#Licensing and trademark disputes (with a main link to the OGL article). Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks as always for staying on top of this sort of thing, Sariel Xilo. BOZ (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks ! I've been updating the OGL article on and off since 2020 and for some reason, there's only been an increase in secondary coverage recently. 🤷 Do you know if Appelcline's Designers & Dragons talks about the original OGL and/or the GSL? If possible, I'd like to improve the impact section for the 3E/5E OGL era. Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Undoubtedly, it talks quite a lot about it, but I have no energy to check at the moment. BOZ (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  OGL 1.1 rumors causing a backlash against Wizards of the Coast 

message: I think that a section regarding controversies/business difficulties is merited. This would include discussion of the MTG 30th anniversary controversy/over-printing controversy, the DnD OGL 1.1 controversies, and the slashing of video game projects 2600:1008:B03F:22A1:0:34:3D88:DC01 (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you could add this, as long as it's supported by reliable sources and written from a neutral point of view. Be bold. Rray (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

text: As a starting point, feel free to modify text & use sources from Dungeons & Dragons controversies#Licensing and trademark disputes & other articles that might have already covered these topics (see also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia). Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section 

message: The OGL portion of this article on a thirty-year-old company is now 20% of the article. It needs to be reduced. Wikipedia is not a place for airing grievances.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.83.72.100 (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add appropriate content from 30 years ago with proper sources. If you see something in particular that is a "grievance" please point it out so it can be addressed. There is nothing wrong with an article having a large controversy section, so long as it is neutral. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we should cover this, but I also agree that it may be too large a percentage of the article considering we're talking about events of just a few weeks' time... A trim to the most relevant points for the company itself would not be unreasonable.8.37.179.254 (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I see a bunch of anonymous IPs which are generally unproductive accounts and not familiar with Wikipedia norms. Any history is worthy of inclusion into an article. Space allocation is not a factor. Neutrality is a factor. Anything in Wikivoice must be impartial, but any article can represent views of other sources, so long as it represented as such. Seeing as how this is a hot button issue right now (and evidenced in many anonymous IPs edits) this seems worthy of inclusion and all the sources provided thus far suggests a lot of noteworthy activity. If you want other things to be included, feel free to find notable sources so it can be added. As I stated before, if there is something in particular that you feel is not neutral, bring it up here and we can discuss it. I'm willing to wager the section about the latest controversy is nowhere near its "final" form. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: My only thought is that it feels like it's presented as "Here is 30 years of history, told as a history as it unfolds, and then... there was this one month that just had so much going on for the company that it was more significant than anything that's ever happened with them!" That is an odd presentation is all. The "2020-present" section is much larger than sections of entire decades of the past, and I fear it's going to continue to grow. I do believe this absolutely needs to be covered somewhere on Wikipedia, but maybe not to this level of detail in *this* article? It feels like WP:UNDUE to cover it to that extent here. Adding more to other sections would not be a bad idea, but to add an equal amount to make them of the same level of detail as the most recent events would require probably more than doubling the size of this article. There's got to be a balance here, is all I'm saying. Maybe the scandal has so much coverage that it needs to be spun off to its own article or something? 207.229.139.154 (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a problem. Some issues will naturally be bigger than others. The large majority of this article is not on the OGL. It's quite possible this issue gets its own article if it continues to grow. I don't see that being necessary at this time. All I see is relevant history being documented. Either way, I don't see a good enough argument presented to suggest the current coverage is excessive. I especially don't see any logic in portraying only the "good" history with more weight than the "negative". Leitmotiv (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will flag (as I stated in the above section) that there is much more coverage on this event at Open Game License  where the nitty gritty of each license version is broken down. In this article, over the course of two paragraphs, the coverage starts with the Nov 2022 & Dec 2022 events (initial unconfirmed leak & Wizards response) before jumping into Jan 2023 in which three main things happened (the OGL1.1 leak, the OGL1.2 draft, the capitulation). What I aimed with this article was to focus on the business implications for Wizards instead of the OGL minutiae. One way to tighten this section would be to trim & rephrase some of the quotes. I've tried to keep it as tight as possible but another editor could take pass (actually going to ping  who was really helpful the last time this article needed a trim). In terms of expanding the history section or creating a business disputes section, there's definitely stuff that could be pulled from Dungeons & Dragons controversies#Licensing and trademark disputes; also, this article should update some of recent business issues with Magic. But just because other parts need to be updated doesn't make these two paragraphs WP:UNDUE. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

text: Hey pal, just because an event is recent and you're sore about it doesn't mean that it warrants 20% of the article. 70.107.192.191 (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, random IP addresses. Are any of you employed or compensated by, directly or indirectly, any party with a financial stake in the success of WotC as a company? Not to assume bad faith or anything, but a bunch of random IP addresses trying to argue that a recent controversy posing a PR issue for a company is UNDUE smells an awful lot like reputation management efforts in progress. Jclemens (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about the other IPs, but this one has made some spurious edits putting notability tags on articles with adequate sourcing, some of which may appear to target LGBTQ bios. Above IP has also deleted relevant cited material on other articles. This IP is probably heading for a suspension or full ban. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks comrade commissar. 70.107.192.191 (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  OGL Controversy 

message: After taking another pass at the history section, I've dropped a request at the Guild of Copy Editors. Not sure if it needs structural changes (such as spinning out some of the history section into something like "Media attention and fan responses") or just tight editing. Sariel Xilo (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 06:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

text: no problem! ill look more up in the history section aswell, not just the segment you linked on request >:3 -Astral~(he/him/his) 00:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guild of Copy Editors 

message: hello! i have very very little knowledge in this subject (i listen to 5e podcasts, thats about it), however i know the copyediting issue has been on this topic for a while. i really dont wanna remove large sentences or segments without consulting, but i wanted to bring up the fact of seeing if there are sentences that feel unnecessary to mention in the 2020-present history section {ie: talking about the spendings of fans in paragraph 3}.  feel free to leave me suggestions, and ill work on them throughout the weekend and the next few weeks when i'm not busy with my education >:3 -Astral~(he/him/his) 00:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The 2020s for Wizards seems to be the tension between the growth that Hasbro wants, the actions taken to achieve that, and the fan & media response to those actions. Do you think some of the more fan/media focused bits should be split into a "Reactions" section? Wikipedia:Criticism suggests this type of section with both positive & negative coverage to adhere to NPOV. Sariel Xilo (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: they possibly could, or into separate paragraphs about the reactions to hasbro's current streak. it really depends on how it could be formatted imo... -Astral~(he/him/his) 02:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  ok the entire history category is. about the size of this one segment os imo i feel like we can chop anything that isnt majorly notable for the past 4 years bcz it feels like it's.. every news piece about wotc in the past 4 years. i, again, dont want to make decisions on a category i dont have excessive knowledge on but that feels like the easiest way to make it work and well formatted -Astral~(he/him/his) 20:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  copy editing within the history section 

message: CC-BY-SA declaration: text in this section has been copied from the article here (permalink) by me, Baffle☿gab. I've removed it because it is either off-topic for this article, it's in the wrong location, or for some other reason. I've left it here in case its removal breaks any named references and for the benefit of future editors. Some material may be reincorporated at a later stage. See the article's history for full attribution. 
===History===
The Primal Order was a supplement designed for use with any game system, but its release in 1992 brought legal trouble with Palladium Books for references to Palladium's game and system. The suit was settled in 1993. I returned this text to the article; it is relevant there. Baffle☿gab 04:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed text

message: The Primal Order was a supplement designed for use with any game system, but its release in 1992 brought legal trouble with Palladium Books for references to Palladium's game and system. The suit was settled in 1993. I returned this text to the article; it is relevant there. Baffle☿gab 04:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: According to Aaron Forsythe, the new set was intended to make the game easier for players of all levels to play. Magic 2010 was the first core set since Beta to feature new cards and it was the first core set with planeswalkers.
</blockquote> Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: 2000-2010