Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Major layoffs at WotC a hoax?

Does this make any sense, and is there any information to back this up or prepare to include in the WotC article about, or watch for? [1] Some big names in D&D in there. It would be the second set of layoffs this year if true, and should probably be put into the respective articles relating to those people that are under the project's eyes. shadzar-talk 03:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to include information about layoffs when I worked on the WotC article, but I wasn't sure where and how to work it in. BOZ (talk) 04:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe somehow the same way that the president changes went. The employees like Mike Lescualt were big things and I included a mention of Linae Foster in the GSL article to identify who was and now is in charge of the revisions alleged for the GSL. Maybe it could be worked in somehow like that? I just know currently several forums are saying this may not be a hoax and those people may have been laid off, but the DDI insider scheduled in 15 minutes might give some information other than speculation on Paizo forums, WotC forums, and ENWorld, since no one is commenting on it just like last time. I also notice that the Gleemax press release and refocus thing was changed to a different date on the WotC site about the past happenings as there is now an october press release in the middle of august one I think. It may be best suited for WotC and not D&D as articles, but how to work it in if true, we should probably figure out when we know more and discuss with others on the WotC article talkpage. What it means for D&D will remain to be seen if it is true. shadzar-talk 04:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Dave Noonan, who did podcasts for D&D(among game design), confirmed gone from WotC [2] D&D Insider removed form this weeks schedule but Randy Buehler still listed as writing it with glowing praise for the D&D Software tools. Seems a few D&D designers and Digital people were let go...so what do we do with this information? shadzar-talk 05:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

His permission level on the WotC forums is also changed from staff to nothing indicating his removal from the company [3]] shadzar-talk 05:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I do hope we're not discussing the inclusion of personal biographical detail regarding people's current employment when it's only sourced to rumours on a forum. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

David Noonan is no longer a rumor, but confirmed himself he is no longer with WotC, and as a designer for D&D, it is something important to note somewhere, so has been done so on his page. It is a loss for Dave, a loss for D&D, and not something that should be taken lightly as there is little reason for it while PHBII for 4th edition is incomplete which he was working on. The authors and designers of D&D are listed under this wikiproject to make sure proper coverage of information is placed on their articles. I wanted first to bring it to peoples attention to be able to watch out for those page in case it was a hoax, and now want to provide the information that has been provided as fact so not to mislead the public. It isn't like WotC layoffs would be placed into the D&D article itself, but the WotC article may need to include something along these lines in regards to show what is happening with it having 2 lay-offs this year. it also shows that D&D and WotC are not immune to the economic crisis and recession we are in following other entertainment industry companies laying off large numbers of people like Gonzo requiring 50 people to voluntarily retire, Topps halting and closing down WizKids for Free Realms TCG to make in cooperation with Sony. So when a project losses half of its design staff it is something that might mean something, and if not included in many article here, we editors should be aware to watch out for changes so we can correct articles to be factual. Feel free to check the sources yourself, and contest the recent chance to the David Noonan article if you feel it is not reliable. shadzar-talk 10:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What makes a person's current employment status noteworthy for Wikipedia is not whether he was important at the company, or whether it signals a trend in the industry, or indeed whether it negatively impacts the project - it is whether it has been discussed by reliable secondary sources, such as industry magazines. I think pointing out that it isn't a hoax on WP:DND is a very good idea, actually - we don't currently have a "current news" section on that page, and this sounds like a good thing to add there. However, until the point has been addressed by reliable secondary sources we shouldn't be looking to add it anywhere, because we're not an industry magazine. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This is sad, sad news if it is true. I really can't picture why on Oerth WotC would lay off Dave Noonan, Jonathon Tweet, Randy Buehler, and Stacy Longstreet unless they were having some sort of economic troubles. As for reliable sources, I know that messageboard posts are completely non-reliable, and am not suggessting that this source should be used for article inclusion, but Lisa Stevens said that she had confirmed the list.[4].

As for a news section, I'll see what I can do. I'll probably replace the DYN box with it. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Economic troubles may well be the issue, given the state of the world and all. Still, we can't really speculate and can only report the facts as we know them. Personally I think, "yeah, I was laid off" is reliable enough. BOZ (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) WotC has had annual December layoffs since 2000, I believe - certainly they've had them in the same years they released 3.0 and 3.5, releasing some big names each time. Granted the economy sucks this year, but this is nothing new. As for the "hoax" question: it has been verified by Lisa Stevens, Sean Reynolds, Jeff Grubb, and Eric Haddock (husband of Julia Martin), so I'm leaning toward "not hoax." Snuppy 14:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

So far there have only really been two that have confirmed being laid off. Dave Noonan as mentioned above, and just recently Jennifer "Solice" Paige, the former Community Manager that took over for Gamer_Zer0[5] Leaving Mike Gills now in charge of the wizards community. Currently Jonathan Tweet appears to still be a member of WotC staff as per his permissions on the site have not yet been changed at this time to removed his STAFF icon [6]. However it is reported, it should be in some way, I am fine with a D&D news section so that people can look for things that may be needed to included in articles that are a part of the D&D wikiproject. If Randy Buehler is confirmed as well, then it largely impacts on the digital initiative of WotC for D&D and any article about the DDI may ened to have something amended to include the change of guard as it were to show the history of the "product" as the first of its kind. So where is this news section, and how relevant is this to current articles on wikipedia that may impact them in any way? shadzar-talk 22:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Further confirmation in regards to downsizing to focus better on digital D&D and Magic brands, from ICV2 [7] shadzar-talk 00:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This is all sad, sad news for D&D and MtG. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is and more work for us, but less work for those people. I tried updating the news rightpanel section, but think I goofed as it does not appear on the project main page. I want to make sure that nothing happens to destroy the GA status of the WotC article while/if any of this info is added. BOZ (et all) put too much work into making something really useful for myself to mess it up trying to add this new information. But think we may want to get it done a bit quicker than later so we don't forget and lose sight of it after the Ravenloft module article is worked on. But I am just a silent party around here for the time being until things and myself cool off. shadzar-talk 01:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The main page was updated; the cache just needed to be purged. And please feel free to add information to Wizards of the Coast; the worst that could happen is that it would need to be reverted. Nobody's going to delist it because of one modification. -Drilnoth (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

~undent~ For non-subscribers of the digital product for D&D the latest news article talks about the layoffs and some other facts. Digital Insider #18 shadzar-talk 05:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Main page design update: News

Per the discussion above, I've added a "News" section to the page in a scroll, so that we can pretty much just leave everything there and just add new announcements to the top of the scroll. I've also changed the height of the other scrolls on the page so that everything looks a bit better. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Great news! Dragon and Dungeon are reliable secondary sources...

...according to Gavin.collins! [8]. I know that it's an old quote (I had just come across it while searching for even more examples), but I thought that is was worth mentioning here so that everyone could see it again. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, you need to stop this or I'll report it. This isn't WP:NOGAVINCOLLINS. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Um... maybe I'm just being dense, but I don't quite understand what you just said. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think he thought you were coming off as sarcastic, but I believe you were being serious. I think that's a very old quote, and no idea if he still feels that way. BOZ (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. I was being completely serious, because I think it'll be nice to be able to reference Dragon and Dungeon as reliable; I guess that I could have phrased it a bit better. My bad. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think they might also be taken as independent sources during the period they were owned and published by Paizo (2002–2007). I just wish now that I'd hung on to my old copies of Shadis.—RJH (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Right. My apologies, then, for misunderstanding. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Perfectly understandable; I'm sorry my choice of words was so poor. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Races of Stone

Does Races of Stone include reliable secondary sources which establish notability? -Drilnoth (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

D&Dwiki

Not sure if you've ever been there, but [9] D&Dwiki is a D&D site (can only carry OGL & SRD & Homebrew stuff but still good) that can always use more good members. The people here are perfect to help out over there. Alot of the items that can't qualify to be placed here can be placed there. If you do sign up just stop by and see me, I'm Hooper[10] on that site. Hooper (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I've looked at that a few times. Just from what I've seen, I don't think that a lot of the stuff from Wikipedia could be put there; things like Mordenkainen aren't covered by the D&D wiki (or they're hiding somewhere that I can't find them). -Drilnoth (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, like I said, they're kind of trapped for legal reasons on using Non-OGL/SRD stuff. Basically everything 3.x from Deities & Demigods on wasn't released under OGL, and some of the iconic characters/creatures aren't OGL either. Hopefully WotC will give them some type of official fansite rights, that'd be amazing. Hooper (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If they do, believe me they'll never allow it for 3rd edition. :( -Drilnoth (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sucks, but understandable. They can't just give away the information that they need to sell to stay afloat. Hooper (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Main page color

Does it really make sense to change the colors around? Personally, I think that the page seems pretty bland now. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I did like it better as it was. BOZ (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It does look a little better now without the gray angst.—RJH (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I just think that the formatting of the main page looks bad with the color scheme; somehow, having the white background seems to make the scroll bars and announcements section not look as cool. Personal opinion, of course, but I thought I'd mention it. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it is an easier read this way. On a side note how about this to put the icons next to the titles in this section? shadzar-talk 21:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Good idea for the announcements; I'll change the page once this discussion is done, since it will be harder to revert the color changes if that is the consensus if there are other edits in the way. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"Cool" isn't what we should be aiming for. WikiProjects are areas for people to get things done, not club houses. On low-contrast displays the old version was difficult to read. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay; it showed up fine on my computer, so I hadn't really thought about lower-contrast versions. I'll update the announcements section as discussed above. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Gavin.collins RFC/U

Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed regarding Gavin.collins. Since this project has been involved in the dispute regarding him, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Monster lists

BOZ did a great job getting the D&D monster lists up and functional, but I think that there is still a lot of room for improvement. Here's an idea of mine so that we can make the lists more comprehensive. I've tested this out in a set of user subpages already, so I know that it works. It would take a lot of time and effort, granted, but I think it would be worthwhile.

Basically, we add another column to each of the lists, entitled "Variants," or something like that. This column would be used to indicate that there are multiple different versions of the creature in the same book, such as the v3.5 MM containing the "Aboleth Mage" in addition to the "Aboleth." Currently, the "Description" column is being used for that.

Doing this would then free up the "Description" column so that we could put a paragraph or so of information on each monster in it, allowing all of the short stub articles to be more easily merged into the lists instead of simply being redirected.

Thoughts? Questions? -Drilnoth (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so which edition should we work on first? -Drilnoth (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that works, especially for the really stubby ones. Might as well start at "in the beginning" and work our way towards now. :) Not that there are likely (as far as I know) any new 4E monsters with their own articles, but undoubtedly there are some new to 3.5 at least which did. BOZ (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent; I'll update the list template (and documentation) with the updated coding and then get to work on the OD&D list. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

So, changing the template has unfortunately caused most of the monster tables to go kind of out of whack; I think that the best way to fix them up would be to systematically go through each list one at a time, doing a full expansion to each list in turn. I've started work on List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–1976), where I've expanded the Basilisk entry to a fuller length.

One question is, should we try to tailor the monster descriptions to the specific editions, or should we use the same description for all occurrences of monsters in the lists? -Drilnoth (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Where I have included descriptions for the monsters (I stopped after awhile due to fatigue and the enormity of it all), I paraphrased from the source material in question rather than drawing from any existing articles or "synthesizing" them from multiple sources. If a monster has its own article, then we can have a description drawn from multiple sources, hopefully (eventually, at least) with citations to those sources. BOZ (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to some of the OD&D books that they could help with that list? I can get the "Other Appearances" section filled in fairly completely for most monsters, but I can't really get a good description of monsters that I don't own the books for. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I had access to a number of old books that helped me write these lists and do a bunch of other things; unfortunately it's been a few months since that was the case. I'm hoping that by sometime early next year this will change back to the way it was. BOZ (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

White Dwarf TOC

This rpg net site has a pretty impressive index of White Dwarf back issues. By citing the magazine articles in question ({{cite journal}}), the reviews in later issues may be useful for addressing notability concerns. (I found a slew of other magazines listed on the site as well. Wish they'd be more informative about the authors though.)—RJH (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

hehehehhehehehehehhehehehehehehhe Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

??? -Drilnoth (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see myself as an author from 1981...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah! I had not seen that. Congratulations! -Drilnoth (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Good deal. :) Thanks RJ! BOZ (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, I also have all the White Dwarf issues from #100 all the way back to #1. So if someone gives me an article and an issue number I will do the site. I also have all the Dragons from #300 on back and many of the new ones. And a few others as well. Web Warlock (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! I knew that someone had mentioned WD back issues. Here's a cite that could be improved: Ravenloft (D&D module)#Ravenloft II: House on Gryphon Hill; issue #87. What was in the review? -Drilnoth (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

4th edition Cosmology

Design & Development: Cosmology: Reimagining the Planes

Infinite planes stagger the imagination. If things were really infinite, you could walk for millions of miles across the burning plain of Avernus and not actually be any bit closer to your goal. And how many devils does it take to fill an infinite plane with a suitable population density? DMs just handwaved these questions before, but we wondered if it was really necessary for everything to be infinite when most D&D games visited just a few specific points of interest in each plane.

I don't know who is really working on the cosmology type articles, but this is some really crazy stuff to work with and include int he article. Basically all places are to be defined and you aren't supposed to image new stuff for D&D, and everyone is supposed to be playing in the same tiny park rather than having the option of going elsewhere?

We don’t want to print settings with long lists of exceptions and modifications to powers and effects. It’s better to use a setting’s “exceptionalism currency” to deal with the specific locales and entities you have to deal with, not the mechanical workings of planar creatures and travels.

All the settings are one setting now or something? All the "strange things" from settings are going to be removed to make things work better together? I do not evny whoever is working on those articles, but there is some mighty heavy stuff being said in there that changes the past concept of infinite possibilities for D&D and imagination and tries to reign in ideas to only a few things from published works.

We want Eberron players to be able to buy a book like Manual of the Planes and use it in their games.

Again be careful not to infere my guesses into the articles, but it seems all settings will be founded on just one thing and all of them will be directly connected under the new cosmology so there is only one real setting now since diversity will be limited for cooperative design. So where is the best article to place some of this stuff in, or discuss it more directly to include into an article(s) in a factual way? shadzar-talk 05:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources for PHB2 info

In this thread[11], it is claimed that the WotC Spring 2009 Catalog confirms Goliath as one of the races in PHB2, and in this thread[12], it is claimed that that the WotC Summer 2009 Catalog lists Avenger and Invoker as divine classes. Could someone with access to the catalogs cite them and add this information to the Player's Handbook and list of alternate Dungeons & Dragons classes articles? It's going to be moot for Invokers once they release the preview next Monday, but I'm not aware of any alternate sources for Goliaths in PHB2 or Avengers as a divine class. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This page on wizards.com[13] confirmed the power source and role for Invokers. Also, in this post[14], it is claimed that the December 2008 Ampersand article[15] confirms Shaman and Warden as primal classes. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Moving Forward

We are being given a chance to prove we can clean up articles in a (mostly) hassle-free environment[16]. How do we want to continue? Web Warlock (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

What if each one of us takes a subject and begin working on just those articles. I.e. one person works on monsters, one on books, one on classes, etc. Just cleaning to the best of our ability. Task force style.Hooper (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing is probably our biggest issue at the moment. I know that we have been digging up sources for the Ravenloft article, so we should take that as an example. It will kill two birds with one stone; it gets citations for the info in an article, and if it's a RSS that takes care of notability. One thing I have neglected to do is look at the interviews and other RSS's that appear in articles like Gary Gygax and Dungeons & Dragons and many others, and apply those texts to as many articles as possible. For example, in the Gygax interviews, he talks about subjects like Brian Blume or Unearthed Arcana, and we can use that interview to source all of these other subjects as well. BOZ (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that having each person take a subject would be the wrong way to go; just contribute wherever you can. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

~undent~ I don't think the project has any need to prove itself to anyone. I am offended by such thought that I need to prove myself to anyone for any reason! I think what should be done, is what has been done all along. Get to what you can when you can. I am no writer, and can only research things. Ask what you need, and if I can find reference anywhere I will stick it on a talk page for proper inclusion into an article as I have always done. Pick whatever is being done now work on one article at a time. when things such as merges come up and interrupt progress, move to the merge discussion and try to fix it however it needs to be done. those interruptions will always occur, and only a few people cannot do it all which is why the project has moved so slowly for so long. I suggest taking care of the long standing merge discussion for DM and GM and get it resolved, and come back to other things. But I just don't like things half done and forgotten. Is there a way to make a page for the project that is categories of articles that have certain cleanup tags on them for the articles within the projects scope itself only? projects with the merge tag, or such that updates automatically that can be watched to handle those first and then move on to the next important tags and cleanup those and keep going until done? shadzar-talk 23:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

See User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription for a way to get a listing of some of the pages that require cleanup. You will need to "subscribe" to this service properly by adding it the the main page of the project (and there's some directions about how to do this if you put it on a transcluded page). This will give you some listings of pages that need cleanup, but is based on bot information from about July I think. There could be other such "services" available out there somewhere, and there are various categories that can also help, such as Category:Dungeons & Dragons articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction. --Craw-daddy | T | 00:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Task Forces

At one point someone mentioned the possibility of making the Greyhawk, FR, and such projects into Taskforces under us. Whats the current thoughts on this? Hooper (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that even having them as task forces would be the right way to go. There is practically no activity on their project pages, and at this point in time this project seems to be editing all of the setting-specific articles. But, that's just me. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, changed my mind. I think that making them into task forces would be an excellent idea. It could help some with project categorization and focus. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Should I start work on setting up something like this? -Drilnoth (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Any opinions? -Drilnoth (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Computer games as evidence of notability?

Does the appearance of a D&D monster, spell, character or magic item in a commercial computer game constitute independent evidence of notability? For example, phase spiders appear in some parts of the Baldur's Gate computer game from BioWare, and I think some of the old gold box games had them as well. Would a mention of this provide independent evidence of notability? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'd say yes. However, you would need to be sure that the game (or something talking about the game) refers to the spiders as phase spiders, rather than just assuming that they are phase spiders based on what they look and act like. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that will be a problem. Several of the games describe the creatures in their rules books, and the names are often in the dialog panel during combat, so it's usually pretty clear. Now that I think about it, there's also the Aurora toolset (with Neverwinter Nights 2) that includes the full tree of available creatures/spells/&c in the RPG line.—RJH (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You just know someone is going to state that since the IP owner licensed the computer game for it to legally contain the images or information about a monster, that it is a first party resource. :( shadzar-talk 23:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how much weight that will hold, since the same person said that licensed issues of Dragon and Dungeon (like those by Paizo Publishing) are reliable secondary sources. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I don't think that one appearance in a video game is enough to establish notability for something, but I do think it will add to the "multiple" part of sources needed. BOZ (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Which of the WP:GNG do you believe the CRPG reference would not follow? To me the only one that may be slightly iffy is the independence part, but I think the extent of the affiliation is the terms of the license. The computer game manufacturers are free to choose what elements of the setting mythology they employ.—RJH (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. I'm just going by what I hear from the notability sticklers - some are pretty harsh judges of what makes a reliable source, so I really don't even know what qualifies, and tend to assume that anything short of the New York Times isn't good enough. ;) It doesn't matter to me one way or the other, but a lot of people will object to the idea that an appearance in another media means anything at all re: notability. BOZ (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

And even being a bestseller on the New York Times isn't evidence of notability, it seems. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability is defined by multiple non-trivial references in reliable secondary sources. A computer game is not a reliable secondary source, and appearance in a computer game as one of several hundred monsters is not non-trivial. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

How is it not a reliable secondary source, when Dragon and Dungeon are? Also, the apperance may be non-trivial depending on how much the monster appears in the game. I agree completely that being "just another monster" wouldn't help with notability, but if its a boss monster or the significant focus of a whole level I think that it would be non-trivial. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Appearances are primary sources. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The creation of a computer game, by a third party, is reliable information that there is enough public interest in a specific subject to warrant a legal contract to create that sort of game. Given that companies like Blizzard, can create their own fantasy worlds (and keep all of the profits), the fact that a company is willing to pay WotC hard cash to licence out their IP is evidence that part of their IP is notable. I would agree with comments about a minor apperance of a monster (i.e. one of hundreds of monsters that is only in a game for a short time) but if a monster has a staring role (as in the Eye of the Beholder (video game)) it is clear evidence that the beholder monster has made the leap into popular culture. I think that these sources need to be reviewed on a case by case basis (rather than written off wholesale). Perhaps an 'is it mentioned on the box', an 'is it in the booklet' or a 'is it a major part of the computer game' rule would be the logical way to go. Big Mac (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

That pretty much sums it up. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. A licensed work in which a character appears is not a secondary source; it is a primary source. Primary sources cannot be used to establish notability. What constitutes "clear evidence that the beholder monster has made the leap into popular culture" is secondary sources writing about it having made the leap into popular culture. Nothing else. "The fact that a company is willing to pay WotC hard cash to licence out their IP" is evidence of... nothing, so far as notability is concerned, unless a secondary source writes about the subject of said company having paid WotC hard cash to licence out their IP. It's just amazing to me that this is such a difficult concept. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

So a popular movie based upon an obscure book does not constitute evidence of notability for the book? That doesn't seem logical. Very well, would you accept the publication of a game hint book, with mention of the monster, as a secondary source?—RJH (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

A hint book - that is, an officially licensed companion work - is not an independent secondary source. "A popular movie based upon an obscure book" - that is, an officially licensed derivative work - is not an independent secondary source. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not it influences things, but while I was building the article hits page, I noticed that Neverwinter Nights, Neverwinter Nights 2, and Baldur's Gate all get read a lot, with Icewind Dale coming in at the tail end of major D&D computer games with just over 10,000 hits in November. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't. Wikipedia has a very high PageRank. Most any time anyone Googles for a video game they end up here. Notability isn't inherited, so the game articles could be be the most popular pages on the whole of Wikipedia and it wouldn't make a difference. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think commercial computer games tend to be relatively easy to demonstrate notability due to the number of computer game magazines being published, as well as other sources. At least that has been my experience (with a few exceptions). It is just unfortunate that in-person role-playing games don't draw the same attention, despite the relatively large gamer base. Probably it's an economics issue, rather than having something to do with popularity. Computer games make big bucks these days.—RJH (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

In response to Chris; that's kind of what I thought, but I thought I'd at least mention it. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Help wanted for restored Margaret Weis Productions article

I recently tried to look up Margaret Weis Productions for some research on the company and found that it had been merged into the article for Margaret Weis. After doing some digging, I have found out that it was tagged with a notable tag and a merge tag within a five minute period and then merged within just three hours of the merger request (despite a person disputing the merger on the Margaret Weis article's discussion page and no mass agreement on merger taking place).

Anyway, I've restored the article and pulled both of the unhelpful tags. There was also another clean up tag (which is appropriate) because this article badly needs improvement. I have also pointed Margaret Weis Productions back at Margaret Weis Productions, Ltd, so hopefully everything should be in the state it was before the merger. (Please feel free to double-check my work as this is the first time I have reverted a deleted article.)

The Sovereign Press, Inc article had a link to this wikiproject on its talk page (probably because of the link with the Dragonlance Campaign Setting, so I have added a similar link on the MWP article. I hope you can help improve both of these article stubs.

One thing that bothers me, is that I think there is a bit of confusion between the two companies and am concerned (especially with the lack of decent citations) that things done by MWP have been attributed to SP. (I'm pretty sure, for example that MWP - not SP - signed the deal for the Battlestar Galactica licence.) I have asked for help on the Dragonlance Forums and hope the experts there will help identify reliable secondary sources that can confirm the facts. I hope that this project can (at least) help out with the information relating to the Dragonlance licence between SP and WotC, its transfer to MWP and its return to WotC. Big Mac (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I've replied over at that talk page. In future, to avoid splitting replies over several talk pages, please leave a link to the discussion on the project page talk rather than copy-pasting the whole comment in. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• It will be difficult to establish notability for such a small company. Better to merge with the article Margaret Weis. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Notability_(companies) seems to think Notability is something other than what you yourself think.

Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.

Also note that the company published several books that were best selelrs which provided getting proper sources for meets

A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject.

I am pretty sure there will be plenty of secondary sources about the company, let alone the company is not solely Margaret Weis, but others as well and a biography should not be the only place a company should exist as if it is Microsoft should be under Bill Gates rather than having its own article. Just because something is not known by 90% of the world populace does not make it not notable. For those in the know about the RPG industry they would know all these small companies that were granted legal licenses to D&D material are notable because what it meant to the industry at the time about such a big name IP copyright. There is plenty, when there is enough time AFTER THE HOLIDAYS, that can be provided to demonstrate notability of not only this company, but also the ones that were licensed Ravenloft and Dark Sun as well. So wait until time is had to work on an article rather than rush people to trying to merge it because you don't want to see it at the current time. (see RfC/Gavin.collins #2) shadzar-talk 11:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• I am not so sure myself. The reason I say this is that Margaret Weis Productions, Ltd is not a public company, so it will not be the subject of analysis by external commentators. There is a second problem as well: it will be hard to establish notability for the company separately from the company's products or from Margaret Weis herself. By that I mean sources may mention the company in passiing, and be trivial in nature, if their subject matter is not directly focused on the company. For instance, the only sources which mention the company [17][18] are focused on its products, and provide little information about the company itself. Since there is little information about the company that is publically available, I think demerging this article was a mistake. Better to focus on improving the Margaret Weis rather than being going down a deadend. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• I just added information about a major award, including a ref. The company also won at least one other big award, but the award's website is down at the moment so I couldn't reference it. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
• Also, just for the record, I agree with Gavin that the two sources cited he mentioned do not establish notability. However, that doesn't mean that notability can't be established. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Article hit page

I've just created a new article hit page for the project so that we can track the popularity of our most important articles and try to work on them in approximate order of how many hits they get, so that the articles that people see most are improved before those that aren't looked at very often. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic idea. :) BOZ (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Too many short sections

A number of the "monster" articles have been organized with many brief sections. (See for example the Githyanki article, which has a separate brief section for each release, &c.) This conflicts with the guidelines under Wikipedia:Layout#Headings_and_sections about very short sections. In short, the articles make tempting targets for a {{Cleanup-restructure}} template. I wanted to (gently) mention it here as this issue is widespread, so I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss. =) Many of those section headers could be merged into the text instead, producing fewer sections and improving the flow. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey there. That was my idea. I wasn't trying to follow any particular format other than my own, and I was just trying to maybe stimulate some out-of-universe content on the articles. Didn't really work so much, but hey it was an idea. :) Feel free to alter to conform to whatever it needs to be. BOZ (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Drilnoth reverted me a few times for condensing these. I tagged a couple with {{condense}}, but in future I'm just going to do the work. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not married to the format; it was just an easier way for me to keep track of them by edition. Note that it will be much more useful as we rework Forgotten Realms, for example. BOZ (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Would it make sense for the various appearances to be listed in the infobox, rather than under Publication history? The latter perhaps should be used to provide important revisions and other details.—RJH (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The way I've always heard infoboxes explained is that they should reflect info found in the article itself, rather than being a place to shunt info you don't want in the article. Whether that's true or not, one of my goals in adding publication histories to articles was to create a strictly out-of-universe section in articles that had only or mostly in-universe; removing the histories seems counter-productive, but expanding on them is the opposite. BOZ (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, many of the pub. histories are far too long to fit in infoboxes. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's proper to discuss the publication history in the article text, but it should be a paragraph, not several small sections. I applaud the focus on out-of-universe here, but it needs to go further. Taking Githyanki again as the example, I'm not convinced we need an "Ecology" section, much less one subdivided into three subsections (or four if you count the sublead). "Licensing" is one sentence and can probably be included with the publication history when converted to one section. Pagrashtak 18:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, well no I wasn't trying to "shunt info [I] don't want in the article" into the infobox. But I do think that a series of sections essentially saying "the creature was published in this book" may not make for compelling reading. That's the type of information that tables are ideal for presenting, whether it's in the infobox or a right-floated table in the Publication history. My preference would be to have the text focus on what makes those particular versions unique and interesting. But that's just me.—RJH (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

(fixed indents) I think that the goal with the publication histories is to be able to expand them appropriately and add more information to them, such as the differences in the monster between editions or specific books, so that would warrant having the separate sections. That said, I could see some of them being combined at this point until such material is added. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely - I never intended them to be so dry, and was kind of hoping that some of the in-universe material would get transfered there in an out-of-universe fashion. For example, rather than "this thing appeared in the Monstrous Manual", someone with the actual book could tell us "this thing appeared in the Monstrous Manual, where it is described as a 10-foot tall blue-skinned reptilian two-headed furry fire-breathing ice-cream eating fruitcake" and to mention the differences, you'd have "this thing appeared in the 3rd edition Monster Manual where it is described as a man in a three-piece suit." Right now, a lot of articles would say "this thing looks like a 10-foot tall blue-skinned reptilian two-headed furry fire-breathing ice-cream eating fruitcake, but sometimes it looks like a man in a three-piece suit," in an in-universe style without sources to tell us where the info comes from. It was kind of my hope to start correcting that. :) That way, as RJH says, we can get what makes the particular versions unique and interesting. Where it does not do that now, we can only blame my own person laziness (or lack of access to all the sources in question). :) BOZ (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, no worries then. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20