Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Role-playing games/Notability

New Guidelines

Wow, some excellent stuff there. (Broke this out further for easy replies.) Now, do we really need a seperate RPG category, or can we incorporate this under books? Do we bring it up on their talk page? Etc. Haven't had a major policy clarification (note - not change) that I have been directly working on before. Turlo Lomon 12:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we need our own criterion, or possibly one for games in general. I don't think we should merge in with books as not all RPGs are published that way. The books that make up the RPGs should still (IMO) be considered under WP:BK if separate articles for the book and the game exist. Percy Snoodle 12:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Right now my concern is for the books. They appear to be the primary target of individuals over the past few weeks. The more books that establish a foothold, the more we can establish articles relating to the books. (Such as Harry Potter, etc.) Turlo Lomon 12:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm probably not the person to ask, then - I do feel that articles about game books should be judged against WP:BK, if a separate article exists to cover the game. If there's only one article, then it could meet either guideline. Percy Snoodle 12:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply - The problem is that WP:BK doesn't have proper criteria for judging RPG material. It needs a few clarifications to correct this oversite. Turlo Lomon 13:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That's where I don't agree - it doesn't have proper criteria for judging RPGs - which is why it's not sensible to apply it to, say, Bunnies and Burrows - but I think it's fine for RPG books, so long as it's understood that games awards such as Origins are the sort of award to look for. Perhaps that's the comment we should take to the WP:BK talk page? Or do you think there's something else that the WP:BK guidelines are missing that isn't about the games rather than the books? Percy Snoodle 15:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, we agree that specific guidelines are useful for articles pertaining to an RPG in general, and I agree very much with Percy's guidelines. As for individual RPG books, I am not sure that WP:BK as they are are completely applicable. First of all, they quite explicitly excludes reference books and manuals, which RPG manuals in some measure are. Moreover, the distribution, the kind of shops selling them, the kind of periodicals covering them are quite quite different for RPGs and for books. And of course hardly any RPG book "is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs" and so on. So, a sub-section of Wikipedia:Notability (RPGs) might specify the criteria for RPG books, of course mimicking those for general books. (On a more "philosophical" level, for book it is very rare--has it ever happened?--to have to evaluate an article for a particular book as opposed to the literary work it embodies.) --Goochelaar 15:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the exemptions for manuals and handbooks - that does quite strongly suggest that RPG books wouldn't always come under WP:BK's remit. Perhaps the RPG notability guidelines should apply to them, and my preference for articles about games as opposed to the books that contain them would be better discussed in the WP:RPG style pages? I think we should probably also include notes about how WP:NOTINHERITED works for RPGs. My position would be that an award for any part of a game line does count towards notability for the game, but not vice versa. Percy Snoodle 16:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that, Percy. It's important we make sure our guidelines are strict enough to warrent inclusion of the important books, but not every thing that has ever been published. Turlo Lomon 16:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the list of ever single RPG book published is far smaller than the list of every book published; even every fantasy book published. Grantor (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, notability does not equate to importance (or popularity, or "worth"). It is merely an indicator that the article subject is sufficiently recognized by outside sources. That is going to be very hard to determine for RPGs. Most writing about a game was done through the publisher's in-house magazine (at least before the advent of the internet). There is scant availability to non-publisher derived reviews or industry observations. Only once webpages, such as RPGnet, came into existence, did objective discussion of RPG games and business become published. Before that it was solely Usenet or word of mouth (that's pretty much the same thing, isn't it?)

Does this mean that games before the internet are unimportant or unpopular? Of course not. But it does mean that, as far as an encyclopedia goes, they were not "notable". At least that is the case if you derive a notability criteria from the one used for books. Many RPG books, when search for in an ISBN catalog, list no author at all, just a publisher. This difference illustrates some of the wrinkles that will need to be smoothed. Grantor (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also point out that RPGs are generally produced by a team of paid writers working for a company, rather than the typical single-author or partnership that produces more typical books.

Percy, this is great stuff. I say we now move forward to get this implemented. I'll start doing some reading on how to do that. Web Warlock 20:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I second that, these guidelines are a great step forward, and far superior to anything I have suggested. --Gavin Collins 16:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Professional reviewers

Question: Percy's current suggested guidelines, which I'm in favor of using, says "Coverage from an online review website can be considered non-trivial for the previous criterion if the coverage includes work by at least one professional reviewer or writer." Does "professional" here mean that the reviewer has reviewing role-playing games as a source of income? I don't know of any such reviewers, not on RPGnet and in any Swedish role-playing magazines. The most respected reviewers usually get the games they review for free, but that's about it. But RPGnet still certainly has reviewers that could be viewed as authorities. Should we keep the word "professional" or try to reword it to include these reviewers? Jonas Ferry 16:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I had meant it to mean that the reviewers wrote reviews for a living, but not necessarily the reviews in question. That was the way I had understood people to mean when they said there were professional reviewers on RPGnet - was I wrong? Percy Snoodle 15:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not 100% certain and would definitely need to check, but I think that RPGnet has what they call "staff writers" (or maybe it's "staff reviewers"). I don't know that these people receive any pay, or what is the exact distinction between a "staff writer" and someone who doesn't have this title. I'd probably also want to give this guideline some more thought as well. --Craw-daddy | T | 19:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm worried about apparent over-reliance on RPGnet as the prototypical review site. The practices there do not, for example, apply to Pyramid magazine, which pays free-lance reviewers but has only one staff member (the editor). JackofSpades 22:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think staff reviewers (paid or not) should be enough here. Enworld has a handful for certain. Hobit (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Not yet published books

With regard to WP:BK#Not yet published books, is there not a case for a "Not yet published games section"? You are probably aware of Afd for The Dresden Files, but I think you need to add this in too. --Gavin Collins 16:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. I'll see whether any of the other "other considerations" are suitable Percy Snoodle 10:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Multiple reviews from the same website

I might disagree with the statement that "Multiple reviews on a single website do not impart additional notability". What about the case when a new version of an RPG comes out, and a new review appears? Does this matter (especially if there are noticeable differences between versions that are discussed in a review)? There are a few examples I've run across on RPGnet where there are at least a couple of reviews (about what seems to be the same RPG book) but they're done by different reviewers. They have "playtest reviews", "capsule reviews", and (normal?) reviews, and these sometimes seem to be done by different people too. I don't quite understand the exact distinctions between these reviews that qualifies one type from the other. In any event, I thought I'd throw this out and see what people think. In general, however, the guidelines appear rather sensible on first read-through (subject to my other comment above). (Thanks Percy!) --Craw-daddy | T | 19:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason I put that note in was to avoid the situation where a game achieves notability just by releasing lots of editions or supplements. If a new edition comes out and a review covers the differences, that's a great reference for a section on the differences between the editions, but I don't think it makes the game more notable on its own. Perhaps I should have been more clear in what I meant - that multiple reviews on one site don't count towards "multiple" but do count towards "substantial" - so perhaps "Multiple reviews on a single website should be considered as a singe review for the purposes of these guidelines". So the only time it would be important would be if there were no substantial independent references anywhere else; and if that's the case even after a new edition comes out, I think it's pretty good evidence that the game isn't notable. Percy Snoodle 10:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed rule 4

I think that proposed rule 4. "The game's designer or setting is so historically significant that any officially associated works may be considered notable; or it is the focus of an active WikiProject" will result in conflict (see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability is inherited). AnteaterZot (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly it's one that we'll have to pin down well with explanatory notes. Have there been similar problems with the equivalent rule from WP:BK? Also, I'm concerned now that you've pointed it out that it may open a floodgate for all the Star Wars and Star Trek MUDs. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The "notability is not inherited" thing is a guideline, although it believed in very strongly by many. It really depends on how "works" is defined. AnteaterZot (talk) 10:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I mean that the book guidelines (WP:BK) contain a similar rule, and wondered whether it has caused problems. I definitely think WP:NOTINHERITED is in general correct, but I think the exception is made in WP:BK because to give a notable author sufficient coverage, it is necessary to cover their works. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have to disagree as many famous authors have published non-notable books. The acid test must rely on reliable secondary sources to provide evidence of notability outside of the game designer's cannon, otherwise you will end up with lots of articles about games that are only of interest to a limited number of RPG fans, not to the wider readership. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time thinking of truly famous authors that have published non-notable books after they've published notable ones. Bad ones, sure, but non-notable? Hobit (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Secondary Sources

I feel that this section needs to be expanded, becuause there is considerable misunderstanding and debate about how notability is demonstrated by the citation of reliable independent secondary sources. This debate has raged on many fronts: AfD's, in discussions about the use of notability template.

In my view, for a source to be classed as independent and non-trivial, the source should have been peer-reviewed in some way (this excludes self-published sources, such as fansites) and the source should be cited to support a specific claim of notability. The source itself should be non-trivial, e.g. it should make a case for the notability of the subject with reasoned arguments, analysis and or critisism.

A passing mention of the subject matter is not classed as secondary source, particulary if the source articles is related to another subject matter; some of the 'sources' used in RPG articles are actually primary sources, since they are restatement of the original source material.

Also the the quality of the citation is always important; for example if the magazine says "Buy this adventure now! Its a really great game!", then it cannot be classed as a secondary sources, as advertorials are not considered to be reliable. Could I propose a seperate section to address these issues? --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I will agree that the sourcing issues must get nailed down, ASAP. Right now, there's too much middle ground. We need to determine what sources, if any, are acceptable to establish proper notability for RPG stuff. If we can shore up on that, a whole lot of these debates will end. Either some sources not currently considered notable will be considered notable (allowing a lot of articles currently considered questionably notable to exist in peace), or these sources will be officially considered not notable (sending most of the currently questionable articles to the RPG graveyard). Honestly, I'm tired of the arguing on that subject and would like to see a resolution one way or another. (see recent AFDs on Rod of Seven Parts, Red Hand of Doom, Dwellers of the Forbidden City, and Menzoberranzan for some idea of what I'm getting at.) BOZ (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have had a plan. I have been wanting to work on this very topic and have wanted to go to the sources and see what is going on, what qualifies, what doesn't. The trouble is I am too busy saving article from pointless AFD debates and constantly playing catch-up to devote what free time I have for this for anything more productive. To properly do this is going to take time and it is going to have to be done on the schedules of the people doing the research. I have been doing Ph.D. level research now for years, so I have an idea of what is a good source and what isn't, but to apply it to this topic is going to take me a bit to do it right. If you are serious about wanting it done then my proposal to you is this. No more AFDs from you or Pilotbob for the entire month of Janurary to give the community a chance to work these issues out. Web Warlock (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree this is important, I don't think that the RPG notability guidelines are the right place to nail this down - the question of what counts as a reliable, independent source is of far wider importance and should be discussed either at the village pump or the WP:RS talk page. Also, I don't think that having some leeway in the matter is necessarily a bad thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Percy Snoodle (talk • contribs) 15:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Any attempt to define secondary sources should include examples. For example, staff reviews from "major RPG" sites should count, as should reviews in White Dwarf, Dragon Magazine, Games magazine, etc. Examples will reduce arguments IMO. Hobit (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• "...for example if the magazine says "Buy this adventure now! Its a really great game!", then it cannot be classed as a secondary sources, ..."

With all respect to Gavin, my initial reaction to this statement is "hogwash". There's plenty of reviews (for books, CDs, etc, etc) that say "[Don't] Buy this [book, CD, etc] because it's [not] great and here's why...." Most all reviews make some recommendation as to whether or not to buy the reviewed product, and is usually what most people think of when they see the word "review". Provided the review goes beyond a mere recommendation (positive or negative), and gives reasons why that recommendation has been made, then to me it constitutes something beyond an "advertorial" and places it in the realm of a secondary source (provided, of course, that it's independent of the publisher). What exactly constitutes "peer review" in this context? Articles in the New York Times aren't peer-reviewed by the definition of the word that I'm familiar with (having a Mathematics PhD, the phrase "peer-reviewed" has a very precise meaning to me, and essentially only academic journals are going to fall into that context, so articles in the New York Times, Los Angeles Post, New Yorker, Guardian, etc, etc are going to fail this criteria). --Craw-daddy | T | 02:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What would you suggest instead? --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought that I spelled it out above. Reviews with substance, i.e. reviews that specify why they make their recommendation, are perfectly valid to me. And we mustn't confuse a summary of a review with the review itself. Lots of newspapers, for example, have a "summary" of their review of a movie or book (e.g. "3/5 stars", or "C+" or whatever), but typically have a more substantial review that goes along with it. I think it's also perfectly valid to quote these short summaries in articles, provided there is the appropriate reference provided (so that it can be verified). The essence of my statement is that (to me, at least) the words "peer-reviewed" typically apply only to academic journals, i.e. scholarly articles that have been reviewed and/or edited by someone else in your field of study. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

And speaking as someone working on their 2nd Ph.D. we very well could argue that RPG.net IS peer reviewed (after a fashion). There have been cases of people posting reviews that are basically nothing more than ads or “buy this game it is great!” and the community at large have called them to task on it. All the points Hobit made above are valid. Major RPG sites should count (RPGNet for example), Dragon, Dungeon, White Dwarf, Pyramid, Games Unlimited, The Dungeoneer (for really old articles) and maybe Rifter and ESP (but they are more insular than Dragon and Dungeon). Web Warlock (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to Hobit "For example, staff reviews from "major RPG" sites should count, as should reviews in White Dwarf, Dragon Magazine, Games magazine, etc." I must vehemently oppose allowing 'reviews' in Dragon Magazine to apply to Dungeons and Dragons and other TSR/WotC products. NOT at all an independant third party source for that material, even when Paizo was publishing the mag. GundamsRus (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what is the basis for this statement? Is it that the editorial board wasn't independent of TSR/WotC? I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the change in control/publication of Dragon, and ask for this reason. Thanks. --Craw-daddy | T | 01:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Dragon (and Dungeon) Magazine were always part of the same publishing firm that produced D&D materials - TSR and later Wizards of the Coast (and then Hasbro). For a while the company Paizo published the magazines under an 'official liscne' from WotC. In no way can any of these magazine publications be considered 'independent' from the creators of the products. GundamsRus (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, Paizo chose their own content for the magazines, rather than printing what was handed down to them. As it was explained to me, Paizo would take several articles to WotC, and say, "Which ones can we use?" and WotC would either approve or disapprove. While that's debatable in terms of independence from the main publisher, it's not the same as being spoon-fed and "regurgitating" information. I will, however, agree that the magazines outside of the Paizo peroid should not be considered independent sources. BOZ (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Having to get permission to publish an article is proof that it is not an independant third party source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GundamsRus (talk • contribs) 01:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Quick Question / Clarification - I am going through old boxes of magazines and it occurs to me. A lot of the older Dragons should be fine for any review for a product that was not published by TSR/Wizards. As late as Dragon 250 (where I stopped) they were still featuring other products. Once I get done with my White Dwarf browsing I might go to the Dragon mags. Web Warlock (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - Dragon is a reliable source, it's just not an independent one for WotC/TSR products. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur! For anything non-TSR that they reviewed, they should be considered an independent source. So really, it'll be a case-by-case basis for Dragon. BOZ (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added a little to the independence reference to clarify this matter. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Third party source books

Third party source books should be acceptable for purposes of notability. If a third party felt that the topic was notable enough to spend money to cover, that's a strong vote for notability. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but for me it's not a matter of spending money; it's one of making money. By publishing a sourcebook on a topic they give themselves a financial interest in the topic, so they're no longer independent. Additionally, to my mind, if they only provide stats or in-game information on the topic, then they're a primary source rather than a secondary source. However, if they also provide significant notes on the history or influence of the topic from a real-world perspective (say, in an introduction or appendix) then that could constitute non-trivial coverage. It should probably be judged on a book-by-book basis, but I think the presumption should be that sourcebooks don't contain that because mostly, they don't. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a need for "real-world" coverage. The purpose of WP:N is to figure out if things are notable. Anyone writing a book on a given topic has an interest in selling that book. Same with newspapers or anything else. Should we rule all of these out because of the financial interest? It's the decision to write the book/article/review that indicates notability. As long as it isn't pushing the original work I think it's good. Hobit (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's true that WP:N exists so we can figure out if things are notable, but there are differences between (a) notability within a game setting, (b) notability within a gaming community and (c) notability in the world at large. WP:N only counts (b) and (c), and even then (b) isn't always enough if the community in question is too narrow. Sourcebooks in general are primary sources for (a) and circumstantial evidence of (b); only if a reliable secondary source exists to show they have been actually read does their existence show notability. Now, it's possible that the sourcebook itself might talk about the popularity of their topic amongst gamers in the real world, in which case they would count as containing coverage of the material from a real-world perspective, but in my experience sourcebooks don't usually contain a non-trivial amount of discussion in that topic, but rather save the space for the stats and in-universe descriptions that their buyers actually want. If they do contain real-life descriptions, only then do we need to worry about whether they are independent of the topic. You say that "as long as it isn't pushing the original work I think it's good", and I agree with you to a certain extent, but we should also consider whether they are pushing their own work. A publisher shouldn't be able to take a minor element of a game, publish two books on the topic, and then claim that that means that they are allowed to advertise here. That's why we only consider sources that are independent of the topic - so to show that a topic is notable, we need secondary sources devoting coverage not to the topic but to the primary sources on that topic. To give an example, let's say that TSR/WotC include a throwaway mention of a Notability Elemental in the new edition. So far, not notable. Now let's suppose that I want to make some cash so I first publish the Complete Guide to Notability Elementals, which no-one buys, and then the Ecology of the Notability Elemental, which devotes several pages to how great the first book was, and which again no-one buys. At this point, you would argue that the topic is notable and hence include an article on them in wikipedia, and I would be able to advertise my books here. However, I don't think the topic would have met WP:N yet, because there's no independent coverage from a real-world perspective. Now suppose that the Guardian and the Telegraph publish detailed reviews of my books, explaining what a Notability Elemental is and saying how huge numbers of people have bought books about them on the back of the wikipedia advertising. Now the topic is notable. That may seem excessive to you, but that's what the requirement of reliable, non-trivial coverage from a real-world perspective in multiple independent secondary sources entails, and we shouldn't weaken it when we provide an RPG-specific version just because we all happen to like RPGs. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Percy, was that supposed to be a tongue in cheek description of Randy Richards?  ;) (heh, sorry, couldn't help myself). BOZ (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• This "real world" thing seems made up in WP:FICT (which remains highly disputed in any case). Can you find policy to back that notion up? It sounds like all your comments hang on it. Hobit (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• WP:FICT attempts to clarify WP:N, in that the notability that WP:N seeks is from a real-world perspective (b or c above). Is it your position that (a) should be counted? I would understand in that case why you think that most sourcebooks are evidence of notability. However, you ask for a separate policy to back that up, so I'll remind you that WP:N itself requires secondary sources, and I'll quote for you from the definitions of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources at Wikipedia:No original research, an official policy document: "Examples of primary sources include [...] administrative documents, and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs." That means that the in-universe content of sourcebooks is primary source material and hence doesn't count under WP:N. However, as I say above, it's possible for a sourcebook to contain secondary coverage of topics in older products, though most of them don't. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Some changes

I made a few changes which I think match the thoughts of the discussion here. If you disagree, please comment here. Hobit (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Those look good. Thanks. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Real world coverage

• Meta question: Why is real world coverage important? Hobit (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Read WP:FICT and WP:BK and understand this is not D&D Wiki. There must be reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• give it up Gavin, you have said the same thing over and over again. We are working on it. Go away till we are done. Web Warlock (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Definition of "The Work"

I've made this a new section of the talk page because I think defining what constitutes the basic unit of review in the context of RPGs has an impact on how notability is assigned in all respects, and because references to this issue appear in several places already on this talk page interspersed into other issues. I apologise for the length of this.

I would suggest that the album is the basic unit in musical productions, not the song; the individual volumes of a reference work (such as an encyclopedia, or 'The Rise and Fall of the Roman Republic') are not the basic unit; a fantasy series is the basic unit rather than the individual books that constitute the series. Exceptions exist for all this - a single may win an award independent of its album, a particular volume of a reference work may be especially significant, for instance if it is a 'lost' volume of an historical work, and an individual Harry Potter or Tolkien book has its own notable aspects beyond the series of which it's a part (sales, hype, critical review).

However by analogy I'd suggest that a game or game system is the basic unit in RPGs, not the individual books that make it up. With the exception of D&D, which is outside of the usual guidelines because it transcends the rest of the genre due to its overwhelming notability, I'd suggest that individual game manuals should be considered a part of a game or game system rather than independent entities. The fact that they are generally printed as separate 'books' is simply to make them more usable as reference materials, not because the content is inherently distinct and could not be published as part of a single publication.

Assuming that definition is kosher (it may not be, it's just my current thinking), that has implications for notability. Firstly, the Notability (book) guidelines are right out. WP:NOTINHERITED is covered by the fact that something which makes an individual manual notable instead makes the game system as a whole notable. For instance, if the monster manual for a game contains an innovative stat block template, that would be a notable aspect of the entire game, not of the manual itself, since the content of that book is a feature of the whole game - as discussed, the fact that it is included in one specific physical book is just an organisational aid, not an inherent individual quality of the book. This is akin to a controversy about a particular definition in a volume of Funk and Wagnel's Encyclopedia making the whole reference text notable, not the specific volume containing that definition.

This would also bolster the notability of RPG systems generally, as a single system can have multiple notable features scattered throughout its various source books, all contributing to the notability of the entire system. This makes sense to me. If an RPG system is notable for a particularly innovative mechanic, and that mechanic is located in a particular source book, it wouldn't make any sense to say that the game manual is notable while the system that it is a part of is not. Obviously the mechanic is a feature of the game, and it just happens to be presented in a specific manual. If notability attached to books rather than the system as a whole, then under current notability guidelines the vast majority of RPGs would not have articles, and that is clearly not desirable.

This would also open up what constitues secondary sources. Game systems as a whole generate discussion, analysis and review, far more than the individual manuals do - a typical review of a manual evaluates the book in terms of what it contributes to the game as much as by its internal merits. This broadens the number of sources available. For instance, I watched a documentary on table-top gaming a few months ago that mentioned and discussed several less popular game systems; they discussed the systems in toto, meaning that this doco could be a secondary source for the systems, but they didn't mention specific manuals, meaning it couldn't support the notability of those books. Finding a source for an individual splat book, or a third-party add-on, may be tricky, but many game systems are notable specifically because of the large quantity of fan-produced material, third-party books, splat books and the like - trying to justify the notability of the individual manuals in such a case is tricky, but many reviews and articles exist describing the importance of the fan community in a game system as a whole, or discussing the way a particular system is good because it allows for third-party material.

In terms of 'multiple reviews from the one site', instead of having multiple reviews from the same source, what you have now is a series of reviews of different elements of the one game. This wouldn't neccesarily constitute multiple reviews in terms of notability, which is important because there really are very few truly reputable sources for the RPG community - three magazines, one of which is now defunct, and only three or four websites that could really be considered 'significant'. As well as this, other than D&D and, possibly, Vampire: The Masquerade, RPG systems do not have an individual presence in popular culture, meaning that sources outside of these handful of industry publications are very hard to come by. And as has been mentioned, even those few publications that exist could be questioned in terms of their neutrality, which is unfortunate because within the industry they are perfectly kosher, meaning that the industry itself doesn't see the need for more obviously neutral resources - so we're trimming our available secondary resources far more than the industry itself does.

As a final point, the amount that can be said about individual manuals without violating copyright is pretty slim. However an article discussing the whole game or system in general terms, as well as listing the major publications, if any of those publications have notable elements, if there is fan produced content, if there is a fan community, if there are third party publications to support the system, if that system has gone through several iterations or versions, if that system has contributed elements to other systems, if that system has a line of novels associated with it, if any part of that system has won any awards - this is a much more significant article.

I think as a first port of call a game should have an article. If the game system is used in multiple games (such as d20, Storyteller), that should have an article as well. If the games that use a system are not notable enough to sustain an article - the CODA System which I've looked at springs to mind - or where the game system is far more notable than the individual games, then the information about these games could be rolled into the one article on the game system. I'm proposing this because the primacy of the game versus the game system is not always the same or as clear cut as it is in other cases - D&D is more notable than d20, V:tM is more notable than the Storyteller System, but for most of the other games the system is more notable than the game (eg CODA) or the system and the game are one and the same things (eg Mutants and Masterminds).

So the Notability:RPG should take all that into account, in my opinion. Otherwise Wikipedia simply won't have any decent articles on RPGs outside of the Big Two, and those that exist will constantly be called on their notability.

CastorQuinn (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

While this is an important question, I don't think that it affects these guidelines. Notability is in general a question of how much coverage a topic has received in secondary sources, so it's up to those sources what to cover. We might prefer articles on games to articles on gamebooks (I know I do) but if the media decide to write articles about, and give awards for, the books rather than the game or game system, then it's those topics that become notable (and they do so under WP:BK). Our style guidelines don't currently offer any advice on our preferences in situations where it isn't clear; perhaps we should discuss that at Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games/Style? Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Personally I think this has everything to do with notability, for the reasons outlined above. Also, I'd disagree that awards are given to books rather than games or systems - a quick look at the Origins Award categories will show that, although there are categories for accessories, the major awards go to games and systems. Systems are the subject of copyright, not individual books in the case of WotC and WW, where OGL and equivalent distributed copyright systems override the individual book copyright claims, and this is the direction most of the industry is moving in. And though magazines and gaming sites do indeed review books (as well as systems), they always evaluate those books in the context of the system, ie in how well they contribute to the overall system - basically they review them as instalments, in much the same way that TV Week reviews episodes of a TV show. So I think the argument could definitely be made that the industry and media, as well as logic, would say that gaming manuals do not, in the general course of things, deserve individual entries, and that notability attaches to the system, not the individual publications, for the purpose of determining notability in the context of Wikipedia.

But I agree you could also make the claim for a traditional book-based notability criteria. I just happen to disagree with you on the appropriateness of that approach. However in that case I'd have to say you don't need a new notability guideline, as all the points we can have in such a scheme are effectively the generic notability scheme, except for specific mention of awards, which can be assumed under the generic scheme.

The one thing we can agree on definitely is that Notability:Book is not appropriate. CastorQuinn (talk) 12:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yeah, ignore where I said "under WP:BK" earlier. It's been pointed out before that WP:BK specifically exempts instruction manuals, which includes game sourcebooks. You mention "traditional book-based notability criteria", which I think is a misunderstanding. There aren't any book-specific criteria; as you go on to mention, the requirement for significant coverage comes from WP:N itself, and WP:BK and WP:RPG/N interpret it in similar ways. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with CastorQuinn's analysis that sourcebooks do not inherit notability from the game, because they are seperate component. In some ways this discussion echoes the past AfD debates in which I agrued that a sourcebook is not necessarily notable, just because the game is notable. However, I disagree with Percy Snoodle that individual RPG modules are exempt from the notability requirements of WP:BK; compliance with this guideline is still the required because sourcebooks (such as Red Hand of Doom) contain substantial fictional content as well as game instructions to facilitate a "chose-your-own-adventure". --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say that they're "exempt" from WP:BK, as WP:N is the actual guideline. However, I think that WP:RPG/N's interpretation of WP:N is the one to use, rather than the one in WP:BK. That still holds them to the same standards of coverage; the guidelines are intentionally similar. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• I would have to disagree with Percy, asWP:BK definetely applies to adventure modules. I have been told many times that adventure modules and game supplements cannot be classed as instruction manuals (which would make they totally non-notable in my view). Since they contain plot, characters, locations, artifacts and other fictional elements, WP:BK is surely the governing guideline on their notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• My point is that it shouldn't matter whether you look at WP:BK or WP:RPG/N - in either case, the guideline requires substantial, non-trivial independent secondary coverage and defines that in pretty much the same way, because they're both just interpretations of WP:N. The difference between the two is that WP:RPG/N uses terms and examples appropriate to the context of the RPG industry, so it will be easier to tell whether an RPG module meets WP:N by looking at WP:RPG/N than by looking at WP:BK. Also, you might want to learn the difference between a "chose-your-own-adventure" and an RPG before trying to comment on them. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposing to the wider community

Has this been proposed to the wider community yet? If yes, wherabouts and to what reaction? If no, why not and/or when will it be? Just out of interest, because the requirements look good, and it'd be useful to have "official". SamBC(talk) 13:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Subarticles

The wording on splitting articles is not consistent with the current thinking at notability fiction, nor with what I think is the consensus of editors: major characters and other major elements of articles about at least the most important games can be split without running afoul of notability--the articles are viewed as a while with respect to notability, and it is matter of editing decisions in each case about what is appropriate. the current wording is much too restrictive. DGG (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why those elements deserve articles if they don't have secondary coverage. Notability is not inherited, so they should need to demonstrate notability in their own right. Of course, if they can do so, then the articles are a welcome addition. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Further to the above, I believe you refer to WP:FICT#Summary style approach for sub-articles. I can see how that section, particularly the last sentence of it, supports your reading, though I disagree with what it's trying to do; since it's still under heavy discussion I invite all interested parties to discuss it on that article's talk page. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As an update, contributions are sought at WT:FICT#Guidelines and consensus, to try to determine whether the inclusion of spinout articles without real-world coverage has consensus support. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Returning to the question of house organs

A number of the older TSR game supplements and novels were reviewed solely in TSR house organs, but still had a great effect on the outside gaming community. I don't recall, for example, seeing reviews for the original Ravenloft module outside of Dragon, nor did I ever come across reviews for, say, Dragonlance. Until the advent of the Web, I generally expected to see reviews of TSR products in Dragon, reviews of SJG games in Pyramid, and so forth. The appearance of TSR products in other magazines, and other products in TSR magazines, was haphazard and frequently not related to the product's quality or influence. I understand the desire not to overbloat the RPG section with every supplement ever printed, and at the same time suggest that we find a guideline to include a broader range of the pre-Internet materials.

I am not suggesting that we include every supplement, for, say, Karameikos, but at least the major projects should be listed. Snuppy 01:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The major products are listed, because they've received independent coverage. If a product is notable, it will have received independent coverage since its release, even if there was no source at the time. Remember that notability is not temporary. So I don't think that there's any need to consider the TSR coverage for purposes of the notability of TSR products; although they can still provide useful references to back up claims. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

definition of "non-trivial"?

The fifth footnote says:

"Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is reliable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur. Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source.

This looks like a definition of "reliable" not "non-trivial". Non-triviality is covered by the previous footnote, for "subject". Thoughts? Powers ^T 13:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good point. That came from WP:BK, and is still an issue there too. I'm not sure how best to proceed, as being the "subject" of an article is not easy to define. Any thoughts? Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think footnote 4 covers it sufficiently. Changing the text of footnote 5 to say "reliable sources" instead of "non-trivial", and changing the text of the criterion to: "The game or topic has been a subject[4] of multiple, non-trivial, reliable[5] published works whose sources are independent of the game or topic,[6] with at least some of these works serving a general audience." should be all that is needed. Powers ^T 18:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but footnote 4 doesn't define "subject", it just talks about what is and isn't trivial. We need a definition of "subject". Percy Snoodle (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont agree with that "general audience" part -- tis is not a requirement in any other subject. Works on C++ are not addressed to a general audience, only to people who program in C++. Work on the history of the Byzantine Empire are also not usually written for a general audience, but for scholars interested in that subject. Books on making pottery are for hobbyists who make pots. Importance in it's field is all that is asked for here.DGG (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Wikipedia:Notability (toys and games)

It seems like it would be a good idea to contribute to Wikipedia:Notability (toys and games) rather than offer our own version. I've merged our work there. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It does seem like this proposed guideline and that one are essentially treading the same ground, so there's no sense in having both of them. And, obviously, as RPGs are a subset of Gs (i.e. games) it makes sense to contribute to that one. Would it be appropriate at some point to redirect the project page here to that one (or whatever is appropriate in this case)? --Craw-daddy | T | 23:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

One of the notability requirements for Toys and Games reads as follows: "A copy of the toy or game is included in the collection of any notable gallery, museum, or other educational institution such as the Smithsonian or British Museum."

That seems like a light requirement, since this alone would fulfill notability. And, this requirement does little to substantiate any of the claims in an article, as they would still require secondary sources; an ongoing problem when describing RPGs from the pre-internet era.

Additionally, since RPG books are more commonly found in libraries instead of musuem collections, this requirement sort of falls flat for RPGs. Inclusion in a notable library (Library of Congress?) is not sufficient for a book. Grantor (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If proposal has been merged, then you should remove the proposal tag since it still shows up on the active proposals list It should be redirected or marked as failed. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

rpgtalk.wikia.com welcomes refugee articles

Any articles which contain information but don't meet the test for notability would be welcomed over at the RPG Talk Wikia. Pawsplay (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)