Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Role-playing games/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hobby Games: The 100 Best

It looks like someone (or multiple people) have gone through and added notes to the games in this book, and the designers who commented on them. They did not get every game, so I am going through them one by one to make sure we have at least something from the book on every game article. Hopefully that will help build the articles that are in better shape, and add notability to those which are not! This concerns articles in both the BTG and RPG WikiProjects.

It is a big job, so anyone that wants to beat me to it on any of these is more than welcome! Each game gets 2-3 pages of commentary, so there is plenty to work with but I am trying to at least get a minimal effort on each one. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, it was a big job indeed, but I am finally done. There is a lot more that could be added to each article, but they now at least all use this source at a minimum. I want to thank Craw-daddy for getting this started several years ago when the book was still new! 65.126.152.254 (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Proof reading of Character race

Hello,

I wrote the article Character race. I'm sure it needs some improvement, for a simple reason: I'm not a native English speaker. And several secondary sources are French sources; I'm sure readers would appreciate sources in English.

So, I would appreciate if some of you could have a look at it.

Thanks in advance

cdang|write me 20:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Tweet page

The page about me, Jonathan Tweet, has been a high-importance, start-class article for years. I've found extra sources to cite, but I can't edit my own page. Recently someone tagged the page questioning its notability and citing its lack of RSs. I do a lot of WP editing, and it would sure make me happy to see someone get my page past "start" class and to get the tags off the top of the page. There are links on the talk page that people could follow. Thanks. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Are personal pronouns (including "who") to be avoided for fictional characters?

Please take part in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Are personal pronouns (including "who") to be avoided for fictional characters? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

OSRIC

i recently started adding to the OSRIC page, the game most responsible for starting the OSR movement in RPGs, and had my own piicture of my own copy of the rules deleted from the page and commons almost as soon as it was put up. I stopped contributing a number of years ago because of other editors' or bots' interference and it appears things have only gotten worse. (Smf77 (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC))

Online and electronic support for RPGs

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia, so please point me in the right direction if this isn't the right place to post this.

New topic for inclusion -

Online and electronic support for RPGs

I think the RPG section of the wiki could / should include information on the growing number of online and electronic play aids

here is an example of one I know best: this has been submitted and we are awaiting feedback


Draft:Obsidian Portal

there are others that should be included as well but I know far less (i.e. nothing!) about them

roll20 Hero Lab d20 pro

and I'm sure there are many many more

I look forward to your feedback

Nick

NikMak71 (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Video games based on specific role-playing games

I feel that video games based on specific role-playing games should be included in the RPG WikiProject. Right now, Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games#Scope states that "Role-playing video games are outside the scope of this project; they belong at WikiProject VG." While this is generally true, I do feel there should be certain exceptions, such as Vampire: The Masquerade – Redemption and Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines, because they are based on a game which is within scope of this project. If there are no objections, I will change the Scope to include exceptions such as these. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

No objections to this change? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
If no one objects within a week, I am going to change this line so that it excludes any games in Category:Video games based on tabletop role-playing games. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Since there have been no objections in over a month, I am amending the scope of this WikiProject to include these games. If there are any objections, feel free to discuss here. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

As a result of my meddling (heh), Vampire: The Masquerade – Redemption will be Today's Featured Article on June 7, 2016. :) 73.168.15.161 (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow, and Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines will be Today's Featured Article on November 16, 2016 - tomorrow!  :) 73.168.15.161 (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Marvel RPG supplements

Someone has been creating articles for each entry on List of Marvel RPG supplements. I question whether these supplements are notable enough to warrant a separate article for each of them. Please join the discussion at Talk:Concrete Jungle (supplement)#Marvel RPG supplements. Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

References for Character class?

It seems to me that Character class is (or could be) a core article for the RPG topic. The article currently has zero references. It's not my area of interest or expertise, but if anyone here is interested in adding some verifiable information and sources to this article, that would be great. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Role-playing games/Archive 9 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi all, the Community Tech team has been working hard to bring back the Popular pages report. The report for this project can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games/Popular pages. I've made a redirect from the older link Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games/Article hits to make the link consistent across projects. If you're not happy with this change and want to stick with the older link (not recommended), please ping me and I will take care of it. Thank you. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

upgraded WHFRP article

To me, it's easily better than Start-class. To be honest, I can't immediately see what it lacks to reach B-class? What more is there to say? CapnZapp (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

proposal to rewrite the article Alignment (role-playing games)

I don't want to do anything rash, but it seems to me that this article consists of a not-entirely-helpful hodgepodge of alignment systems (D&D and D&D-like) alongside treatments of the moral and ethical commitments of characters in other role-playing games. The article I would like to see - which I am willing to write sometime soon - would reorganize the material as a spectrum so that D&D-style alignment systems are contrasted with GURPS and other point-build "disadvantage" systems and with Unknown Armies or GUMSHOE-style drive systems. Does anyone think this is a bad idea, or not worth trying? I don't want to get into edit warring. Also, I wouldn't think to touch the Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons) article. :) Newimpartial (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikiproject priority level tags

Also, would there be any objection if I did a major re-evaluation of the priority tags? Right now they seem rather arbitrary; I would like to use "high" priority for a number of articles that are much weaker than the importance of the subject suggests (especially stubs), and "medium" for run-of-the-mill articles, especially start class, that don't need immediate attention. But I won't make those changes if they are likely to ruffle feathers; I also won't touch the priority flags on articles at Class B and above. Newimpartial (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Project page task box

The task box on the project page is out of date (!), and the obvious step I took to fix it (the "edit" link) didn't work. Perhaps it could just be removed? I think some decluttering of the project page would be in order. Newimpartial (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Help with a bunch of new pages

IP user 208.47.202.254 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is currently creating a bunch of pages on Judges Guild publications. Notability seems unclear at this stage but since I know nothing about RPGs, I'd appreciate it if someone from the project looked into it. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible new reference work for citations

Felipe Pepe et al. (2018) have just released "The CRPG Book Project: Sharing the History of Computer Role-Playing Games" in PDF format. Would this be a suitable source for referencing game articles? It's self-published so I'm not certain.

  • Pepe, Felipe, ed. (February 2018), The CRGP Book Project: Sharing the History of Computer Role-Playing Games (PDF), retrieved 2018-02-05.

Praemonitus (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Game module?

Resolved

Do we have nowhere to link for this? Modules (add-on game publications with new "adventures") are a key aspect of role-playing games like Dungeons & Dragons, and are the model for the later advent of DLCs for computer RPGs. Seems like a major omission from the encyclopedia, though we do have an article on the (renamed) concept for D&D in particular. What I've got in Module (disambiguation) right now is:

Good enough for the short term, I guess, but it's just weird that game module and Module (gaming) are redlinks.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, The lead of expansion pack is what you're looking for. --Izno (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah! Nice. I redirected those there, and added the term to the lead.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Traveller (role-playing game)

This article, which is rightly considered to be of high importance, needs massive work. For some reason, it's been rated 'B', but there is no way that it could be considered at that stage right now. It's minimally sourced, full of possible original research, doesn't provide much actual encyclopedic value, and is generally a mess. Can we at least get a re-evaluation of its grading? Whateley23 (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

You're right. At best it's a "C" class article. Praemonitus (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Should I just make the change unilaterally? I've never messed with WikiProject items before. Whateley23 (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not unilateral if someone agreed with you. :) For the most part, nobody really blinks an eye at this sort of change if it reflects the rating of the article. --Izno (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources

The reliability of such sources as Designers & Dragons, The Dragon, White Dwarf and Space Gamer is being questioned at AfD and more sources may be questioned at the RSN. It would be good for the project to have more eyes in those venues, since without those key secondary sources it is difficult to keep the articles well-documented, especially for Notability. Newimpartial (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

While you're not wrong, I'm not sure what you are proposing. Yes, attacking the source is the last resort of WP:IDONTLIKEIT crusaders, but I always sort of took that as par for the course on Wikipedia. About the most functional thing I can think of it to keep links handy for where sources might have been vetted through the RS noticeboard (if they have) to forestall the exhaustion of defending the same RS over and over again. Though keeping such a list of such RSes on hand might, in itself, be of value for haggard editors.- Sangrolu (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Sangrolu, like this one? :) Also see the note below about the RSN discussion for Designers & Dragons. BOZ (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Reliability of Designers & Dragons

The reliability the book Designers & Dragons as a source is currently under discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. [1]

Assistance requested with Rokugan article

I'm asking for assistance here as the Rokugan article has been removed twice in April without a process such as an AfD request being carried out first. The first time was on April 15th, accompanied. The article was restored by someone on April 20th and the editor who did the original change to a redirect repeated the change, saying that sources should be added before the redirect should be undone.

Before the edits turning the article into a redirect, there were a number of constructive edits being made every year, so I don't consider the article abandoned.

I agree with the request to add more citations to the article, as I think this would be very useful to readers, but I do not believe this article should have been removed from Wikipedia without some sort of discussion and some sort of attempt to seek out editors who could improve the article. Big Mac (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

It may make sense to establish a Wikipedia:Notability (role-playing games) guideline along the lines of Wikipedia:Notability (video games). That way we can have a common consensus on the notability of these subjects. Praemonitus (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd agree with that. I must say though that Rokugan article is pretty poor. It's all in universe and most of it probably should be chucked out. It details obscure creatures for example. A lot of it falls into the Fancruft area. I'm sure it can be made better if it was actually about Rokugan as a world/country and not about the clans and a few denizens. Canterbury Tail talk 15:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

OSR

Did this edit introduce reliable sources as User:DHBoggs claims? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, the references are to the primary sources mentioned in the article. For example, I mention Dragonsfoot, and linked to that site, which contains the evidence (founding date and content) mentioned in the article. This is no different then mentioning the founding date of an online periodical, for example, and then linking to that periodical for proof of date and general content. DHBoggs • contribs) 14:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

It'a source for the founding date, but not for the most important part: a website with a lively forum discussion and free creator content, heralded the resurgence of interest in "OSR" gaming".--Moroboshi (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't have an article, leading to a subtopic occupying the base title?

I was quite surprised to learn the Chick tract Dark Dungeons had a Wikipedia article, until I clicked the link and saw that it was actually about a satyrical adaptation of the original. It might be the lapsed gamer in me that was big into this stuff in the early 2000s and not so much by the mid-2010s, but is the film really better-known than the comic? Or is this a weird quirk of Wikipedia's notability guidelines and inclusion criteria that the lesser-known film adaptation gets an article but the original does not, leading to article titles that violate WP:LEAST? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Role-playing_games/Archive_9&oldid=900502787"