Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Role-playing games/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

World of Darkness good/featured content nominations

Victorian Age: Vampire (which I "rescued" from oblivion as a redirect several years ago) has been built up significantly this week and is now nominated for GA. :) If anyone has anything they can add to help it pass, now is the time! :) BOZ (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Success! :) BOZ (talk) 03:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

New article Fall of London has also been nominated for GA, so likewise if anyone has anything they can add to help it pass, now is the time! :) BOZ (talk) 12:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Success! :) BOZ (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Mhmm, next up is likely going to be Werewolf: The Wild West, Chicago by Night, or List of Vampire: The Masquerade books (the latter two still being in draft stages).--Alexandra^IDV 06:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The VTM book list is now up at Featured List Candidates~!--Alexandra^IDV 15:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it's Chicago by Night, keep it up. :) BOZ (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Success on Chicago by Night! Another GA, on a roll. BOZ (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Nice! List of Changeling: The Dreaming books is now up as a Featured list candidate, and - wow! - World of Darkness itself is up for Good Article! BOZ (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Mmmm, I had been working on a WoD series draft in my userspace for a long while and finally made the final push to finish it up. It was a bigger project for sure.--Alexandra^IDV 20:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks like I had forgotten to mention video game Hunter: The Reckoning – Redeemer (based on the tabletop RPG), but it just passed GA. :) And a very interesting new choice for a GA nom: Le Monde des Ténèbres: France. BOZ (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Mmm, I learned that there was a France-exclusive book while cataloguing WoD sources and was intrigued. White Wolf barely ever let other companies develop for their games back then, so it felt like a unique and interesting one to write about!--Alexandra^IDV 14:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

List of Vampire: The Masquerade books is now a Featured List. :) BOZ (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

List of Mage: The Ascension books has now been nominated for FL. BOZ (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Yup, I'm also preparing a Wraith list, but that will have to wait until Changeling passes (only two FLCs at a time).--Alexandra^IDV 16:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Wow, World of Darkness has passed as a Good Article! :) BOZ (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

As has Le Monde des Ténèbres: France!  :) Excellent work, Alexandra IDV! BOZ (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I still have to address the Wraith FLC issues (hopefully this weekend... it's been too long, but I've been busy), and hopefully I'll get some more GA work in after that.--Alexandra^IDV 16:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

We've got another one on deck - sourcebook Haunts (Wraith: The Oblivion)! BOZ (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey hey, six weeks later and Haunts is our newest GA. :) BOZ (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

New article Under a Blood Red Moon has been nominated for GA! BOZ (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Very nice -- I might pick it up in the upcoming backlog drive if no one has by then. I mentioned a while back that I've been thinking of doing some work on many of our cWoD game line articles, although sources that aren't necessarily easily accessible are always a concern. Vaticidalprophet 02:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Under a Blood Red Moon has passed GA. :) BOZ (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Glad to see another one of these up for GA, especially one that I started!: Nobles: The Shining Host. BOZ (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

And yet another today, Land of Eight Million Dreams! Was looking at some Changeling books and felt the drive to write.--Alexandra^IDV 23:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Both have passed GAN. :) Hooray, two more!  :) BOZ (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

And, ready for more, new article Necropolis: Atlanta has been nominated for GA! :) BOZ (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

This one has also passed. :) BOZ (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Cool, Hunter: The Reckoning is now at GAN. :) BOZ (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Mmm, I figured it would probably get more traffic now that a new edition of Hunter has been announced, so I decided to prioritize fixing that article up.--Alexandra^IDV 15:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Kindred of the East has been rewritten and is also now at GAN, for those still paying attention here. :) BOZ (talk) 10:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

It was an interesting one to write! I do wish there had been some academic writing to cite regarding the very "for American fans of kung fu movies and anime, by American fans of kung fu movies and anime" way Asia is depicted in this game, but I guess KotE is just slightly too obscure to draw that kind of academic interest.--Alexandra^IDV 11:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I have definitely been seeing that sort of critique on D&D lately, but that probably proves your point more than anything. :) BOZ (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

This one passed just now, by the way. :) BOZ (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hunter: The Reckoning has finally passed GA review. :) BOZ (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Hunter: The Vigil is now at GAN. :) BOZ (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

And it has passed! :) BOZ (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Transgression in Games and Play

Does anyone have access to, or a copy of, the academic book Transgression in Games and Play by Faltin Karlson and Kristine Jørgensen, specifically its seventh chapter "Queering Games, Play, and Culture through Transgressive Role-Playing Games" by Tanja Sihvonen and Jaakko Stenros? I need it as a cite in a draft; previously the information I needed was available on Google Books, but the preview has rotated around to one that cuts off before the relevant part, and the Discord server turned up a blank. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet: I don't know which pages it is you need (sometimes what pages are available for preview seem to be different based on your location), but I can access (and have taken screenshots of, if you need them) pages 115-117, 120-124, and 127-129.--Alexandra^IDV 02:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Excellent work on rebuilding the long-ago deleted F.A.T.A.L., User:Vaticidalprophet! I have been wanting to build a sub page of deleted/redirected RPG articles to see which of those could one day be brought back in some form, but that is something probably a far bit down the road for me before I finally get to it.  ;) Did you know that there was a third version of the article for this game at F.A.T.A.L. (role-playing game)? Fourth time is the charm in this case, I think. :) BOZ (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the other attempt! It's an odd topic -- wildly important in RPG history, but complicated vis-a-vis notability. I think that since the previous 2005-2007-2010 attempts, the mainstream-adjacent coverage to keep an article alive finally exists -- I'm as shocked as anyone I managed to find even passing discussion of it in published scholarly literature. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Article has been nominated for GA, best of luck! BOZ (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors blitz

I am getting to this a little late, but the Guild of Copy Editors is doing a blitz up through the end of this week. If you have any articles that you are eyeing for improvement, feel free to add them, or ping me back and I can add them for you. :) This would be perfect for anything you are trying to get to GA/FA, or hoping it will get there one day, or anything you just want to see a thorough improvement for. See the current effort at Forgotten Realms for example. BOZ (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Basic Fantasy

This article only has primary sources from either the game itself, or the forum that its author moderates (DragonsFoot), so the NOTABILITY tag has been added to it to possibly find reliable secondary sources that would show it is relevant to have its own article on WP. shadzar-talk 00:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

That's plain incorrect. There are multiple third-party sources in the article, most of them specifically reviewing the game. Could it use more refs? Sure, so can almost all articles, but I disagree that the article neither asserts notability, nor provides third-party sources to show that notability. I am removing the tag. oknazevad (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

As i just stated on the articles talk page, 10 of 16 references are from primary sources that the author of Basic fantasy controls. some of the other sources appear to be dubious. Edit war nonsense isnt what WP is for, so people need to start talking before reverting things. shadzar-talk 18:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not an edit war to revert a tag I disagree with. Re-adding it after it's been objected to would be edit warring. As for the sources, let's keep the discussion to the article talk page so as not to repeat ourselves. oknazevad (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Cyberpunk (role-playing game)

In the last 12 months we've reorganised the article for "Cyberpunk (role-playing game)", originally called "Cyberpunk 2020". The general layout now better matches other RPG articles, and we've added citations to secondary sources. We cover all four editions of the game, up to the new edition Cyberpunk Red, and describe its relationship to the video game Cyberpunk 2077. Any thoughts on how the article could be improved would be appreciated please. Thanks. Hexene (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! 98.32.192.121 (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Reorganizing the main page

Over the last several months, I have incrementally worked on streamlining and focusing the main page for the WikiProject, and today I finished reorganizing it. Feel free to revert any or all of the changes I made, but you can discuss here first if you think that it may benefit from other input. The page was quite bulky a year ago, and I moved a lot of that content to other subpages so it is preserved somewhere. I put a lot of the smaller sections as subsections under one big section. I was not sure how to handle the Templates section, so I just moved that to the bottom; I think it is at least a little less bulky with the featured content compressing it a bit - a happy accident that I just discovered. BOZ (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Clearing assessment backlog, and articles to delete/merge/redirect

I've just made a pretty serious dent on the number of articles not assessed for quality or importance -- the number jumped from 1,448 to 995 in a day, and I've done a few more since then. I'm taking a break, because man, is it some surprisingly tiring work. Great for your edit count, though. Would be great if someone can pick anything up. I'm in the Is now alphabetically, though there's a decent-sized handful of unassessed earlier articles -- some stuff inappropriate for the project (video games and comic artists, mainly) where I didn't bother to remove the tag, some biographies (where I'm generally less confident), some stuff that is categorized but that the bot doesn't pick up on (mostly stuff in weird ratings like Redirect), and some I just missed.

On a slightly more pessimistic note, I'd estimate about half of the articles I saw didn't seem to fit notability standards for an independent article, which may start some difficult conversations. I'm fairly inclusionist by nature, so I used quite a liberal standard of "is this notable?", but I still wound up with a sizable list of articles requiring further discussion. Some of these are obvious simple merges/redirects -- for instance, Bad Medicine for Dr. Drugs and Deadlands: Reloaded are both subsections in their parent articles already (the latter in much more detail than the stub there), so they can simply be redirected to it. Many others, though, don't seem to have merge/redirect targets. It's a bit of an unwieldy list, for which I apologise, but I'm placing it here to for people to take a look -- see if there's anything they can detect merge/redirect targets for, anything that makes you go "Hey, I can work with that and turn this stub into a solid article", and anything where you do think PROD or AfD is indicated. Vaticidalprophet 06:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

While on the one hand, I do often favor merging supplements into the main game article when they did not receive much coverage, there are a number of these with two reviews or more, and which seem important enough to keep separate. Others of these concern games themselves - often from the era around 2000 when reviews could be hard to come by. I should be able to pick up a couple of these to improve, but I certainly detect some wheat among the chaff... Newimpartial (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Editing "Requested Articles" on the Project page

I'm not going to do anything unilateral, but I want to "move to expunge" Serenity Adventures and the two The Dresden Files books from the list. I can fix the Origins list (and the articles) so the blue links work, and I just don't think we need articles for each book in the case of game lines that can reasonably be covered in one (good) article. Could I do that, and take them off the list?

On the other hand, there are some Diana Jones Award, ENnie award and Indie RPG award winners that I would like to put on the request list, if that would be alright. I lack the ability (and the time!) to do them all myself. Newimpartial (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

You can remove them, I just added a bunch of stuff that won Origins Awards but did not have separate articles; I was not sure what else to include, but there is nothing there which has to be there. :) BOZ (talk) 04:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

So I dealt with the redlinks on the 2008 and 2010 Origins pages and removed those three entries from the list; in return I added the three Diana Jones award winners that are straight-up redlinks. (The co-award to Wolfgang Baur's Open Design (gaming) business model also needs a solution, but the answer isn't to write an article about a game or game book, whereas the three I added should be relatively straightforward to write.) I have more request ideas, mostly from the Indie awards, but I didn't want to flood the market with choices just yet. :) Newimpartial (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, that page didn't have a lot going on for a long time before I revamped it. BOZ (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

No. It certainly did not. :)

Quite apart from the infrequent engagement with the old page(s), your cleanup, streamlining and centralizing of the project page is a huge win IMO. I mean, maybe there will come a time to bring back the "peer review" concept, but that's premised on a base of a large number of fairly inexperienced editors, as opposed to the small number of more experienced ones that I sense we have now.

I can only really speak for myself, but the improvements to the project page came at a good time for me to pay attention here and waste my time more productively. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wikipedians, very-occasional editor here, used to have an account (linked to a now-lost e-mail). 2-part request-suggest here...

1. 1. I don't see the "Requested Articles" as mentioned in this section, or I'd be writing there... did I just fail my Spot roll, or has that section of the Project page been re-org'ed out of existence? How do we plebes "request articles" now??!?

1. 2. In any case, I thought "Magpie Games" might be worth its own page now... For another gaming-venue (a Shadowrun discord) that I'm on I did a bit of research and it made me think Wikipedia's coverage was lacking: Magpie's "Avatar Legends" (Elemental Bender'verse) has its own page, where the publisher-info is a name but not even a "page does not exist" link; their "ROOT" RPG occurs as one of many in the PbtA list (and there "Magpie Games" /is/ a "page does not exist" deadlink). Both products are licensed from separately-WP:Notable properties (I -think- "ROOT" is notable, at least -- Root: A Game of Woodland Might & Right (boardgame) has over 4M hits via Google), and I just now learned (this is what prompts me to prompt here on WP) that Avatar & Root RPGs were in the top-20 games run at GenCon 2022 (); #4 and #11 at GenCon "feels" WP:Notable. FYI, FWIW, TYVM, YMMV, etc etc etc. 73.15.69.75 (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

DYKs

Although not for RPGs, Diplomacy publisher Games Research Inc is a DYK on the main page today after surviving AFD and being rebuilt! The bigger news for RPGs is that new article GURPS Steampunk has passed DYK today and will be on the main page soon! BOZ (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

GURPS Steampunk is officially one of today's DYKs. :) BOZ (talk) 12:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Had to promote it into the prep I was building when I knew it was approved :) Vaticidalprophet 12:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Role-playing games articles needing expert attention has been nominated for discussion

Category:Role-playing games articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 05:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh Christ, are the expert-needed XfDs still going on? (To anyone interested, this is heading snow keep.) Vaticidalprophet 06:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Current big project - former articles

{{RPGBox}} has long had a broken link titled "Recovering deleted articles" to a discussion thread from several years ago, and the only reason I haven't removed it yet is because I am using it as a placeholder until I replace it with something functional some day. That day is coming soon. :)

I started User:BOZ/Games deletions this week, which will eventually evolve into a subpage for the WikiProject. I expect it will take me a few months to finish, which is fine because I have a few months worth of time to spend on it. ;) As admitted on the page, most of these will never be restored, but you never know. I will undoubtedly try to bring some of them back myself, once I have a better idea of what there is to work with. Anyone else may try at any time as well, which is why it will be added to the project when I am done. BOZ (talk) 02:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Martin McKenna death date?

We know the month of death for Martin McKenna from a fundrasising page from a friend, but not the actual death date. I am wondering if there is any way we can verify his actual date of death? BOZ (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I would just check if reliable sources mention it, obituary in a local newspaper etc. Ultimately it's not the most important piece of information to know. If you go looking through death registries etc. yourself that's original research. Canterbury Tail talk 18:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Over-categorization of Traveller

I think Traveller (role-playing game) has been over-categorized. In truth, I argue, it would all fit nicely into a single, Category:Traveller (role-playing game).

I could be persuaded that it is worth retaining these subcategories:

• Category:Traveller (role-playing game) adventures
• Category:Traveller (role-playing game) board games
• Category:Traveller (role-playing game) supplements

But this further categorization is a step too far, I fear. Some of these subcategories have a less than a half-dozen pages.

• Category:FASA Traveller adventures
• Category:FASA Traveller supplements
• Category:Gamelords Traveller adventures
• Category:Gamelords Traveller supplements
• Category:Group One Traveller adventures
• Category:Group One Traveller supplements
• Category:Judges Guild Traveller adventures
• Category:Judges Guild Traveller supplements
• Category:Marischal Adventures Traveller adventures
• Category:Paranoia Press Traveller supplements

This over-categorization makes it harder to navigate and maintain this subcategory of the role-playing game universe. Additionally, it will be hard to modify as new publishers continue to introduce new material. I would not want to manage Category: Mongoose Publishing adventures, Category: Mongoose Publishing supplements, and others that have begun publishing since the game's golden age. For, hopefully, these will have the notability required to warrant pages someday soon. —¿philoserf? (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I feel most strongly that we need the first three. BOZ (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I also noticed that, were I to begin updating Traveller Referee Screen, I would have to update the category to be more general. DriveThruRPG has three products from different publishers. That same could be said of some other articles with common supplement/adventure names. That would shrink the publisher-based categories further.

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/browse.php?keywords=%22Traveller+Referee+Screen%22 —¿philoserf? (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, those are intersectional categories. Categorized by game and categorized by publisher are fine. Categories that are both are overcategorization and the articles should be recatwgorizes into the relevant game and publisher categories and the intersectional categories deleted. oknazevad (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

So for example merge Group One Traveller adventures and supplements into Group One publications? and move any Group One Traveller adventures into Traveler adventures, etc (just to clarify). If this is correct I like that. Sciencefish (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Yep. Better to have pages multiply categorized (i.e. by game system and by publisher) than a sea of subdivided categories with ridiculously few entries. Jclemens (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

With the category of adventures and supplememnts (this applies to all RPG categories with this classification), what happens with a book that has both supplememtal material and and adventures. Why are we making a distictinction? Most RPGs have a rule book (likely with an adventure) and further supporting books containing supplemental material, GM screens, adventures, etc. Is there an argument for just Traveller (role-playing game) rulebook, Traveller (role-playing game) supplement and Traveller (role-playing game) boardgames?

Honestly, and this isn't likely to be popular, I would go one step further. The vast majority of the articles in those categories should just be deleted, or merged into a list by company at best. They're just not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. This is actually a problem with the RPG space here, there are a lot of articles on completely non-notable RPG supplements. Not to diminish the good work people have done, but they don't meet Wikipedia inclusion and notability guidelines. For instance everything under Judges Guild, not a single one of those supplements passes WP:GNG. You may be able to make an argument for some of the FASA supplements, but everything under the other company categories should really go. They may be suitable for the Traveller Wiki, but not for Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 12:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Using Judges Guild as an example, what is the best way forward? In JG make a list of traveller products, linked to an external page (eg https://wiki.travellerrpg.com), then ask for the relevent pages to be deleted as not notable? I'm not familiar with the correct process. Sciencefish (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, this is completely fair and is a problem I see in several "nerdy" subject areas on WP like RPGs, comic books, etc. While there is the issue that a lot of these older RPGs and RPG books are mostly covered in print sources and it therefore is hard to know what the sourcing situation looks like for a given book without flipping through a lot of old magazines, we cannot assume that something meets the GNG just because a single RS reviewed it once. I would absolutely support merging or redirecting articles that don't cite multiple different RSs into collective articles or "List of [game/system/company] books" type of things until an interested editor can find more coverage and demonstrate that the book does meet the GNG.--Alexandra^IDV 13:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

FTR: I visit a very large number of articles across a wide range of topics. In any niche the stubbish, questionable notability is found in; American politicians and sports players are the two I have seen most recently in numbers that dwarf Traveller articles. I do not want to address the inclusionist/deletionist issues.

If these were not over-catogorized it might be easier for editors to find, and to improve. —¿philoserf? (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I think just categorizing them under the top 3 and their respective companies are sufficient at this point. I don't have the heart to nominate anything for deletion, though AfD is the right venue for that. However at some point someone will likely be along and nominate them at some point. Canterbury Tail talk 14:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

i intend to watch the conversation until the end of the week. I will then summarize and propose a category schema, and a path form here to there. —¿philoserf? (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Over the week other editors recategorized the publisher-based articles into four categories and requested speedy deletion on the others. We now have:

• Category:Traveller (role-playing game)
• Category:Traveller (role-playing game) adventures
• Category:Traveller (role-playing game) board games
• Category:Traveller (role-playing game) supplements

Personally, I still think supplements and adventures are the same and all articles still would fit fine into Category:Traveller (role-playing game) without subcategories. That said, I recommend no further action now. —¿philoserf? (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

New category for "Role-playing game culture"

Greetings! I'm working on improving the Old School Revival (OSR) article. The OSR is a loose sub-culture or movement within the broader culture of tabletop role-playing gamers. I'd like to create a new category "Role-playing game culture" to apply to it, but thought I'd check in here before I do so to see whether the project had any thoughts on the matter. I'm aware of Category:Nerd culture but this seems much more specific. Thanks for your time! --ACodispo (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Any idea what other articles would go in that category? BOZ (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I share BOZ's question. If enough articles exist, sure. If there are only a handful, nah. —¿philoserf? (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Great question! From a brief search, I don't see any specific articles that would fit more neatly under this new category, but there are some subcategories that might, e.g. Category:Role-playing game associations, Category:Books about role-playing games, and Category:History of role-playing games might all be neat fits within "Role-playing game culture" under Category:Role-playing games. What do you think? --ACodispo (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Article draft was rejected

I recently made a draft of a list of publications for the Starfinder Roleplaying Game, but it was rejected due to lack of sources. My question is what exactly am I supposed to source? Release dates? Page counts? Recommended game player level? All the information I posted was verified, but in a lot of cases by blogs, announcement, or storefront information from Paizo (the publisher) themselves and I'm worried that they're not considered objective. Or does it not matter for this kind of info? Other info such as page counts were from RPGGeek or storefronts such as Goodreads, Amazon, or Paizo and I only listed them once I independently verified the numbers myself in the PDFs. Authors are verified visually as they are listed on the covers and on Paizo's own site. Some help would be appreciated with this sourcing issue. — DetectiveAtLarge (talk) @ 04:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

example: Catalyst (role-playing game supplements) looks much like the article you are introducing. A more experienced editor may have a better clue. I'd look for other similar lists of recent vintage to emulate. —¿philoserf? (talk) 05:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

another example from an unrelated topic List of things named after Alan Turing —¿philoserf? (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I guess I'll just source up as many release dates I can find and resubmit it for review to see if that's enough. — DetectiveAtLarge (talk) @ 10:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Canonical external link

Many articles in the project have External links to Pen & Paper via Archive.org. For example Peter Adkinson, at Peter Adkison. Should we be replacing these with RPGGeek equivelents like Peter Adkinson? —¿philoserf? (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why not; Pen n Paper died about a decade ago, although it was pretty comprehensive in its time, but that means it is out of date for creators who have worked in the field since then. I would say keep it for people who have not worked in the field in many years but add the RPGGeek link, and replace it entirely for people whose resume has grown (unless there are missing items in RPGgeek that Pen n Paper still mentions). BOZ (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there a member of this team with more template experience prepared to help duplicate the various {{bgg designer}}, etc. templates for {{rpgg designer}}, etc equivalents? I believe I may have the skills to do it now but expertise is appreciated. See these template search results. —¿philoserf? (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I have dug in and using the bgg template model is beyond my current skill. These are wikidata driven. The changes for url strings aren't huge and I have identified that boardgamegeek and rpggeek domains provide the same page with different branding when the url string is the same. I'd be inclined to use a simpler model for rpgeek. The wikidata model seems like needless complexity to me. But, that's just my ignorance I expect. —¿philoserf? (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey there! :) Sorry, I'm not really up on templates like that. BOZ (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I am considering a more straightforward {{rpgg product|designer|publisher}} set. I can handle that. The URL scheme is identical between BGG and RPGG. The key difference is the branding. —¿philoserf? (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Statue of the Sorcerer & The Vanishing Conjurer § Official title

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Statue of the Sorcerer & The Vanishing Conjurer § Official title. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Gods of Glorantha

I've been working on a number of B and C class articles lately to make some further improvements and expansion on them. I love that we have a bunch of GA articles from WOD, but there is a lot of diversity in RPGs so I am hoping for improvement all around. :) I have a list of articles with potential, and intend to grow it, but I think Gods of Glorantha has some of the most potential of all of these so I have done some work lately to improve it. I'm nowhere near ready to take it to GA yet, but I'm giving you a heads up that it's only a matter of time. :) BOZ (talk) 03:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm liking the way it looks. I'm especially going to praise that the article does not contain the word "mythic". Pretty much every description of Glorantha uses the word to the point of it being automatic. The problem is that none of the people that use it really state anything more than that, assuming that the reader knows what that means in terms of distinctiveness and context. Worst part is that fans of the setting and games repeat it almost cult-like in their repetition. So, to actually not use it is a challenge that I praise you for passing! oknazevad (talk) 12:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

LOL, I think I almost did use the word "mythic" (or at least "mythos") but cut it out before I saved my edit. ;) BOZ (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources list

On the Board and table games Wikiproject talk page, someone started a discussion about making a list of reliable sources; since there would likely be such sources that would overlap to us or at least be of interest to members of both projects, I'm letting you know in case you want to help out. We don't have one either, and could probably use one. :) Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games/Resources is ancient and certainly insufficient. BOZ (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The ones I use regularly are:

• Web
  • Comic Book Resources
  • Dicebreaker
  • Di6dent (French; used to be released as a magazine as well but is now only published online)
  • GameFan
  • TheGamer
  • Gry-Online (Polish)
  • Guide du Rôliste Galactique (French; in addition to their own content and their database, they have licensed some reviews from out-of-print French RPG magazines, which are added to the corresponding items' entries in the database)
  • ICv2
  • Mir Fantastiki (Russian)
  • Polygon
  • Pyramid
  • SciFi-Universe (French)
  • SF Site
  • Tabletop Gaming Magazine (also exists as a magazine)
  • Tom's Hardware (Italian)
  • Tor.com
  • Unification France (French)
  • Valkyrie
  Print
  • Arcane
  • Australian Realms
  • Backstab (French)
  • Casus Belli (French)
  • Computer + Videogiochi (Italian; focused on video games, but also covered TTRPGs)
  • Dragão Brasil (Portuguese)
  • Dragon
  • Envoyer (German; also has some reviews available online)
  • Fenix (Swedish; also has some reviews available online)
  • The Games Machine (Italian; focused on video games, but also covered TTRPGs)
  • Magia i Miecz (Polish)
  • Mephisto (German)
  • Realms of Fantasy
  • Rollespilsmagasinet Fønix (Danish)
  • Rue Morgue
  • Saga (Danish)
  • Shadis
  • Świat Gier Komputerowych (Polish; focused on video games, but also covered TTRPGs)

Might have missed some, but that's most of them. I also often go to Shannon Appelcline's excellent Designers & Dragons books, and search for game titles on Google Books, Google Scholar, and Archive.org.--Alexandra^IDV 18:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Nice! I was also thinking that we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/References, most of which is not D&D specific and contains sources that talk about all sorts of RPGs, so we could also pull a bunch of stuff from that page as well. BOZ (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could get scans of older magazines like The Space Gamer. Jclemens (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Wow, nevermind, I just hadn't looked in a while. Jclemens (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Jclemens, psst, check out User:BOZ/Game magazine index. ;) BOZ (talk) 04:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Actual play

In further good news, Actual play is a new DYK. :) BOZ (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

An important topic (certainly bigger and more important than the individual games and books I like to write about, hah) that I'm glad now is covered. Thanks to GorillaWarfare for taking the initiative!--Alexandra^IDV 04:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

And, it is on the main page today. :) BOZ (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Play-by-mail

I don't think it is listed on this project (yet?) but I just wanted to report that play-by-mail has been greatly improved over the last couple of years and has been nominated for Good Article. :) BOZ (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Gen Con 2020 online

Looking for further comments at Talk:Gen Con#‎Where should Gen Con 2020 be listed?. BOZ (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Thinking about Fate RPG...

Hi ;-)

I am looking at the Fate article on English Wikipedia and I got thinking... maybe we should write articles about all the Worlds of Adventure and other prominent systems and setting based on that RPG? Like, you know, Venture City, Save Game etc.? And maybe we should also make a nice template below all the articles which would display all this in a nice and ordered fashion? Plus, maybe, a separate category?

I mean, we are basically talking about an award-winning RPG, with supplements having their own mechanics and interesting settings. By my book, this is something that should be on Wikipedia.

Of course, I could be as well wrong. I know very well that, for instance, there was once upon a time a lot of Pokemon articles on Wikipedia and they got all removed. But personally I think this situation is... kinda different? We are talking about published books, after all...

But if you think that I am wrong, please, do not hesitate to tell me so ;-) Just state your reasons and logic, okay? ;-)

Best wishes!

Kaworu1992 (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

PS. I have fully read Fate: Worlds of Adventure only from the first year of them getting published and there is still a lot I simply do not know yet about such topics, there are a lot of them to be read ;-) This is my explanation-apology in advance ;-)

Kaworu1992 (talk) 09:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Category "Wikipedians interested in RPG"?

One more thing. I see there is a category for Wikipedians that like books ("are interested in reading"). Do you think there is any sense in creating a category "Wikipedians interested in RPG games"? So by a few clicks and searches we can find each other? Is there a possibility of searching for both a person within that hypothetical category and I dunno, speaking very well some foreign language? If so, that would be rad!

But maybe I am silly :-) Please, tell me what you think? ;-)

Best wishes!

Kaworu1992 (talk) 09:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

EDIT: Also, I see we have an userbox for the Wikiproject. Maybe we could automatically connect the category with the userbox? Hm? ;-)

Kaworu1992 (talk) 09:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I say give it a shot! BOZ (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)