User talk:Gavin.collins/Archive 3

Barnstar

		The AntiCruft Barnstar
		Thanks for fighting cruft!! Pilotbob 13:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Diamond Lake

Hey Gavin, I saw the shout-out to fancruft.net on the Diamond Lake AFD. There's a lot of clean that I'm trying to do over at that domain so I haven't been around wikipedia as regularly as I was. I was a hard spot to be in, being a fancruft lover but also a believer that it shouldn't all be on wikipedia. I'm going to pop back in from time to time, but I appreciate the transwiki plug. We're always glad to add more cruft over there.--Torchwood Who? 20:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Relist request

permalink to talk page version containing your message

Looking at the time stamp on your message to me vs. the time stamp of the closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Marine Ltd. (Peel Engineering), it looks like you asked me to re-list about 10 hours before it was finally closed as "merge and redirect". By re-listing, did you mean repost on the present day's new AFDs or take to DRV or repost a notice to a WikiProject or take back to AFD as a 2nd nomination or some other alternative? I don't think I would have done any of these things, but I'm interested in what your concern was when you asked me to take action. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I requested repost on the present day's new AFDs, as I was not sure consensus had been reached, but I think my concern was trivial in retrospect. Sorry to bother you.--Gavin Collins 02:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Lyran Star Empire

Gavin, I wasn't the one who reverted it to the pre AfD format and had nothing to do with that happening. That said, I am going back to recreate redirect that was there.--Donovan Ravenhull 11:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lg greyhawk arch.jpg

Once again, you're misusing template tags. That tag is for images which have no fair use rationale. Not having specific enough fair use rationale is not intended to be handled with nearly so large a stick. Please, stop this campaign of yours to remove Greyhawk-related content at all costs. I'm not really involved with Wikipedia very much anymore, and frivolous deletionism like this is one of the primary reasons. Go contribute something. -Harmil 05:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

A proper fair use rationale should be provided; half measures won't address these concerns. Remember, there are now lots of bots deleting images for precisely this reason; ignore these concerns at your peril. --Gavin Collins 13:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you just missed what I said. There *is* a fair use rationale. It could be improved. That's not sufficient grounds on which to use the template that says there's no fair use rationale. You're misusing a template for a purpose to which it's not suited. Find an administrative template that says "the fair use rational for this image needs to be more specific." That's fine. Just tag images appropriately. -Harmil 16:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In Universe

Your use of the {{in universe}} template continues to elude me. You're slapping this template on many articles which clearly call out their topic as a work of fiction and introduce only the barest details of plot required for encyclopedic context. Please, stop misusing this template. -Harmil 05:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

And as a contrary example, Vangerdahast is an article deeply in need of the {{in universe}} tag. -Harmil 05:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Over-use of templates

In a number of cases, you're adding templates for notability and sources in articles which make claims to notability, but do not provide sources. If your concern is with sources, then use the various sources-related templates, but you don't need to build a tower of administrative templates on an article. -Harmil 06:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you: notability, lack of sources are sperate issues. Please don't remove the templates unless you have addressed these concerns, otherwise I will assume you are ignoring the problem. --Gavin Collins 13:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You just agreed with me... they are, in fact separate issues. Please stop using notability templates to say, "there's no sources for the claim to notability." That's not what the tag is for. The goal is to create a well-sourced encyclopedia, right? To that end, add the most focused tags that clarify what needs to be done. In this case, that's sourcing. -Harmil 16:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree with you; they require seperate templates, but they don't say the same thing, hence the need for two tags. For example, a subject can be notable, and not have secondary sources, in which case the importance template is relevant; vice versa, trivia or in universe plot summaries can have extensive secondary sources, but is not notable. --Gavin Collins 17:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. If you want to make a tag that says "the claim to notability is unsourced" feel free. That's not what the tag you're using says. -Harmil 23:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: AfDs of Warcraft articles

Thanks for the support. I knew what would end up happening when I nominate these articles with gamers defending their articles. I even got accused for being a sockpuppeteer of two accounts that are older than mine.

I'll also be sure to consider deletion sorting if I have time for them. Seeing as how I usually end up having a huge amount of articles to nominate, I usually hardly even have time to place the articles in the day list, letting the bot taking care of that. I'll probably have to take it out of my user page though, as I'm not sure if that's the correct place to tell me about it lol. IAmSasori 15:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

How exciting to be accused of something as devious as being a sock puppeteer! My opponents only accusse me of petty things like being ignorant, or being a dick. Perhaps they will accuse you of being a Yakuza next. --Gavin Collins 09:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It's typically not productive to think of editors who disagree with you as "opponents." It's also not uncommon to see sock-puppetry on Wikipedia, so the accusation of sock-puppetry is not idle conspiracy theory mongering (I don't know IAmSasori, so I'm not going to comment about that particular user other than to say the username does seem to invite the accusation). -Harmil 23:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

AFD

I don't know why you automatically assume that two character lists are game guides, nor does it seem you actually read the article that is up for AFD. It appears to me that you simply skim over the lead paragraph and see if there are references. Underground Hades Empire Infershia has references and it is not a game guide as you've linked to at that AFD and at Power Animal (Gaoranger).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought that all the numbers after the characters (48) (22) etc were something to do with game points. Having re-read the article, I now beleive the numbers are related to the colouring on the characters jump suits. However, the points I rasised about WP:NOT still apply: I should have quoted WP:NOT#PLOT instead of WP:NOT#GUIDE. The article still has problems with lack of secondary sources and real-world notability. I hope this clarifies the issue. --Gavin Collins 09:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy

I asked this on Nancy's talk page, but I'll post here, too, in case you aren't watching that. Could you please explain in what way you think I've been discourteous to user:Nancy? Frankly, I'm mildy offended by your baseless accusation. -Chunky Rice 23:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

My view is that the edits of Trainunion were obvious vandalism, and that Nancy acted in good faith by reverting them. However, I admit that what is obvious is open to interpretation, and in case I am misaken, I am sorry if I offended you. --Gavin Collins 00:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism, like the PROD system, is something that is uncontested. Obvious means that there's not other possible interpretation other than vandalism. Here, we have a clear possible good faith possibility. That the user thought the articles were notable. It would only be vandalism if the user did not think that the articles were notable and was only removing the PRODs to disrupt the project. It's a possibility, but far from obvious. I really think that your understading of the PROD policy is flawed. I want to also point out that at no point did I accuse Nancy of acting in bad faith. I did not revert her edits or remove any PROD tags. I merely mentioned to her, in a polite manner, why I thought that her restoration of the PROD template was inapprorpiate. And I'm still waiting for you to tell me in what way I was discourteous or uncivil. -Chunky Rice 00:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have told you; in my view her edits were justified and correct, and from that viewpoint your remarks to her seem harsh. --Gavin Collins 02:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if you were right (which you are decidedly not. You might wonder why so many experienced editors and admins disagree with your stand), there's absolutely nothing inappropriate about my remarks to Nancy. They are polite and genial.-Chunky Rice 03:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have already said that this is open to interpretation, and in case I am misaken, I am sorry if I offended you.--Gavin Collins 07:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am (now) aware that my reversion of the PROD removals was incorrect although at the time I did think that it was 'obvious' vandalism and was concerned that s/he was just going to carry on and remove every PROD s/he came across; I guess you could say I applied WP:SNOW although I didn't know that was what I was doing! Gavin, I would like to thank you wholeheartedly for your chivalrous defence it was very kind and I regret that I was off-line and could not participate at the time. Chunky Rice thank you also for clarifying the PROD policy - if I make a mistake I would rather be told than carry on in ignorance and I do not consider your comments to be in any way discourteous. You both appear to be fine editors with the Wiki's best interests at heart and I am glad to have made your acquaintance. Kind regards & sorry for causing a fuss, nancy 08:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Business and Economics WikiProject

Hi, I'd like to know if you could help me on some articles relating to business/economics and maybe even get a GA/FA out of one of them! It'd be the first time I've done some business systems-related stuff since uni, wouldn't mind doing it again here on Wikipedia!

What articles are you working on at the moment?? Thanks, --Solumeiras ^talk 11:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am doing some research on Auditing. Because I don't have access to a university libary, I am finding it hard to borrow accademic books on the subject of accountancy as it is not a popular subject in the public library system. What are your interests? --Gavin Collins 11:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cauldron (Shackled City)

Your listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cauldron (Shackled City) is not appropriate. You really need to read and understand the articles that you list for AfD rather than just creating mountains of busy work for the other editors of this site by scatter-shotting all articles of a genre. What's more insulting and derogatory statements have no place in an AfD in general, and certainly not in the initial listing! Please stop and consider an article before taking such action in the future. -Harmil 12:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood. The word Ghit was not used in a derogatory fashion, as it refers to "Google Hits". I have done a bit or research on google to see if there are any secondary sources, such as books, journals or magazines which describe the city in a real-world context, to see if someone has done has done a study on Cauldron from a literary perspective, and found nothing. I know that you have a strong affinity for these articles, so please be assured that it is not my style to insult any editors or anything that they have written. --Gavin Collins 13:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That's... perhaps an abbreviation to avoid without context then. My apologies. As for my "affinity", I have no more affinity for the article on Cauldron than I do for the article on anything else. In fact, I'd support strongly anyone who suggested that it be merged into Shackled City, or who simply was bold and took the initiative to do so. Constructive improvements to Wikipedia are always preferable to increased bureaucracy. -Harmil 13:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rincewind

I've commented about your edit to the AfD for Rincewind. Please read WP:FAITH and attempt to incorporate its guidelines into your edits. Thanks. -Harmil 13:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rincewind, and again I think your are mistaken. --Gavin Collins 13:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Merges

You will note that on a number of your AfDs I'm suggesting keep and merge. You might want to think about, instead of AfDing, merging the content from some of these articles into something more compact with more real-world context. I know that's more work than slapping an AfD tag on an article, but it's also more constructive and causes less busywork on the part of other editors.... -Harmil 14:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have thought about it. If you go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Greyhawk and Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games, you will see I have made many such suggestions, but they have fallen on deaf ears. --Gavin Collins 14:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You could... stop filling the AfD queue, and start contributing to the quality of these articles by creating larger scoped articles into which you merge individuals, researching sources as you go... Just a thought. -Harmil 14:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestions have hardly fallen on deaf ears, Gavin, as people have agreed that merging is appropriate in many cases, and agreed that cleanup is needed in many cases. The fact that it hasn't all magically happened yet doesn't mean people are disagreeing, just that they don't have time to fix everything all at once. BTW, there are a couple of things that I've said recently that you haven't responded to and I'd like to hear what you have to say... [1] and [2]. Pinball22 16:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This merging approach may work, but deep down I have doubts there is sufficient material to redeem a lot of these characters, locations and deities that are the subect of 300-400 Greyhawk articles. My understanding is that they were created as part of game settings, and although they are fictional characters, they don't have notable dialog or take notable actions. They are if you like "working characters"; my analogy is they perform a function in a role-playing game of that a mask does at a masque ball. Compared with "literary characters" such as, say, Yossarian who speaks notable dialog and is a notable character in the film Catch 22 in his won right, role-role playing characters by comparison will virtually always fail WP:Fiction with only one or two exceptions, because by definition, they are 2 dimensional; the game participants make up the third component in the game itself. Outside of the game, role playing characters are 2 dimensional characters are Hollow Men who will never obtain secondary sources to demonstrate notability, because, from a fictional point of view, they are shallow and will never attract reliable secondary sources. Perhaps I am going too deep here or is a debate that needs to go to WP:RPG, but I think this is the position where we are fundamentally at odds: my view is ultimately, these 300-400 articles will be deleted, if not by me, then by others over time.--Gavin Collins 17:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Delitionism vs. strong support for sourcing

I hope, by the way, that you will keep in mind that, while I am not a deletionist like yourself, I feel very strongly about sources and agree with many of your requests for additional, secondary sourcing of articles. I do hope that you continue to seek out undersourced articles and tag them as such, but I have a grander hope that you will begin to seek and add these sources, yourself. -Harmil 14:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have sought material before making searches. Having found none, I believe deletion is the best policy for a lot of these Greyhawk location, deity and character stubs. --Gavin Collins 15:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That's right, we must delete or merge these trivial articles that are only useful to a few hundreds of thousands of people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think.--134.139.148.100 18:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Its not the number of electrons it is the way they are arranged. --Gavin Collins 22:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Farscape AfDs

Out of interest: Is there a reason why you AfD some poor quality Farscape episode articles out of airing order, but leave other FS articles of similar poor quality un-AfD-ed? It would make more sense to me to AfD them in groups, as it seems that quite a few articles do not even have a plot synopsis and are unlikely to survive AfD either way. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Some are of less quality than others, but do you have an alternative suggestion? --Gavin Collins 16:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I just checked the 22 Season 4 episodes. The following episode articles have no plot summary: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. All others have a plot sumamry but don't establish their notability. If fans of the show (I just watched it but never had any real attachment) don't even put work into establishing in-universe notability, there is not much reason to let those articles stay. But given the resistance on Talk:List of Farscape episodes, AfD will probably work faster for those 6 episodes than endless merge discussions. Last note (almost an edit): I just noticed in the articles' history that the articles just don't have plot summaries because those were copyright violations. That speaks for even less willingness of Farscape editors to bringing up their articles for wiki standards some point in the future. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You have reinforced my suspicions that most of these plot summaries have been copied from fansites. I think if the ones without plot summaries are proded and the rest AfD, this might be the appropriate way to proceed. However, I will be cautious and see if there are any secondary sources supporting notability of one or more of the episodes. I presume there was a pilot episode that is. How do you want to proceed, do you wish to subdivide the deletions between us? --Gavin Collins 17:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Although the vast majority of my speedy and prod requests are successful, almost all of my AfDs result in barely-keeps or no-consensus for some strange reason and I've kind of given up on fighting this cosmic imbalance now. :-) Prodding is just for uncontroversial deletion. The best way is IMO to take the articles (maybe in two groups for articles with and without plot summary) to AfD, with a rationale like "The articles are 9 months old, but notability is still not established. (The copyrighted plot summaries were removed two weeks ago, and no synopsis has been added since.) Attempts to merge/redirect all episode articles of this show has been fought strongly at Talk:List of Farscape episodes since August, but no episode articles have been significantly improved since then[9] to satisfy WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:FICT, WP:WAF and a few more. All Season 2 episode article have already been redirected to the episode list and are now fully protected against re-creation because of edit wars. As discussions for and against this measure have stopped on the talk page now, I hand the fate of these articles into the hands of the community. Redirect to leave possibilitieses open to interested editors." I could do the AfD myself, but I just know my luck with AfDs, especially with something as controversial as this. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Tread carefully in asserting that duplicate content implies copyvio. It might be true in some cases, but many fan sites get their start by copying Wikipedia content, and expanding from there. -Harmil 21:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

One would think that fan sites started with Wikipedia. --Turnipface 21:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. You just started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peacekeeper (Farscape). As it seems that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancients (Farscape) is heading towards no consensus (and the Peacekeepers are more un-inverse notable than the Ancients), would you consider withdrawing the PK AfD? I'd like to merge all of them into a Races in Farscape article, which you can then AfD to establish community consensus. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playable races in the Warcraft series (result: delete), this could potentially deal with the races in one sweep. Yes or no? – sgeureka ^t•c 12:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

As Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peacekeeper (Farscape) has no primary sources to verifiy its content, merger would be pointless in my view. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. Ancients (Farscape) got deleted in the end, and consensus seems to want Peacekeeper (Farscape) head the same way. The minor races can probably be group-AfDed after that (see {{Farscape}} for a quick list) since there aren't any devoted editors trying to fix even the in-universe notable ones. (I'm not passionate enough to do this work myself, but I'm all for giving fans a chance. Seems like a waste of time in this case.) – sgeureka ^t•c 14:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Faxlore

Over the past couple days, I have put a bit of effort into sprucing up the faxlore article I created a couple years ago, adding many sources, removing a bit of editorializing, expanding it in parts, adding inline citations, and general cleanup. I hope it's established by now that it isn't something I just made up. :)

At any rate, I'd like to begin to merge the stub at photocopylore to here, and discuss which title is best to comprehensively treat this sort of material. Might be pointless to do that while faxlore has an active AfD. So I thought I'd drop you a note asking if you'd be willing to reconsider your opinion. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Response If the article had no content, I would suggest deletion on the grounds of faxlore being a non-notable neogolism. However, given the material is referenced, I would strongly recomend a merger with Junk fax, although I would be the first to admit the title of this article is not much better. Overall, I feel this article could avoid deltion if were moved to a new page if the title does not involve a neogolism of any sort. Have you any alternative suggestions? --Gavin Collins 12:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your support over in ANI Pilotbob 07:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Just don't go too far, please... I felt this comment, on Pilotbob's talk page: I think these are opinions and generalisations made by Guy for which no evidence has been given. This block is little more than an attempt to discredit and gag an established editor, and should be ended with immediate effect was far over the top and failed to assume good faith regarding Guy. Comments like that don't contribute to a collegial atmosphere, I hope you'll reconsider whether that's appropriate phrasing in future. ++Lar: t/c 22:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The generalisation in question was "nominating large numbers of articles without writing separate rationales or even apparently reading them" is a strong inference and is open to a strong response. In my view "nominating large numbers of articles without primary or secondary sources is the basis on which a commendation for services to WP should be made to Pilotbob" is in my view more appropriate & justified. --Gavin Collins 17:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: User:Pilotbob

While I would like to help, the only thing I see regarding Pilotbob there is a sockpuppetry incident with Doctorfluffy, not the case of AfD nominations. Sorry I wasn't much help in this. IAmSasori 14:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Technically I think you are correct, but there have been lots of accusations that nominiating AFDs is somehow wrong, which I think could not be left unchallenged, since AFD process is actually important. --Gavin Collins 14:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Thanks for opening the ANI thread and for your continued support throughout the ordeal. As you can see, I was unblocked. :) Doctorfluffy 18:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I may have done more damage than good with my intervention regarding yourself and Pilotbob, but I was a bit annoyed at the way the block was carried out, as it seemed rather harsh in the light of the fact that you were in dialog with the admins concerned. What will happen to AndalusianNaugahyde do you think? Is he or she going to ask for the block to be lifted? --Gavin Collins 18:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he doesn't really care. He wasn't very active in the first place, mainly just making edits here and there while reading through articles, and this whole mess has left a sour taste in his mouth. Doctorfluffy 20:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Geoff

Hi, I took a quick look at the Geoff (Greyhawk) page, correcting citations, establishing fictional aspect, and adding to the notability (fiction, part of the Dungeons and Dragons game played by tens of thousands). Please let me know if more work needs to be done. --Alphastream (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I note you have added 3 more primary sources, but most of the article has none, and no reliable secondary sources at all. --Gavin Collins 08:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Cains (law firm)

Thanks for the message; I didn't actually remove the speedy tag. I only put in a {{hangon}} tag, followed by a rationale on the talk page (where I actually suggested listing it as an AfD to give others a chance to express views). But User:W.marsh went ahead and removed the speedy tag, presumably for the reasons he gave in his edit summary. --Legis (talk - contribs) 18:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Characters of Firefly

Recently you contibuted to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrial Book. There is now an ongoing discussion stemming from that AfD here if you wish to contribute. [[Guest9999 15:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)]]

D&D articles

Why the blanket tagging of notability on all the D&D articles? You tagged at least one article (I assume many - I haven't gone to track down all your claims) that did assert notability, which sounds like a bad faith plastering of a lot of articles that you turn your nose up at. Tempshill 06:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Which article or articles are you refering to? --Gavin Collins 09:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

All of them. You seem to be targetting clearly notable articles with no explanation. Blackmoor is clearly notable (for example). You provide no basis for claiming that it's not. Hobit (talk) 03:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review on Raccoon Police Department

An AfD in which you commented has been brought to Deletion Review, You may wish to comment there. [10] DGG (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability templates

Thanks for your note on my talk page. The subject of an article can be notable even if the article doesn't include references. In cases like that, an unreferenced tag is more appropriate. Rray (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I note you have deleted the message, so you can keep your "thanks". I am not interested in an edit war. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought the tone of your note on my talk page was a little dictatorial, so I deleted it. My understanding is that I'm allowed to delete anything from my talk page that I like, but if I'm mistaken about that, please let me know. Since you wrote the same note to me on multiple talk pages, I don't think it should be a big deal that I deleted it from my talk page. Sorry if that somehow offended you. I've re-added it to my talk page since it seems to bother you that I deleted it. :)

At any rate, you don't have any authority to tell me to "cease and desist" from removing tags from articles, and you don't own any of the articles you tag, so I'll continue to make the edits I think are appropriate. You should feel free to do the same. I am not interested in an edit war either, and replacing inappropriate tags with appropriate tags isn't edit warring anyway. Rray (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right, I don't own the articles, but if they don't have reliable secondary sources, then their notability is in doubt. Removing the Notability template does not resolve the issue; if you feel the article is notable, replace it with the Importance template instead. That way your actions will be noted and understood. --Gavin Collins (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think either of those templates applied in these two cases, because the subjects were (IMO) clearly notable, albeit unreferenced. The notability and importance templates are there when there is doubt about the notability of the subject matter. I had no doubt that the subjects were notable. But the articles were clearly unreferenced. (Although now that I think about it, I might have missed an opportunity to add an unreferenced tag.) At any rate, thanks for discussing it with me. Rray (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not just a matter of your opinion; reliable secondary sources should be provided so that everybody knows the subject is notabale, otherwise other editors will be do the same as me. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand the policies regarding reliable secondary sources. That's what the unreferenced tag is for, not the notability tag. Rray (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If you understand that, then you will also know that notability is an issue. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily, no. An article about Abraham Lincoln might be unreferenced, but notability isn't an issue. Rray (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be a classic example of where the Importance template would be perfect. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it would be an example of where the unreferenced template would be perfect though. The importance template is for articles with subjects of unclear notability. Abraham Lincoln's notability is clear, regardless of whether or not the article includes references. The article *should* always include referencs, but failing to include references does not always equate to the subject's notability being unclear. Rray (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me for butting in, but just wanted to try and clarify this. The importance tag is for articles that do not assert notability, whether by showing third party references or other means. Here, the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book won an Origins award and that is stated in the article. That is an assertion of notability. Hence, the importance tag (and the notability tag) is inappropriate. If an article does not have such an assertion, however, the importance tag may be approrpiate, even if the subject is notable. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not see any citation for the award, but I guess that counts for something. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There are tags that are appropriate for lacking a citation. is one of them; is another. The first applies to specific statements in articles, and the second applies to entire articles. Rray (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I must still request that the notability template is restored. We have had a discussion before; the citation of a trade award on its own is insufficient evidience of notability. Unless you can provide reliable secondary sources, your assertion that the article is notable is just your point of view; additional sources are required to support your opinion. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Needing sources calls for an unreferenced tag, not a notability tag. Rray (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What sources? Until sources can be found, the template is correct and appropriate. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If the article had sources, it wouldn't need an unreferenced tag. The notability template is for articles where notability isn't asserted, not for articles which don't include sources. Rray (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Target of a Vandal

Just wanted to let you know you are one of the targets of vandal who seems to have issues with editors tagging certain articles. He left a comment on this page with a link in it. When I clicked on the link my browser started loading quicktime and then crashed. He is using ip 71.108.51.138, he has been blocked but I have a feeling he will be causing more problems in the future. Ridernyc (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

D&D AfD

Could I trouble you to please list your AfD nominations of D&D-related articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dungeons_&_Dragons#Articles_proposed_for_deletion? I know it's not required. I know that you've already posted on the game-related deletions list. And, I can understand why you might avoid doing so simply because it might provoke more antagonistic responses like I see here on your talk page. But, nonetheless, I feel like it's the nice thing to do. Please? --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)