Talk:Red Hand of Doom

message: I note that User:Hobit has removed the Notability template from the article Red Hand of Doom. Since this article has no content, context, criticism, analysis or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside the Dungeons & Dragons, I don't understand why he thinks this book of instrucitons is notable.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quote "In library and information science, historiography and some other areas of scholarship, a secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. A secondary source contrasts with a primary source, which is an original source of the information being discussed." These sources, both reviews and ghits are discusing information originally presented elsewhere.  They are thus secondary sources.  Heck, enworld is also about as reliable as you can get in this area.  Further, as Agamemmnon2 notes, this isn't a book of instructions.  It would probably be helpful if you learned a bit about the topic of the page you are discussing. Hobit (talk) 03:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Still denigrating the hobby by calling RPG books "instructions", I see. I might agree with you that it doesn't deserve to be here, but I can't agree with your attitude. Also, why not ask him? --Agamemnon2 (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  He did ask me (on my talk page) so that's fine. Hobit (talk) 03:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "In the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game, adventure or module is a term for pre-packaged books or box sets that help the dungeonmaster to manage the plot or story of a game. The term adventure is currently the preferred term." However, in clear English, you can boil this down to "Game instructions". --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Being specific is usually clearer than being vague. Game instructions normally refer to rulebooks that explain the mechanics of a game, while adventures or modules focus more heavily on plot. Rray (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you saying that a module or an adventure is a book of game instructions that incorporates a plot summary or vice-versa?--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is a different form of fiction than normal, closer to a group "chose-your-own-adventure" than anything else.  I continue to be a bit concerned that you don't have an understanding about the pages you are editing.  Hobit (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I prefer to use Plain English, so that we can both understand what is being discussed. I will assume that this is a book of game instructions that incorporates a plot summary to facilitate a "chose-your-own-adventure". To go back to your claim that enworld is a reliable secondary source, I would have to disagree; since it is a fansite, anything written there is more or less self-published, and therefore cannot be treated as reliable. I again request that the notability template be restored until this article meets the requirements of WP:RS. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  While you can assume that, it turns out it's false.  As I and others have asked of you (say here) please learn about the stuff you are editing. We've tried to inform you as best we can, but at some point you need to make an effort. Hobit (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  I think the AfD discussion killed the whole notability thing here.  I for one will remain opposed to adding the template back.  Hobit (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the issue of notability is not addressed, then is likely it will be put up for AfD again at some point in the future. You can stick you head in the sand if you wish, but long term, this will result in the loss of this article. --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps, but I think the decision will be the same.  It is well sourced, even if you don't like those sources.  Hobit (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability: Red Hand of Doom 

message: Per discussions I've been having in the talk page for WP:PLOT I think the plot content here is in line with these guidelines.  I'd like to remove the template.  Discussion?Hobit (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing none, removing.  Hobit (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  restored; see my edit summary. --Jack Merridew 10:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As some one who's never edited this article, i fail to see where 3 sentances of plot is deserving of this tag,--Cube lurker (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Certainly not a problem here.  Please read WP:FICT's talk page.  This specific article is used as an example. Hobit (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot 

message: Please avoid self-published sources; they are inappropriate and will be removed. --Jack Merridew 10:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you clarify how these 2 sources violate the mentioned policy? it's not clear to me?--Cube lurker (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  #1 Self published sources can be used.  They aren't great for notability, but they can be helpful to the article.  In this case, showing what people seem to think of it.  Also, I don't see timewasters as self published.  Can you show that?  Hobit (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  the 'submit a review link, for example. --Jack Merridew 08:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unclear here.  I think you can submit articles to reader's digest too.  Or the New York Times.  Do you have reason to believe they don't edit or review the submitted articles? 68.40.58.255 (talk) 04:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: See http://www.timewastersguide.com/bio.php.  Looks pretty real.  Hobit (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:SPS]] 

message: * WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, offers point 4: Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.
* http://www.d20zines.com/v7/node/1808 offers two links to http://www.frpgames.com/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=27876&ref=d20z — note the referrer parameter 'ref=d20z' at the end which is used to ensure the d20z gets a slice of the money. Pages such as this offer a 'review' (always a 'good' one) as bait to garner links as a way for them to make money. Such link are to be avoided (i.e removed, but I'll discuss a bit first). --Jack Merridew 08:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Wtf?  Lots of review sites include links for purchase.  Even on negative reviews.  See  as a highly reputable site that does this.  Book review sites do the same thing too...  It clearly isn't the primary purpose.  Hobit (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *Also see http://www.d20zines.com/v7/node/3103 from the same site for a non 'good' review from the same site. Hobit (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:EL]] 

message: While the Scales of War adventure path does reuse the same setting as RHOD, namely the Elsir Vale, it has moved forward the time-line a significant number of years. Furthermore, it appears to disregard completely the established locations of its main town, Brindol. And the connections to previous events (as depicted by RHOD) are tenous at best. Even geography has changed (the western part of Elsir River now flows in the opposite direction).
Therefore I don't think we should call it a "sequel" even if Wizards does so in its promotional material. At least not if we can't find a source that discusses these topics to counter-balance the claim. (I have sources, but they're all forum posts, which don't cut it for Wikipedia inclusion).
Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If they called it a sequel, it's a sequel. And it's not all that a significant number of years later (10, to be exact). In fact, some of the exact same characters are in both. Yes, it is a sequel, and should be called as such. oknazevad (talk) 06:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Hand of Doom "sequel" 

message: At best you could say that no adventures were published in *print* form for *generic* D&D (just for specific worlds), but that in itself is a pretty weak claim because its of little relevance. And you have to discount the two Fantastic Locales published in 2005.
Here's a probably complete listing, year by year:
http://index.rpg.net/display-search.phtml?key=publisher&value=Wizards+of+the+Coast&include=category%3A%3AAdventure%2Csystem%3A%3ADungeons+%26+Dragons&sort=year&type=pictures
At a minimum, three Eberron D&D adventures, one Forgotten Realms D&D adventure, two Fantastic Locations (which were locales for generic D&D *with* adventures) and a gazillion generic D&D PDFs were published.
Overall, the claim seems specious.
--66.159.220.52 (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably true - feel free to fix! 24.148.0.83 (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claiming No D&D Adventures Was Published 2003-2005 is Factually Incorrect