- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
F.A.T.A.L.
- ... that the theme song for the tabletop role-playing game F.A.T.A.L. was described by a reviewer as "sound[ing] like the Cookie Monster chasing a drum kit being pushed down a flight of stairs"? Source: Review of F.A.T.A.L.
- ALT1:... that the tabletop role-playing game F.A.T.A.L. has been called one of the worst role-playing games of all time? Source: Transgression in Games and Play (ISBN 9780262348713)
Moved to mainspace by Vaticidalprophet (talk). Self-nominated at 06:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC).
- Comment: I'd much prefer ALT0 (it's hilariously accurate -- see the snippet in the article, if you're not somewhere NSFW imagery would be a problem). The source on it is reliable, even if it looks a little odd -- it's by published/reviewed staff writers and has a long history of being considered an RS by WikiProject Role-playing games. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 14:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
ALT0 approved, 
ALT1 approved on good faith (no access to the cited source). Seems like old history was undeleted, but your new version of the article is more than sufficient to qualify for DYK. Nice job. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Vaticidalprophet, can you explain what makes rpg.net a reliable source? Regarding the ALT, can you check the source ISBN and add page numbers? I found this version, which appears to be the book in question but it has a different ISBN and I can't find a reference to F.A.T.A.L. Best, CMD (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- RPGnet is the primary/foremost source of tabletop RPG reviews, particularly after the death of most of the print magazines; it's not a self-published source and has reasonable quality control. In the context of its field, it's top-tier. I'll double-check the ISBNs -- I've found conflicting ones for this book. The page F.A.T.A.L. is discussed on is not in the Google Books preview, although it used to be; I can't recall exactly where it was, but can a close enough range to give an approximation until I can get my hands on a copy (was using the preview until they changed their pages). Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, here we go -- it's findable in search (though not the entire preview) for me again, so we can narrow it down to page 128. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, finding number one: the book in question appears to cite the rpg.net source in question, which adds some credibility. Finding two, I now have search results (that didn't appear before) which lead me to the full preview for pg 128. The text reads as such: "An obvious exception is the infamous and ridiculed (cf. MacLennan and Sartin 2009) 900-page sourcebook for the role-playing game F.A.T.A.L. (Anonymous 2003), which contains rules for...". I can see how that could be interpreted as one of the worst role-playing games of all time, although personally I wouldn't reword that far.
- Restoring tick for ALT0, with ALT1 too potentially depending on how a promoter might feel about that interpretation. CMD (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
