Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Role-playing games/Archive 10

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Frank Frazetta?

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Frank Frazetta article's talk page indicates that the article falls within the scope of WP:RPG. Is that accurate? Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

There's a D&D 4e adventure module The Adventures of Frank Frazetta’s Death Dealer: Shadows of Mirahan that's based on the Frank Frazetta’s Death Dealer comic book series, so I suppose there's a tenuous connection. Praemonitus (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Mazes & Monsters

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

this movie represents the time that the psychology community could have stood up for role-play as one of the fundamental ways in which children learn to navigate life situations to which they do not yet have access, and also as one of the primary tools the science of psychology has used throughout history to allow adults to safely learn to navigate situations that are potentially dangerous triggers in real life.

it seems very ironic, that the WikiProject that would benefit most by reversing the damage done by the PR ScheißeSturm of those days, is now turning its back on the sense of Role-playing that could have dodged the bullet of 3 decades of bad press for rpgs. is this knowing (or unknowing) payback, or is there a more compelling explanation for continuing to invest in the rift that nearly killed role-playing games? Longpinkytoes (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOTFORUM. --Izno (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Also see WP:NPOV. You might find the moral panic article interesting. Praemonitus (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Noir RPG

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey good people and fellow pen and paper RPG (tabletop RPG? Which name is better). I've seen presentation of Noir RPG more than 20 years ago somewhere in Eastern Europe.

And after all these years I still got engraved in my memory a picture of protesting un-deads with a banner "Zombies are people to!". Really cool. I checked online - no pdf to buy, price on amazon is $65 (next offer - over $100). Not good. I'm not in the fandom since I became a parent, but iirc there a couple games now which doing the same thing that Noir RPG tried in mid 90s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattness pl (talk • contribs) 10:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a suggested change on Wikipedia? --Izno (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Need a Hand with the Sean Patrick Fannon article

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article on Sean Patrick Fannon has been hit a few times from a Single Purpose Account bent on getting the page removed. Now, this user has put it up for AFD. I could use some help cleaning up the article and getting it ready for the AFD discussion. Thanks! Web Warlock (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

That SPA now seems to be attacking friends of Fannon who also have pages. Namely, Jamie Chambers, and Jess Heinig. He has put Jamie's page up several times, nominating it again after the first attempt was removed, but only put Jess' page up once. Both articles could use additional sources and information. ―Vancian | ✉ 20:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

How to assess a article?

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

I'm new to this whole Wikiprojects/Quality Assesment thing but how does one apply to get an article assessed/assess an article. El komodos drago (talk to me) 17:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The reason I ask is that Fighting Fantasy seems to be a article of High if not Top importance. It has received significant coverage in The BBC, The Guardian, The Independent, what I would consider to be significant coverage in The Daily Telegraph, and presumably coverage in all kinds of niche publications. El komodos drago (talk to me) 12:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Like so much else here at Wikipedia, volunteers do it. Like you. Here are the guidelines for importance: Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Release_Version_Criteria#Importance_of_topic. That it's received significant coverage is really the minimum, if it didn't, it would be deleted for not meeting Wikipedia:Notability. So, Top importance means that it would be meaningless to have coverage of Role-playing games without coverage of this subject. I don't think it goes this high, probably only Dungeons & Dragons goes there, maybe a few others. High means it's very important - maybe. Is it the definitive RP gamebook, the same way that D&D is the definitive tabletop RPG? Are RP gamebooks very important to RPG? Eh. Judgement call. I don't think so, I'd personally mark it Mid. But you likely know more, use your judgment. --GRuban (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

There are a number of things I would like to clear up so I hope nobody minds that I have used headings to separate them and to fork the discussion. El komodos drago (talk to me) 17:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Notability and Importance is related but separate. The assessment criteria makes it clear that to achieve higher than mid you need awareness/familiarity/recognition far outside your specific field. The main difference between top and high being "local" or truly global. Labour (UK) gets "high" because you don't have to be a politician to recognize and understand the topic. It still doesn't get "top" because it's only within the UK that would be true, while, say, President of the USA is "top" in almost every country.

The only subject within the field of role-playing that has come close to achieving global recognition would be Dungeons & Dragons. Fighting Fantasy, meanwhile, may be "top" within the field of rpgs, but *outside* that field I'd say it's next to unknown, so "mid" would be the highest it could go. However, I'm not a UK resident. If you can argue FF is well-known even outside rpg communities then that would be something. I don't see it as part of the zeitgeist, or that it's discussed or even mentioned often outside of articles about gaming faires and such, but I am open to being persuaded otherwise.

Until then, I did revert you. Do know I consider your addition a good faith one, so please don't feel I am blocking you. I just want you to present a full case. I am sure there are plenty of examples of assessment discussions we can use as a template. CapnZapp (talk) 09:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank-you. From my personal experience FF is pretty much universally recognized in the UK among people who were around in the 80s. Due to its sales figures (stated bellow) it seems like most people have a friend/family member who played it. It was famous enough to be subject at the time to a warning from the Evangelical Alliance and receive talk show phone ins. El komodos drago (talk to me) 10:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

If you can find secondary sources corroborating your claim of "universally recognition" (in the UK), by all means reassess! CapnZapp (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

My intention

The first is the reason I am discussing this. The article is already assessed (as mid) I am trying to get it reassessed as of high or top importance. (sorry for a lack of clarity there in my original post). As I am looking to overturn a previous assessment I would like at least one person to agree that I am right to do so. El komodos drago (talk to me) 17:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

How does this whole thing work

The second is how notability works. While it is now clear to me that any editor can assess notability just as they would edit an article, I am still mystified over a number of things.

You seem to suggest that there are no Top priority articles but under my understanding of the system that would make no sense as the reason for this is to determine importance to the WikiProject only so there would be no reason not to use top for differentiation. Indeed D&D is marked as a top importance article.

Additionally what scale does this WikiProject use? This essay on the subject makes it clear that there is no one scale. Category:Role-playing_game_articles_by_importance points people to Wikipedia:Version 01.0 Editorial Team/Assessment which is a redirect to Wikipedia:Content assessment which has a link to the archived page you pointed me to which encourages WikiProjects to develop their own scale as well as to {{Importance scheme}} (which I prefer due to increased clarity). El komodos drago (talk to me) 17:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe fighting fantasy to be of high importance under the template scheme

The reason I included the links to the news source above is the criteria listed upon {{Importance scheme}} which states that a mid importance article is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area. This seems to be a reference to the GNG and so I would expect to see significant coverage in either a magazine focused on the subject or a local newspaper but not significant coverage in a national news source and definitely not four. High requires the article to be is extremely notable A definition which I believe being covered in multiple national news sources, some of them many times, would meet.

Additionally Fighting Fantasy has also sold 20 million copies [1] roughly the same as what optimistic estimates put the D&D player numbers at.[2]

Obviously, the results of this is dependent on the results of the above discussion. El komodos drago (talk to me) 17:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, we're in danger of Sayre's Law. This really is not very important; next to no one cares about the importance rating given by a wikiproject to a not very high traffic article on its talk page, I doubt ten people look at the rating within a year, and I don't think it is actually used for anything. Still, for my opinion, I don't think Fighting Fantasy would be Top even for a wikiproject about Gamebooks, as it's not the definitive one, or the first one; certainly not for a project about all RPGs. I wouldn't even mark it as High for these reasons, but if you do, I won't revert you. --GRuban (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Game reviews in magazines

Latest comment: 4 years ago31 comments13 people in discussion

Summoning people who (I think) I have worked with on RPG articles in the past in some form, for a look-see, including User:Bilby, User:Casliber, User:David Shepheard, User:Drilnoth, User:Frecklefoot, User:Guinness323, User:Hobit, User:Jclemens, User:JHunterJ, User:Neonchameleon, User:Newimpartial, User:Oknazevad, User:Sangrolu, User:Torchiest, User:Vulcan's Forge, User:Webwarlock, and anyone who happens to be watching this page... (Sorry if I summoned you by mistake; please go about your business.)

Almost two years ago, I discovered that there was a collection of Space Gamer magazine on archive.org, so I set out to add product reviews to every game I found in there. Not only were RPGs and their supplements reviewed, but so were wargames, board games, card games, computer and video games, and even novels and more things. I added reviews to some articles which had plenty of sources, some which had only a handful of sources (or one or two), and some which had none at all until I got there. I restored some redirected and deleted articles, and created new ones.

I started articles on several Origins Award winners, including: Mayday, The Kinunir, Streets of Stalingrad, Twilight's Peak, Barbarian Prince, Citybook I: Butcher, Baker, Candlestick Maker, Nuclear Escalation, Stormhaven, The Lonely Mountain, Live & Let Die, Wabbit Wampage, The Pendragon Campaign, Cthulhu by Gaslight, Kings & Things, and Creatures of the Dreamlands. I even stared articles on games and supplements that I was surprised did not already have articles, such as Grimtooth's Traps, Tegel Manor, and Masks of Nyarlathotep in particular.

And yet, I am not worn out. I will continue, I must continue, I shall continue. God help me. ;)

There are a bunch of different game magazines per RPGnet that have reviews of RPG and related games, including: Adventurer, Arcane (both from the UK), Ares (SPI), Challenge (GDW), Different Worlds (Chaosium), Dragon (TSR), Fantasy Gamer (SJG), Imagine (TSR UK), Pegasus (JG), Pyramid (SJG), Shadis (AEG), Valkyrie, VIP of Gaming, White Dwarf (GW), and White Wolf magazine, and probably others that I am missing.

I have access to (as far as I know) full collections of Adventurer, Arcane, Dragon, Imagine, Pegasus, and White Dwarf, and partial collections of some of the others. Dragon and White Dwarf probably have the biggest collections of reviews, probably even more than Space Gamer. I would eventually want to work on Dragon somewhere down the road, but I want to knock out some (or all) of those smaller collections first. Maybe two or three of those, and then do all of White Dwarf.

I welcome any input on which one(s) to tackle next. :) I am thinking of hitting up Arcane sooner rather than later, since that covered the mid-1990s, when there were definitely fewer gaming magazines covering this sort of thing, but I am certainly open to requests. BOZ (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Dragon and White Dwarf both have the same issue of being house magazine's for particular publishers, so their independence is likely to be questioned by some, so I don't think we should necessarily even include them at all. As for the others, just make sure that the summary of the review is just that, a short summary, and don't excessively quote from it. The purpose is to state whether or not the reviewer gave a favorable review to the game, and what was a standout aspect to them, not to give a point-by-point breakdown of everything mentioned in the review; if someone wants more, they should read the full review. Some of the reception sections in game articles are excessive in that regard. Take a look at how movie articles handle it. Oh, and don't just list magazines titles and issue numbers that have reviews in them, as I e also seen. Either we include a quick summary or we don't mention it at all. Wikipedia is not an index. oknazevad (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Dragon, at least, did some reviews for other publishers' games. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

White Dwarf changed a lot over the first hundred issues or so with the two key changes being after issue 77 (the infamous 'Sod Off Bryan Ansell' issue relating to the Citadel Minatures buyout and the move to Nottingham) after it changed from a general interest gamer magazine that was published by GW to very much a house magazine and issue 100. Anything before issue 77 that's not directly relating to either a GW or TSR product (GW had the import of them) will be fine, and they peter out after that with few issues after 100 having some useful information. After issue 100 it turned into a pure house magazine and can be entirely ignored, but there may be a lot in the older issues. But this more or less means White Dwarf fades out of usefulness in the late 80s. I'd recommend anything that covers the 90s as a higher priority. Neonchameleon (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Just to add Chaosium products to that list. GW were importers and even reprinters of Chaosium products in the 80s. They had some of their own products for Call of Cthulhu, Runequest and Stormbringer, but also reprinted many of the main books for those lines. Canterbury Tail talk 19:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Yep, I am aware of their changeover to pure house magazine at that point - since they ignored everything they didn't publish, I will ignore them. ;) It's the older issues I am going to look through, and I am aware of many such reviews so I will busy myself with those probably by the end of the year or sometime next year. :) BOZ (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this, so I thought I'd put it here. To me the two most under-used sources in this space (for WP) are Shadis and Pyramid Vols. 1 and 2. Now obviously the latter is not useful for SJG products, but they reviewed a great deal else throughout that era.

Also, someone really ought to assemble and mine Ken Hite's "Out of the Box" columns that he did online for a series of publishers/sponsors. Even though he didn't necessarily have editorial oversight guiding him, he is a paradigmatic RS per WP:SPS and many of his reviews (and his analysis of industry trends in the 00s) are pure gold. I'm sure these are all hiding in the wayback machine somewhere... Newimpartial (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

First of all, thanks so much BOZ for doing this. I don't really have any requests, but I just thought I'd chime in with a pat on the back. Secondly, I agree that Dragon (even under Paizo) would be need to be carefully used (or probably not used at all) for things from WotC/TSR. Similarly for White Dwarf. But otherwise, go for it! Hobit (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe that most of the magazine published by game companies did reviews of their own products, but I can just about guarantee that they all did more reviews of products from other companies than they did of their own. BOZ (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thats nit the concern, though. The concern would be how much we can trust that they reviewed other companies' products fairly and objectively when those products compete with their own. That's the flip side of not being an actual independent publication. oknazevad (talk) 03:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Many of the reviews are positive and complimentary of products from other companies, and even recommend purchasing them. BOZ (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see that as a problem. Hobit (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you are going to have some level of unconscious bias in any review. Wikipedia strives for a Neutral Point of View, but the best way that is achieved is by looking at different sources to see the range of opinion. Discounting sources, out of hand, means that you loose entire points of views, regardless of how neutral or biased they might be.

Didn't TSR UK come to blows with their parent company, and eventually get shut down, over trashing TSR US products in Image Magazine reviews? Surely, if that is true (or believed to be true), it would be interesting to look at those reviews (and reviewers) to see what sort of angle they were taking and why they liked or disliked specific TSR products.

Magazines might publish reviews, but individual authors are responsible for writing them. I think that the two parts of data on the source material should be considered. Are there reviewers who write good words about anything for pay? I've heard of fake reviews, now we have public ratings on websites like Amazon, but is that a new phenomenon?

Even if we infer a possible level of organisational or author bias that doesn't mean that all information in a review must be discounted. There are elements of information, like the data of publication, author name, publisher name and tie-ins to other products that can be established beyond doubt. And some sections of all reviews are a description of what the product is. It is really only the "I like this" or "I hate this" element of a review, where the reviewer is showing that they maybe do not have a neutral point of view.

Has anyone done any research to score individual reviews for how positive or negative they are, so that different magazines could be compared to see if they lean towards or against specific product lines? Being able to look at White Dwarf to see the general trends of reviews both before and after Games Workshop had a deal with TSR could be very interesting. Did they drop support for D&D like a stone? Did they talk up D&D more, in an attempt to secure an extension to their D&D licence? Did White Dwarf carry on regardless? Did staff get shuffled? There is a lot more too it than seeing a possible tie-in and suspecting bias. Because even bias is information of a type (if you can infer it). I suppose the main problem here is that an examination of reviews for possible bias would be original research and that's not the way of Wikipedia. Hard data would be, but crunching that data might be something someone elsewhere needs to do. Big Mac (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject D&D considers Dungeon and Dragon under Paizo to be a reliable secondary source. While I question this I think it's worth noting. El komodos drago (talk to me) 18:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

My only add would be that Space Gamer was another SJG mag, separate from Fantasy Gamer at one point, which had a lot of good cross-system stuff. Would be nice to get access to archives of that, too. Jclemens (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree - hopefully I can find those one day, even if the run of separate Fantasy Gamer did not last long. :) BOZ (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The biggest issue I have with magazine reviews of RPG products is that magazine reviews are almost always done by non-notable third party reviewers where the magazines just publish them. For movies etc we have established lists of who are considered notable reviewers for whom the opinion matters, staff writers for LA Times, big name critics etc. For RPGs that just doesn't exist and the vast majority of reviewers are just regular people make submissions to whoever will print them. This can tend to be as reliable as a modern day Twitter review and as a result it's arguable if the reviews are actually notable or not. RPG magazines have a reputation of printing almost any submissions they get. Canterbury Tail talk 19:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

In the early years of Dragon Magazine (Especially issues 20-75), they published reviews of a lot of non-TSR board games and RPGs. Here is a list, let me know if you would like further info:

Last Spike (Gamma Two)
Team (Gamma Two)
Klondike (Gamma Two)
~~Starfire & Starfire II (Task Force Games)~~
~~Cerberus (Task Force Games)~~
~~Star Fleet Battles (Task Force Games)~~
~~Asteroid Zero-Four (Task Force Games~~
~~Chariot Race (Heritage)~~
~~Dragons (Mayfair)~~
~~Operation Seven Swords (Leading Edge)~~
~~Hidden Kingdom (New Rules)~~
Battle of Maiwand (Wargaming Magazine)
~~Invasion of the Air Eaters (Metagaming)~~
~~Pendragon (Chaosium)~~
Reich (Chaosium)
Raiders & Traders (Chaosium)
~~The Creature that Ate Sheboygan (SPI)~~
Indian Ocean Adventures (GDW)
~~Gangster (FGU)~~
~~Double Star (GDW)~~
~~War in the Ice (SPI)~~
Pearl Harbor (GDW)
~~Magic Wood (International Team)~~
~~Belter (GDW)~~
~~Ultima IV~~
~~The Tribes of Crane~~
~~Ice War (Metagaming)~~
~~Mercenary (Traveller/GDW)~~
~~Battle of the Monmouth (Denron Amusements)~~
The English Civil War (Philmar)
~~Spellmaker (Gametime Games)~~
~~Black Hole ((Metagaming)~~
~~Wizard ((Metagaming)~~
~~Wizard's Quest (AH)~~
~~Bushido (Tyr Gamesmaker)~~
~~Starship Troopers (AH)~~
Mech War 2 (SPI)
~~The Beastlord (Yaquinto)~~
~~Intruder (Task Force Games)~~
~~Annihilator (Metagaming)~~
~~High Guard (GDW)~~
~~Swordquest~~
Perilous Encounters (Chaosium)
The Golden Horde (Excalibre)
~~Nine Dcotrines of Darkness / Temple to Athena / Mountain of Mystery (Dimension Six)~~
~~Warhammer The Mass Combat FRP (Citadel)~~
Reaper Fantasy Wargame (Table Top)
~~Lost Worlds (Nova)~~
~~Cry Havoc (Standard Games)~~
~~Palladium RPG (Palladium)~~
~~Harn (Columbia)~~
~~Fury of the Norsemen~~
~~Nomad Gods (Chaosium)~~
~~Dragon Lord (Wee Warriors)~~
~~Warp War (Metagaming)~~
~~Source of the Nile (Discovery)~~
~~Dragonlords (Fantasy)~~
~~Olympica (Metagaming)~~
~~King Arthur's KNights (Chaosium)~~
~~Agincourt~~ (SPI)
MiG Killers (Gamescience)
~~Sorcerer (SPI)~~
Samurai (Heritage Models)
Middle Sea (Fantasy)
~~Ironclad (Yaquinto)~~
~~Freedom in the Galaxy (SPI)~~
~~Swashbuckler (Yaquinto)~~
~~Time Tripper (SPI)~~
~~Starmaster (Schubel & Son)~~
~~Hero (Yaquinto)~~
~~Across the Bright Face~~
~~Triplanetary (GDW)~~
~~Traders & Gunboats (GDW)~~
~~Ley Sector (Judges Guild)~~
~~Fenris & Tethys (FASA)~~
~~Third Reich (AH)~~
~~Fighting Ships~~ (GDW)
~~Argon Gambit~~
~~Dawn of the Dead (SPI)~~
~~Spawn of Fashan (Games of Fashan)~~
~~Dragon Lords (fanzine)~~
Thunderstruck (fanzine)
~~Borderlands (Chaosium)~~
~~Elric, Battle at the end of Time (Chaosium)~~
~~Privateers & Gentlemen (Fantasy)~~
~~Man, Myth & Magic (Yaquinto)~~
~~Time ship (Yaquinto)~~
~~Illuminati (Steve Jackson)~~
~~Battlesuit (Steve Jackson)~~
~~Phantasy Conclave~~
~~Stalking the Night Fantasatic (Tri-Tac)~~
~~The Forever War (Mayfair)~~
~~Rolemaster (Iron Crown)~~
~~Chill (Pacesetter)~~
~~Mercenaries, Spies and Private Eyes (Blade)~~

Guinness323 (talk) 06:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Guinness323, many of those do have articles! BOZ (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses! I think I know what I want to work on next. BOZ (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I just want to reiterate something I said in my comments above: do not just add a title and issue number of a magazine that contains a review. Either summarize the review or don't mention it at all. Wikipedia is not an index. I've seen a spate of those this morning and it's just not appropriate material for an encyclopedia article. oknazevad (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

While I agree that reviews should be explicitly mentioned or paraphrased when included in an article, they need not be "summarized" or referred to explicitly. There are many cases where a review provides a more reliable source for facts about a publication, and should be cited in that context. This use is not tantamount to indexing. Newimpartial (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I've also not seen any responses to my concerns, raised above, that the majority of RPG reviews are in fact not notable and are written by non-notable reviewers. Just because a review exists and is published, doesn't mean it's notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 16:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

In reply to oknazevad, could I suggest instead of simply deleting such references, to move them to the talk page of the article. Those bare references are very useful for the editors such as myself who are searching for and expanding those references into full review summaries.

In reply to Newimpartial, it depends on the source of the review. If it comes from a self-published fanzine, then yes, non-notable author from non-notable source. However, when a review by a non-notable author is published in an established industry periodical (Dragon (magazine), Ares (magazine), White Dwarf, Different Worlds, etc.) — and as long as the review does not deal with a product created by the magazine publisher — then the editor has agreed with the substance of it, and by publishing it, has added the imprimatur of the publication to the author. In this case, the review is notable.Guinness323 (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Good suggestion of what to do with them. Exactly how they wind up being used as reference in the article will vary, but a list of bare titles and issue numbers are not encyclopedia material. oknazevad (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Under what criteria? RPG magazines are notorious for publishing anything that comes across their desk. Just being published doesn't mean a whole lot when it comes to RPG magazines, in fact I'd go as far as to say it's almost worthless. It's almost as non-notable as a Trip Advisor review. Canterbury Tail talk 17:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a notable source for your statement about RPG magazines publishing anything that comes across their desk? Or is that just your opinion? Guinness323 (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I once sent in my grocery list and they published it as a review! It really is true. ;) BOZ (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

30 years of having dozens of things published in multiple magazines by multiple companies. :) However see below for a serious suggestion. Canterbury Tail talk 00:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

(←) If in doubt, let's take it to WP:RSN. But I thought someone had already found a comment that our project pages not only accepted but required reviews from such magazines. Ah, here. Thanks to @El komodos drago: for finding that earlier. Cheers! Elfabet (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of "all magazines are useless" or similar. Let's start by adding the citations we do have for the magazines of interest, and then when that is done (or maybe in parallel), let's talk to specific magazines or even specific volumes or issues. It's better than the current state for many of these articles, which is no citations at all. --Izno (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

In fact, we have had RSN discussions of RPG reviews, and the latter have come back as RS when independent of the publication reviewed. I am talking here about the pro magazines, not the fanzines, although most of the content of, say, Alarums and Excursions would be RS per the carveout in WP:SPS for people who have published peofessionally in the fields on which they also self-publish. Newimpartial (talk)

Project notability guidelines, starting with reviews

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I think, in seriousness, that as a project we should probably consider establishing our own notability guidelines, in line with many other Wikiprojects. At the moment the project is really just a collection of people interested in writing about RPGs. Since there hasn't really been much activity here until very recently I haven't worried about it too much, but recently we've seen an uptick in activity (this is positive) and as a result I think we have enough active people to actually begin discussing and coming up with our own guidelines and structures for articles that fall under the project. Start organizing the Wikiproject into more than just some people discussing a few things. It used to have more impetus to it in the early days, but died off quite a bit. Thoughts?

Since reviews are the current hot topic, why don't we start there? Any suggestions for notability criteria for reviews? Canterbury Tail talk 00:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment - as a frequent participant in AfDs of RPG articles, here are what seem to me to be key principles for Notability in this project:
reviews of RPG publications (in periodicals and in reliable SPS) are key to notability of the game publications. It is therefore desirable to use reviews to back up statements about the games in our articles, and to cite these reviews.
I want to emphasize the carve-out in WP:SPS for self-published statements by people with professional qualifications in a domain. For example, RPGnet reviews by authors who have written industry analysis and criticism professionally have a lot of potential in this area as policy-compliant sources for articles.
per NAUTHOR, people who have created notable work are themselves notable, and as long as RS can attest to some NBIO-compliant information (including awards and Guest of Honor appearances) they are eligible for articles.
as a personal preference, I would like to see articles on notable authors and games as the focus of the project, with less focus on publishers and game books as such - though obviously all the major publishers discussed, say, in Designers & Dragons should still have articles here, as well.

So that should be worth at least $.02 lol. Newimpartial (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I only have slight issue with your last bullet point. A big part of the nature of the RPG publishing business is that the games are ultimately publisher-driven more than author-driven, as rights to games are tied to their publishers and designers are operating as work-for-hire and often wind up working for multiple publishers in their careers. Also the distinction between games and books is nebulous at times; the games are ultimately published as books, and editions of those books are what define versions of games, hence the common use of "edition" to describe generations of a game. oknazevad (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am not saying that book articles are necessarily a good or a bad idea: there are cases, like Unknown Armies 3rd edition, where it would seem absurd to me to create separate articles for Book 1 through Book 5, while there are other cases, like Wraith: the Great War or Dreamhounds of Paris, where it would seem equally absurd to insist that the material be shoehorned into the parent game.

Also, while certain games are definitely publisher-driven, other games (e.g. Ars Magica, Paranoia) have migrated from publisher to publisher without much impact on the game's gestalt, certainly less so than a change of line editor or developer. In fact, if there is one "notability criterion" that I feel is missing in this area, it is the role of the line editor or chief developer, which I feel ought to be recognized as a domain in which WP:CREATIVE applies. Fortunately, most of our line developers are also authors, so the issue is only of consequence in a few edge cases. Newimpartial (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea (and we can always tweak it later). El komodos drago (talk to me) 07:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Dream Pod 9

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Hello! We have tried to add some decent independent reliable sources to this article about the publisher of Heavy Gear, and I think we have made a pretty good improvement over how it looked a week ago. Does anyone have access to any print resources, or other online resources, that can be used to improve the Dream Pod 9 article? BOZ (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I've made a minor tweak based on info in the '90 to '99 volume of Designers & Dragons. Around the licensing (not selling) of rights to SJG and the subsequent announcement of their own new edition of Heavy Gear that never emerged. I'll take a skim through some more. Canterbury Tail talk 15:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail, thanks for your tweak. I have tweaked your tweak by adding some comments by the company president made at the time of the SJG announcment in 2010.Guinness323 (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Since this one is back on the chopping block, if anyone knows of any more independent reliable sources that cover the company, now is the time to find and add them. I will see what else I can find, in the meantime. BOZ (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Well the new version of Designers and Dragons has been determined, at the reliable sources noticeboard, in the past to be a reliable source and a potential source of notability. So that can help. Especially if we update from the old Mongoose version, which is hard to locate and verify references on, to the newer edition of D&D which is very easy to locate and reference. Canterbury Tail talk 01:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Yep, got that one in there plus Guinness has been hard at work finding and adding sources! BOZ (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The unfortunate bit is that DP9 never won any big industry awards like Origins or Ennies. I’ll look through some of my collection to see if there is any other significant coverage. Canterbury Tail talk 12:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

That would be excellent, if you can find anything. :) BOZ (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Wendy's TTRPG

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

i added to the section Wendy's#In_popular_culture the RPG they released, and put a new note on the talk page for Critical Role about the inclusion of the game with some links to a few tweets that have been deleted by both parties, but think someone better suited should go into those pages and clean up my addition and/or add the relevant info to the page that has none on it due to the historical value of the first full RPG made by a fast food company. shadzar-talk 10:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Which games and game topics to list in WP:VITAL?

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5#Board and card games for a related discussion. Right now only a single RPG (D&D) is listed, compared to 100+ video game titles, for example. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Ravenloft product list

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I get that the idea for a list of RPG products might be a good idea for an article about the product line, but... is this kind of a bit much? 208.47.202.254 (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hyborian War

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I just wanted to give a shout-out that Hyborian War has been built up extensively over the last month or so and may very well become the first Good Article on a PBM game. :) Why not take a look and see if there is anything you can do to help it out? BOZ (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Same editor also put three PBM articles up for DYK, so hopefully at least one will get picked. :) BOZ (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

And that is a success, a new GA. :) BOZ (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that Monster Island (play-by-mail game) from the same user Airborne84 was a DYK a couple of weeks ago, but Beyond the Stellar Empire is a new DYK today! BOZ (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hyborian War is now up for FA review! Hope all goes well, as a lot of work went into this one. :) BOZ (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hyborian War is about halfway through the normal cycle of a nomination and has only an image review and one prose review. At this rate, it won't have enough reviews to get promoted as a Featured Article. If there are editors here who don't mind reviewing it, please do. The page with instructions at the top is here (Supporting and opposing) and the nomination is below. You don't need special credentials to review the article; any editor can do it. And if you only feel comfortable reviewing a specific part of it: images, sources, prose, etc., you can just say you are supporting or opposing in that specific area only. Thanks! Airborne84 (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Revelations of the Dark Mother

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Revelations of the Dark Mother is another new Good Article, and a very interesting choice! BOZ (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Hah, I was reading the book the other day, enjoying it quite a bit, and, remembering having seen reviews for it while looking for WoD sources earlier, decided to go ahead and write an article. Love reading about VTM lore, and love Lilith as a character.--Alexandra^IDV 17:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)