- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
GURPS Steampunk
- ... that role-playing game supplement GURPS Steampunk was considered the most detailed definition of the steampunk genre when it came out? Source: https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Routledge_Companion_to_Cyberpunk_Cul/mfvADwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PT109 "... William H. Stoddard's GURPS Steampunk (2000), a handbook for steampunk tabletop roleplaying gaming that reified the borders and substance of the genre... Books and story reviews had been bandying about the term since its first use, but GURPS Steampunk was the longest and most detailed definition of the genre to that point."
- Reviewed: Games Research Inc
Created by BOZ (talk), GRuban (talk), and Newimpartial (talk). Nominated by GRuban (talk) at 21:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- I think "longest and most detailed definition of the genre to that point" in the article should be in quotes as a direct quotation of a long-ish phrase (not super sure about this though, what do you think?); also, DYK rules recommend at least one inline citation per "paragraph", any cites for the "published exclusively in electronic format" sentence? - Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Everything else looks good besides the very minor points mentioned above. Nice work. DanCherek (talk) 04:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- @DanCherek, Newimpartial, and BOZ: I fixed Dan's first objection by rephrasing, we don't need the direct quote, and I always prefer fewer words to more. However, the second part is a bit rough, as I just can't find a specific reliable source that says "these works were only available in electronic format", even though it's pretty clear from:
- the fact that each of these books says "Please purchase only authorized electronic editions" on the front page
- the fact that none of them have an ISBN (visible by its absence - the hardcopy printed 3rd edition works each give it on the first or last few pages)
- the https://gurps.fandom.com/wiki/Category:GURPS_PDF_Only_Books page - which isn't close to being a reliable source, of course
- the fact that Phil Masters, the man himself, who wrote all of them, wrote to me and said "... if you're going to mention that *GURPS Steampunk 1* is only available in electronic form, you should probably say the same about all the other 4th edition material."
- But none of that is really citeable as such. I see three options:
- we could just remove the sentence/paragraph; it's not really vital to the section, I guess. Or:
- we could rephrase to make it even more general, and make it say something like "Phil Masters wrote the following GURPS 4th edition electronic form supplements...", remove the "by Phil Masters" from each book description. We'd then rely on WP:IAR to leave out a specific quote for the paragraph, and implicitly say "well, obviously each book says it's a GURPS 4th edition supplement written by Phil Masters, right on the front page, that's cited to the front page of each book", and just avoid talking about the "electronic form only" part.
- we could instead shoehorn the "electronic form" into the first sentence of each book description next to "by Phil Masters", both those would be effectively cited to the first page of each book (per facts 1 and 2), the same way as the "by Phil Masters" is, then we wouldn't have a paragraph without citations, it would just be repetitive (and redundant, and unnecessary, and would say the same thing over and over again
)
- What do folks think? --GRuban (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- I like option #2, it feels like a clean solution and all of them are written by Masters anyway so it would remove some repetition within each paragraph. But happy to hear what others think as well. DanCherek (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- Aha! I asked Phil Masters if there's a reference that specifies that they're all digital only, and he writes: "For an official list of GURPS books, there's http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/ Which indicates which are in print, out of print, and/or available in digital form. If a book isn't either in print or out of print, it must only ever have existed in digital form." That's not ideal, of course, because it doesn't say that last bit straight out, but it's better than nothing, and that link is good anyway because it clearly shows that they're 4th edition at a glance. Unless Newimpartial or BOZ have a different opinion, I'll go to option 2, and will put in that source. --GRuban (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- I like option #2, it feels like a clean solution and all of them are written by Masters anyway so it would remove some repetition within each paragraph. But happy to hear what others think as well. DanCherek (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
