User talk:Gavin.collins/Archive 5

Please cease and desist from harassing other editors

Please cease and desist from harassing other editors as you have done to User:Stextc. As you have every right to add a template, other users have every right to remove them. You appear to be POV pushing and disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. You will stop your disruptive editing behavior in accordance with the WP:DIS and Wikipedia:Civility guidelines. Web Warlock (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken that I am harassing other editors, and your assertion is not supported by any evidence. In the case of Stextc, he has removed Notability templates from two articles with no reliable secondary sources, and has not provided reasonable justification for doing so. As you know, claims of notability must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on verifiability; it is not enough to simply assert that a book or a person meets a criterion without substantiating that claim with reliable sources. I have requested that the cleanup templates be restored to the articles Azure Bonds and Kate Novak which fail WP:BK and WP:BIO respectively; I have provided valid reasons for my request, and as such do not constitute POV pushing. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You are being abusive to push forward your own agenda. You have not been successful on getting articles through AfD so now you are resorting to bullying other editors. Web Warlock (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is my personal agenda: have a look at Wikipedia:Cleanup if you think cleanup templates are just my invention. They can justifiably be put on both of these articles at any time by any editor, since they have no reliable secondary sources. However, there removal serves no benefit, as they have been placed to alert other editors of the issues concerned, and taking them away merely hides an important issue that needs to be addressed. I feel that you opposition to the templates is actually have a negative impact on the RPG project; from where I stand, you appear to be a Bitter dino who resents the involvement of other editors. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You say "there[sic] removal serves no benefit" - but adding indiscriminately them serves no benefit either. It seems that you know you'd lose an AFD, so you add the tags because it's something you can make stick without need for consensus. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, the articles have no reliable secondary sources, so adding the notability tag is not "indiscriminate.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So AFD them. Don't just leave your territory mark on them and then revert anyone who objects. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This is where I think you may be misunderstanding the purpose of the cleanup templates. They are not indicators that the articles should be deleted; just they need cleanup. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That's how they should be used. Are you prepared to clean them up? No. Do you think that someone will clean them up because you've tagged them? No. You are using them in lieu of an AFD that you think you'd lose. When you first came here and put a lot of articles up for AFD, you made a valuable contribution by getting rid of articles that needed to be removed. Now you're just marking territory. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a better idea then. Clean them up yourself if you are so concerned with the quality. But I suspect that you are not and instead using the tags to somehow call into the question the article's veracity or even it's reason for being. Web Warlock (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As you know, there are just too many RPG articles to be cleaned up by one person alone, as even so called "experts" can testify. However, if other editors get involved, then cleanup is more likely to take place. By removing the template, you are simply slowing down this process. If you are against cleanup templates, vent your frustration on the Village Pump, but I don't think you will get any support for such a regressive policy there. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Says the editor not doing any of the work to one of the five "heavy lifters" here. I am not asking village pump for anything I am asking you. You say you want to clean them up but I have not seen any evidence of that. You say you want to improve the articles but I have yet to see you even fix a typo. Plus there are many times you have added templates to articles that did not need them. No, you do not sound like someone that wants to improve articles. You sounds like someone that has a POV you want pushed and are grabbing at anything within the system to get that done. I mean really, weasel word templates? Listing the Manual of Style as a reason for deletion? That is desperate. If you are serious, then spend some time in another realm of articles. TV show episodes for example pretty much all need to be deleted, why not spend some time there. Think of it as a vacation. Web Warlock (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

		Favorite Quotation
		We're not against templates in general - we're against your inadvisably added templates. --Percy Snoodle 16:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC) diff

We're not against templates in general - we're against your inadvisably added templates. Sensibly added templates flag problems and should remain. Yours - widespread and indiscriminate - send the message "Wikipedia is rubbish, don't bother", and delay cleanup. I ask you again, if you believe an article should be removed, AFD it. If you believe it needs cleanup, clean it up. Don't scrawl over the articles faster than anyone can deal with them. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"We're not against templates in general - we're against your inadvisably added templates". That statement is so POV that I might just put it on my user page so I can have a laugh every time I log on to WP :) --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I am of course against anyone else's inadvisably added templates. It just happens to be you who's adding hundreds of templates, inadvisably, to articles that I happen to see. Would you care to reply to the rest of my comment? Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your second point, I don't believe these two articles should be nominated for AfD; they just don't have any reliable secondary sources - hence the cleanup template. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not a reply to "If you believe it needs cleanup, clean it up". Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That comes after my review of RPG articles, during which I will continue to add cleanup templates where appropriate. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding them where appropriate would be fine. We're asking you to read the articles and think about them, and stop adding templates inappropriately as well. Most of the templates you add are added inappropriately, and those that are correct seem like coincidences as a result. Unless you start demonstrating some understanding of your actions, it's hard not to feel that the editors who unilaterally revert your edits are contributing more to wikipedia than you do. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I chime in here? If an editor believes that an article needs cleaning-up, the onus is not on that editor to do so. An editor may feel, as I do, that many articles need clean-up and that if no one cares to make the effort to clean them up then the article is free to meet its fate; fates that can include merging, redirection, or deletion. If other editors do not wish particular articles to meet such fates, they can work to improve the articles by addressing the issues. If the issues can not be, or simply are not, addressed, then those who noted the issues in the first place have helped sort the wheat from the chafe. If editors merely wish the articles to be free of clean-up tags and do not addresses the issues they highlight but simply remove tags, they are little better than vandals who need to read WP:OWN. Fact is, this 'pedia has an absurd number of crufty articles about D&D and other pop-culture. Their days are numbered. --Jack Merridew 14:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read the above conversation. No one has objected to the appropriate tags being placed on articles. The objection comes from the inappropriate and indiscriminant overuse of tags, especially when it is abundantly clear that the article in question was never actually read. And no offense, but you have not been around here long enough to know what Wikipedia will or will not do in the future. I have seen a lot of changes and lot of trends. Yeah some articles will disappear and then others will come back. It’s the way it has been for a while now. People come and go here a lot, articles typically stick around. Web Warlock (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"No one has objected to the appropriate tags being placed on articles". You are so busted! You have objected to the notability template, even on articles where there is a total absence of secondary sources: see Talk:Raistlin Majere. I don't understand your position: either you are choosing to ignore WP:RS, or you a POV pushing to give the impression you are an "expert". --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be an example of positive reporting. You can't claim that all your tags are appropriate, just because a few are. You add far too many tags too fast; some are bound to be right, but it's only by coincidence. It's not that we mean to be experts, but to point out that you give the impression that you don't know what you're doing; in many cases, you don't seem to read the article at all, but just dump a stack of tags on an article because it's an RPG article. You've even shown that you don't know what an RPG is; you seem to confuse it with a choose-you-own-adventure book, [1]. And it's not just notability tags, either. I've spoken to you in the past about {{in-universe}} and {{plot}}. So please don't misrepresent us by claiming that we're objecting to your correct and appropriate use of tags - because the vast body of your use of tags is incorrect and inappropriate. That's what we object to. Percy Snoodle (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case why is the precedent for the cleanup tags clear for the articles we have discussed? This whole discussion is based on three articles Azure Bonds, Kate Novak and Raistlin Majere where there is little or no evidence of notability. On the evidence of this discussion, it does look like RPG "experts" are nothing but POV pushers, so I am afraid I can't agree with you, nor will anyone who reads this discussion. --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• I, for one, do know what an RPG is; see: Rocket-propelled grenade. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"So busted" what are you? 12? By your flawed logic we should carpet bomb the projects to remove a couple of kids dealing crack. Of course you would claim success in that you got them. You obviously have no wish to actually engage in discourse, which by the way is also more evidence towards you only being here to push your own point of view. Web Warlock (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If I did not wish to engage in discourse, I would not be replying to you now. In fairness to you, there have been occasions where I put a cleanup template which might not be appropriate to a particlar article, but that does not invalidate me as an editor, and nor does it mean that I am pushing a point of view. From where I stand, it looks as if you believe that the notability guidelines don't apply to these three articles, so the cleanup template are unwarranted. Is this where you are coming from? --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You are clearly spamming tags without a clear understanding of the meanings. Cozret (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Please give an example of "spamming" which you refer to.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• You randomly came to the idea the D&D setting entires lacked "notability" when a simple reading of the links provided by the tags shows that they met that standard the same as many other fantasy settings.Cozret (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• To which article do you refer? --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability cleanup template and the article Erol Otus

There is absolutely no question that you are helping to improve some of these extremely poorly written articles by canvassing them with notability tags. Your notability crusade is not without merit, though most others seem to think so. I personally welcome some of what you are doing here. A lot of these RPG articles are badly written across the board and need a lot of work and improvement. Some of them are crap and need to be removed once and for all. Your pointing this out is not really a bad thing, but you would win more support here if you:

(1) Were a bit less militaristic;

(2) Used a tone that didn't come across as arrogant, condescending, stubborn, insulting, and insolent;

(3) Actually rolled up your sleeves and assisted in cleaning these articles, if only in a token sense to demonstrate that you are not actually a gadfly.

(4) Learned something more about the subject matter as to not look as if you are desperate to have RPG articles removed at all costs using every nuance of every available policy as a leverage bar to do so.

Please understand that I do not think you are a gadfly, personally, nor do I think you are pushing some religious or personal agenda. Many others do think so, however, and you have given them plenty of reason to think this way! Was this your intention? I do not think so, so perhaps it is time you eased back a bit.

I personally think you have good intentions wrongfully executed. It does matter to get along with others and work well with others if you expect to get anything done. By my estimation you have gotten very little done here on Wikipedia as compared to the amount of effort you have expended. You have, though, managed to make a lot of people needlessly angry while at the same time inspiring cabals against you and your few allies and a swarm of stupid sockpuppets who have disrupted the administrators' work.

Think about it: Just about every article you've nominated for deletion has survived, and most notability tags are contested. Articles are being improved from all this mess and arguing, but it can be done a better way, don't you think? Would it not be better if people were united to get things sorted out on these RPG articles and not feeling like it was you and Jack vs. them?

Perhaps you don't really care about working and playing well with others, and that is fine. You may actually get some kind of a charge out of most people disliking your work here. I do not personally think that is the case, however, and if you changed you approach a bit and moved forward in a spirit of collaboration while still enforcing policy and guidelines, there would be less headache here on Wikipedia for all concerned.

Please give it some thought. Dicecollector29 (talk)

• These are sweeping generalisations that are not borne out by evidence, but there is evidence that you are making these statements in order to remove the cleanup templates without regard for the notability guidelines. I note that you have removed the notability cleanup template from the article Erol Otus on the basis that "starting cleanup - notability esteblished via reference of extensive tsr contributions and imdb"[2]. If you read WP:BIO it says that "Database sources such as...imdb are not considered credible since they are, like wikis, mass-edited with little oversight. Additionally, these databases have low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion". Perhaps you have missed this? Whether you have or not, I can't say, but from where I stand, you are just not taking the guidelines seriously, and you twisting concepts like "collaboration" around to support you POV. Just because the templates are contested, it does not mean that they are not justified. I must request that you replace the cleanup template until reliable secondary sources are found.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have complete regard for these notability guidelines which is why I have not removed the tags from a couple of the other articles I'm working on. They are not ready yet. As for Otus, the IMDb, in this case, simply mirrors what information is available elsewhere (as far as Otus' credits are concerned on these video games). His credits on these games are clearly available in multiple sources, and the IMDb just reflects all that. That IMDb exclusion guideline is also less about credits and more about the IMDb trivia sections, which are often nonsense. In any case, the IMDb link on Otus' bio can be removed and still cause no harm to his notability. He is easily notable for his many works. The other references support that, and more references are coming. Again I say, contributing to these articles is much more fun than just posting tags and then spending hours and hours fighting over them. Dicecollector29 (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to fight about: the notability template is justified. Your opinion on its own is not enough to demonstrate notability. Please restore the template without further ado. --Gavin Collins (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Your opinion on its own is not enough to demonstrate notability." Same to you, buddy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.228.248 (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Its not my opinion. Have a look at WP:NOTE. Assertions of notability have to be backed up secondary sources.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User Page

...and don't I at least deserve {{cquote}}s? :-) Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You would get them if I knew how. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This will do the job, but it doesn't seem to like having a url inserted in the last argument. <shrug> --Craw-daddy | T | 19:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

“ We're not against templates in general - we're against your inadvisably added templates ” — --Percy Snoodle 16:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• See: User:Gavin.collins oldid — Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sturm Brightblade

Hello. Would you object to my removing the {{RFCmedia}} template from this article's talk page? There hasn't been a move to remove the notability notice for a week. --Sturm 14:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it if you wish. Thanks for your comments as well.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Please cease and desist from adding the notability template without reasonable justification

Please cease and desist from adding the notability template to the articles Mary Kirchoff, Kate Novak, Chris Pierson, and Don Perrin, as these authors have written multiple novels and books which have each been read by hundreds of thousands of people. Claims of notability must adhere to common sense; it is not enough to simply be an instruction creep and a bureaucrat when these authors have written so many popular novels and books. There is no reasonable justification for adding the template which was put there to cause problems. Note that this is not to say that these guidelines should always be ignored; it is just that you are following the letter, not the spirit.

The reason why I ask you to stop adding the template in the strongest possible terms is that you appear to be POV pushing, as the explanations for adding the template are not supported by common sense and the policy that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, which applies to all of Wikipedia. Unless these articles are actually not notable, I would be grateful if you would remove the template immediately.--NotabilityMan (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• NotabilityMan won't be following up on this, at least not with that sock account. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  Was he actually a Grawp sockpuppet? Or was that just the excuse to shut him up? (If he was, block away, but I distinctly remember an earlier attempt to falsely claim Rray and Hobit as suckpuppets too which was absolutely without base). But in any event, regardless of his status as such or not, he did have valid points about non-justified template use and POV pushing.Shemeska (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  Go ask User:Daniel Case who tagged the userpage, or User:East718 who blocked the account; both referenced Grawp. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• I personally don't think he is a sockpuppet of Gawp (sounds like a D&D location), but his editing pattern is very similar to another vandal, the anon IP 134.139.148.100 who has been blocked: see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NotabilityMan for details. As regards his arguments above, I think he now knows that reliable secondary sources are required as evidence of notability although he can chosen to ignore this fact. I hope other editors who remove cleanup templates without justification learn from NotabilityMan being blocked; vandalism its against the rules and spirit of Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that certain editors would do well to realize that Gavin.Shemeska (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious...

How would you recommend adding secondary sources to the Planescape article? Many of the assertions you have tagged as requiring cites, references, or as original research are basic foundational ideas of the setting. I will clean up certain of the tags, but certain others seem tagged indiscriminately. Snuppy 23:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This is because Gavin randomly adds the tags; he doesn't actually read any parts of the articles he tags at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.136.165 (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I must commend your work on the article Planescape, I think the work that you have done has brought tremendous improvement to what was a terrible article that is now improved beyond all recognition. For secondary sources, I would recomend Google Scholar [3], where you might find more substantial secondary sources than are quoted in most of the RPG articles. If you see any instances of indiscriminate tagging, please feel free to discuss them with me. I am a bit sensitive to broad critisms about my editing style, as from where I stand, this is the way RPG editors like to try to make groundless attacks against me. However, given the opportunity to explain my individual edits, I can provide justification should you so require. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

that is why each article has a talk page so you can explain your individual edits and tags, et all. you just blanket articles of one topic with numerous tags and wonder why people see an agenda, when you don't care to provide reasoning for those tags or do minimal research on the subject matter? that is why people feel you are doing something in bad faith or possibly not fully good faith. you add nothing but tags with no commentary or effort to clean up as your tags suggest is needed. so if you want a chance to explain each of your edits, then use it at the time of the edits and visit the articles talk pages to explain any edits that may seem to have been done for vague reasons. shadzar|Talk|contribs 16:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In the case of Planescape, this issue has already been raised by other editors on the talk page. Its not down to me to do research in the first instance: all editors that add content are obliged to add citations for verification and secondary sources as evidence of notability. If there are no reliable secondary sources, then the notability template clearly applies. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Good & Bad Edits

And as I've said before, three good edits in hundreds doesn't make the majority of your edits right. Shall we go through your contributions, tag by tag, and look? If you think that the majority of editors agree with your edits, I suggest you re-read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Rather than tag by tag, lets go through my edits article by article. I heard your assertions that these edits are not appropriate many times, so I would like to see specific examples. Rather than basing our discussion on your sweeping generalisations, please give an example of an article, and then lets talk about the edits on that article's talk page. Lets limit our review to edits that currently existence, rather than ones that have since been overwritten. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, let's not limit ourselves that way; if you've made a bad edit of course the tag will have been removed. I'll work on compiling a list and get back to you; this may take a while. And, since there are likely to be a lot of edits, and since we are discussing your poor editing history, I think this page is the correct place to look at them. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If we don't disuss the cleanup templates in the context of the article itself, I fear this will just end in nick picking and a bun-fight. If you have any interest in the articles themselves, then we should talk about them there. If this is going to be a "get Gavin" exercise, then I would prefer not to participate. Name the article or articles you have concerns with here, and then when we have discussed the problems of each, I concede that we can return here with our conclusions.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have is with your edits, not with the articles you've edited. While most of the articles you tag deserve deletion (not tagging), the tags you apply are generally not relevant to the articles in question. Since the problem lies here, it makes sense to discuss it here, and once I've finished my list of edits I have a problem with, we shall. This isn't a "get Gavin" exercise; I don't want to see you punished, I want to see the quality of your contributions improve. I want to be able to see that you've tagged a page for cleanup, and believe that that means you've read it and worked out what cleanup it needs. But since the templates you apply bear little relevance to the articles they tag, I can't believe that. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's becoming clear that there are far too many of your bad edits for me to list, so here's Spetember 2007 as an example of what I mean:

1. [4] - Books template on non-book article
2. [5] - Books template on non-book article
3. [6] - Books template on non-book article
4. [7] - in-universe tag on not-in-universe description
5. [8] - in-universe tag on not-in-universe description
6. [9] - in-universe tag on not-in-universe description
7. [10] - in-universe tag on not-in-universe description; subsequently removed
8. [11] - in-universe tag on article with no in-universe content
9. [12] - Books template on non-book article and in-universe tag on article with short, not-in-universe description
10. [13] - Books template on non-book article and in-universe tag on article with no in-universe content
11. [14] - Books template on non-book article and in-universe tag on article with short, not-in-universe description
12. [15] - Books template on non-book article and in-universe tag on article with short, not-in-universe description
13. [16] - Books template on non-book article
14. [17] - Books template on non-book article
15. [18] - Books template on non-book article
16. [19] - Books template on non-book article and in-universe tag on article with short, not-in-universe description
17. [20] - Books template on non-book article and in-universe tag on article with short, not-in-universe description
18. [21] - Books template on non-book article
19. [22] - Books template on non-book article
20. [23] - Books template on non-book article
21. [24] - Books template on non-book article and in-universe tag on article with no in-universe content
22. [25] - Books template on non-book article
23. [26] - Books template on non-book article
24. [27] - Books template on non-book article and in-universe tag on article with no in-universe content
25. [28] - Howto tag on article with no howto content
26. [29] - Books template on non-book article
27. [30] - Books template on non-book article
28. [31] - Books template on non-book article
29. [32] - Books template on non-book article
30. [33] - Books template on non-book article
31. [34] - Howto tag on article with no howto content
32. [35] - Fiction template on non-fictional article
33. [36] - Books template on non-book article
34. [37] - Orgs/Company template on RPG article (this is so odd it must have been a genuine mistake)
35. [38] - Books template on non-book article
36. [39] - Books template on non-book article
37. [40] - Books template on non-book article
38. [41] - Howto tag on article with no howto content
39. [42] - Books template on non-book article
40. [43] - Howto tag on article with no howto content
41. [44] - People tag on RPG article
42. [45] - Books template on non-book article
43. [46] - Books template on non-book article
44. [47] - fiction template applied to real-world description of real supplements
45. [48] - Books template on character article
46. [49] - Books template on character article
47. [50] - Books template on location article
48. [51] - Books template on location article
49. [52] - Books template on location article
50. [53] - Books template on location article
51. [54] - Books template on character article
52. [55] - Books template on location article
53. [56] - Books template on non-book article
54. [57] - Books template on non-book article
55. [58] - Books template on location article
56. [59] - Books template on location article
57. [60] - Books template on non-book article
58. [61] - Books template on non-book article
59. [62] - Books template on non-book article
60. [63]- Books template on non-book article
61. [64] - Books template on non-book article and in-universe tag on article with short, not-in-universe description
62. [65] - Books template on non-book article
63. [66] - in-universe tag on article with no in-universe content
64. [67] - Books template on non-book article
65. [68] - Books template on location article
66. [69] - Books template on location article
67. [70] - Books template on location article
68. [71] - Books template on location article
69. [72] - Books template on location article
70. [73] - Books template on location article
71. [74] - Books template on location article
72. [75] - Books template on location article
73. [76] - Books template on location article
74. [77] - Books template on character article
75. [78] - Books template on location article

As I say, the tags you apply don't seem to indicate that you've read the article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Response

I disagree that they are "bad" edits, far from it. In a few cases I am happy to acknowledge mistakes. In response to you my points, my comments are as follows:

1. [79] - I must disagree with you as this game clearly comes in book form (ISBN 9781556342370);
2. [80] - This is refered to a "system" in the article, but in reality is a set of rules published in a book form (ISBN 9781568821689), but I see you have removed the template without justification, I have now restored the notability template until reliable secondary sources can be found;
3. [81] - Again this game is published in book form (ISBN 9782914849104), and again I have restored the template as sources cited are not reliable.
4. [82] - I would agree that the in-universe content is not significant, but nonetheless I see it has since been removed (e.g. "Magic exists and works, and has allowed technology to stretch in unexpected directions");
5. [83] - This is clearly in-universe, and I have restored the template accordingly;
6. [84] - I agree that the in universe template does not apply;
7. [85] - I agree that the in universe template does not apply, but I have added the notability template to address other cleanup issues;
8. [86] - I agree that the in universe template does not apply, but I have added the notability template to address other cleanup issues;
9. [87] - Again this game is published in book form (ISBN 9781891153532) and I note that secondary sources have been added;
10. [88] - This is refered to a "system" in the article, but in reality is a set of rules published in a book form (ISBN 9781891153679). I have restored the notability template;
11. [89] - see 7 above
12. [90] - Again this game is published in book form, with various accessories. I have restored the template so that the lack or reliable secondary sources can be addressed.
13. [91] - Again this is published in book form (ISBN 9781887154123);
14. [92] - This is a tough one to crack, as the Basic Rule set seems to have been self-published. However, I think the book template applies, if only because TWERPS it has a book-like cover[93].
15. [94] - Again this is a game in a book form (ISBN 9781565046238). More than 27 references have been added to the article since I placed the template!
16. [95] - Again this a game that comes in book format (ISBN 9781932442526). More than 15 references have been added since I placed the template!
17. [96] - Again this comes in a book format (self-published).
18. [97] - Again this comes in a book format (self-published).
19. [98] - Again this comes in a book format (self-published).
20. [99] - Again this comes in a book format (self-published).
21. [100]- Again this is published in book form (ISBN 9780874310276);
22. [101]- The article has been merged, probably because of notability concerns.
23. [102] - Again this comes in book format (ISBN 8085979462).
24. [103] - Another book (ISBN 8779059090);
25. [104] - Another book (ISBN 9788773943298)as described in the article itself;
26. [105] - Another book (ISBN 9782915556384);
27. [106] - Another book (ISBN 9782915496062);
28. [107] - First editon is self-published booklet form;
29. [108] - Again published as a book (ISBN 9782904890833);
30. [109] - Another book (9781594590863);
31. [110] - There is an awful lot of "How to" play the game detail in this article;
32. [111] - Notability template corrected, from WP:FICT to WP:BK;
33. [112] - Another book (ISBN 9781932442526);
34. [113] - Copy paste mistake. New sources have been added anyway!
35. [114] - Another book (ISBN 9780922335367)
36. [115] - Yet another book (ISBN 9780425069554);
37. [116] - Another book (ISBN 9781582369006);
38. [117] - I agree that the "How to" template does not apply;
39. [118] - The article says it is a book (ISBN 9781889533001) and 6 sources have been since the template was added to the article;
40. [119] - There are elements of game play in this article that are not necessary, so I have restated the template;
41. [120] - Notability template corrected, from WP:BIO to WP:BK (ISBN 9781931567497);
42. [121] - unpublished book (ISBN pending?);
43. [122] - Another book (ISBN 9780962742804);
44. [123] - The edit suppary is misleading, I added the correct notability template (books);
45. [124] - Article since redirected, possibly for notability reasons;
46. [125] - Template corrected;
47. [126] - Template corrected;
48. [127] - Template corrected;
49. [128] - Template corrected;
50. [129] - Article since redirected, possibly for notability issues;
51. [130]- Template corrected;
52. [131]- Template corrected;
53. [132]- Template corrected;
54. [133]- Template corrected;
55. [134] - Article has been redirected;
56. [135]- Template corrected;
57. [136]- Template corrected;
58. [137] - This a book (ISBN 9788243003019);
59. [138]- I can't find the ISBN for the first edition, but subsequent editions were published in book format;
60. [139] - Another book (ISBN 9189128913);
61. [140] - Another book (ISBN 9780971860513); the settings section is very in universe;
62. [141] - The general notability template is probably more appropriate, although it is possible the game rules come in book (or booklet) format[142];
63. [143] - Agreed, the in universe template was mistakenly applied;
64. [144] - Definetly a book (ISBN 9781891153402), and for once the article makes it clear it is a book;
65. [145] - This mistake was corrected a few minutes later;
66. [146] - This was also corrected moments later;
67. [147] - This was also corrected moments later;
68. [148] - This was also corrected moments later;
69. [149] - This was also corrected moments later;
70. [150] - This was also corrected moments later;
71. [151] - This was also corrected moments later;
72. [152]- This was also corrected moments later;
73. [153] - This was also corrected moments later;
74. [154] - This was also corrected moments later;
75. [155] - This was also corrected moments later.

Overall I would say that I have made mistakes, but if this is a representative sample of my "bad" edits, then I would say I have not done badly. If anything is to be learnt from the exercise, this is what has come out of it for me:

1. Many role-playing games come in the format of books, and the Notability (books) template is clearly relevant to the subject matter;
2. I have made mistakes, but more than often I correct them.
3. The cleanup tags I have applied are generally relevant and have in some instances encouraged other editors to improve the articles in question. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• • I'm afraid have to disagree; you are mistaken about RPGs equalling books, and about tags encouraging cleanup. Nonetheless, I thank you for your responses. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Feel free to disagree, but the evidence is there for you to reivew.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Indeed. Our disagreement doesn't come from different evidence, but a dispute about the meaning of that evidence. You think RPGs are books, I think they aren't. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Gavin, there's several points below, by myself and others, that I would consider fairly convincing and to which you have made no response. For example, the fact that it's perfectly possible to play many (or most) RPGs without reference to any book once you've learned them, much like a card game or a sport. This isn't something that should need evidence, as it's not a statement going into an article, it's a matter of experience that you ought to be able to trust other editors about, at least if you're assuming good faith. SamBC(talk) 10:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I don't disagree with either one of you as I am not saying they are books per se, as clearly they are games. However, they often come in a book format, and so the nearest applicable cleanup template would be Notability (books). Its not perfect, I agree, but since these games share a lot (not all) of characteristics of books, it is not unreasonable to apply this cleanup template to them. This has been my perspective all along in all the discussions about the appropriateness of the Notability (books) template that follow, but I hope that at this point we can agree to disagree. I suggest you take the issue to the Village Pump if you wish to get another perspective. This is my interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines, and I am sticking with it until such time a better alternative presents itself, such as a Notability (games) cleanup template. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Perhaps the general notability template? Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
              • Its not a better alternative in my view; Notability (books) works better, because games in a book format share most (but not all) notability characteristics with books, in the same way game characters share many (but not all) notability characteristics with fictional characters. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
                • It sounds like you're saying that it's more important to apply a guideline which is similar to the one you would like to see, than to apply a correct one. WP:BK is just an interpretation of WP:N as it applies to books; it doesn't add or remove anything. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd also note that the fact that a template has since been corrected, isn't evidence that you weren't wrong in the first place. Indeed, it's pretty strong evidence that you were. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• On both these issues, you are twisting my words around to push you POV, which I disagree with. We will have to agree to disagree at this point, as I don't accept what you are saying.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • now that is a fallacy. to say a thing was never broken because it is fixed now is not true. likewise to say a thing is not broken because it can be fixed, is also not true. i think what was meant was the proof above was that you made errors in your tagging. you admitted to that when you corrected the tags. so you have already agreed that you made mistakes. the main thing people are trying to do is prevent those mistakes. either by explaining them to you so you don't make them again. as has been said i think, there are many books on golf including rules to playing it. just like RPGs there are tools in these books described and how to use them to play. this does NOT make golf a book even though its rules come in book form. people can learn both golf and D&D without ever seeing one of its books. it would be nice if you get down off your soapbox and stop trying to force your ideas onto other people. if you disagree with everey last person on what D&D and other RPGs are, or anything else whose guidelines/"rules" come in book form, then maybe you should not edit those articles if you aren't willing to work with other since WP:Not#Wikipedia is not a battleground. mistagging things even in the interest of doing it correct wastes other peoples time that could be used in fixing the very articles. and you show no interest in reaching concensus with those who work on said articles or know the game. nor do you show interest in learning anything about it. with such a closed mind why even bother working with D&D related articles since you have an opinion of the game and those who play it and edit articles about it that already looks down on them. if you didn't look down on the articles, game, or people, then why will you not work with them? so how about stop fighting with people just because you disagree. one notability is just as good as another. so why try to classify with YOUR criteria, rather than help the articles and wikipedia itself become something better? shadzar-talk 01:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• I don't accept these generalisations. If you have a specific example you wish to discuss, I am open to critism and suggestions. However, generalisations such as "if you disagree with everey last person on what D&D and other RPGs are, or anything else whose guidelines/"rules" come in book form, then maybe you should not edit those articles" is little more than flaming and is not evidenced by any facts.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• "If you have a specific example you wish to discuss, I am open to critism and suggestions." - I think you've disproved that above. You've been given tens of specific examples in which you used the book tag where it did not apply, but shown no openness to the idea that that was wrong and taken no heed of the suggestions of what to do instead. Don't hide behind the sheer volume of your mistakes. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think you have disproved anything. I have given my reasons for using the Notability (books) template, and you are unhappy with them. This is a genuine difference of opinion, not fact. Its now down to you to go to Village Pump to get validation for your point of view. But until then, its just your POV. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• no it is you forcing a POV because you will not accept that D&D or anything else presented in the form of a book does not need to adhere to ONLY guidelines for books. you are unwilling to classify D&D as anything other than a book, because you refuse to gain any knowledge of the subject matter. respond to this: "why aren't all games whose instructions come in book form, or any other thing get classified as book?" examples, accounting, golf, bridge (card game), and George Washington (1st US President). address each of these and tell my why they are not books, even though books have been written about them. and then explain why D&D, a game that has books written about it is in YOUR mind only a book. if D&D is only a book then accounting, golf, bridge (card game), and George Washington (1st US President) all must be books as well. but oddly i don't think a book was chosen to be a leader of a newly former country. but that is just my opinon. to use your own words above I don't accept these generalisations. maybe you should realize that people don't accept the generalization of you trying to typify D&D as simply a book or collection thereof just because it is presented in book form. that however is something you will refuse to accept and only expect everyone to accept you definition when you have no knowledge of the subject matter. again since the concensus of a multitude of other editors agree that D&D is more than just books, it can only mean that you have some personal agenda to make everyone believe your POV is the only one. sorry. it isn't going to happen. not from me at least. so from my POV you passive aggresive edit waring is over and something beyond a RFC needs to be done since you refuse to work with people on wikipedia. i don't know what to do or needs to be done, but maybe someone more knowledgable can step in and do something. so people no longer have to play your games and can get back to work making a good collection of articles about the subject matter itself within them. shadzar-talk 04:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that.Shemeska (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• I don't agree with that I am edit warring: please provide evidence of this. If you disagree with my view point about the use of the Notability (books) template, go to Village Pump and make your views know there. However, there is not point you trying to ram your POV down my throat: I just don't accept what you say. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Application of the "How To" cleanup template is disputed

I think we've found another point of disagreement here. Broadly describing rules isn't the same as providing a howto. Excess detail in describing rules can lead in that direction, but it can be hard to determine how much is an excess, particularly in RPGs derived from a game system which has its own article; for them, it is appropriate to discuss the changes, which requires a more in-detail look than the broad approach that's correct for an article describing a whole system. So on those grounds, I don't think it's appropriate to use the {{howto}} tag. The {{plot}} tag is closer, but still wrong. I'm sympathetic to the position that there isn't an appropriate tag for excess gameplay detail - perhaps it would be worth discussing creating an "excessive gameplay description" tag - I'd suggest {{gameplay}} as its name - at WP:RPG and possibly WP:BTG and WP:CVG too. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally think there is a lot of "how to" information in the article Mutants and Masterminds, but where I differ from you is that I think it is blindly obvious. Sentences like

"Beyond limiting bonuses, Power Level does nothing to restrict a character's power; a power level 10 character can have a maximum Strength of 40, whereas normal d20 characters would be lucky to have a single 20-rated score at 10th level".

appear to me to be be wholly "how to" type content that fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. I note your point that clean up is required, and although I can conceed that this may not be the "best" template to use, its a reasonable approximation of best. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

To my mind, a howto is composed of instructions; whereas your example is descriptive - nothing in it is in the imperative. But since we agree on something, let's concentrate on that. I'll start a discussion at WP:RPG and get back to you in a moment. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, the thread is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Role-playing games#Excess gameplay description template. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Application of the Notability (books) cleanup template is disputed

Thanks for starting to respond. As you'll note below, there is a difference between an article being about a book, and a book existing on the same topic as the article. So while I appreciate your effort finding the ISBNs, it doesn't help to show that your tag was correct, or that you've read and understood the article in question. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There is indeed a difference between a book and game, but from the discussions below you can see that the distinction is blurred and this is a distinctly grey area. I am not saying that the Notability (books) template is necessarily "correct" by any means, but it is not incorrect either (at least in my view). Where a game has an ISBN, I personally think it reasonable to apply WP:BK, as it is the nearest specific guideline that applies where the game comes in book form, at least until the RPG notabiltiy guidelines are finalised. In my view, the choice of notability template is a judgement call, and I think I have made the call on a reasonable basis. However, I reject the assertion that these are "bad" edits, or that I am a "bad" editor: I use my judgement like anyone else, and I think in this case the use of the Notability (book) template would stand up to peer review, say at village pump. Take this issue there if you feel it warrants further discussion. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, that would be a reasonable line to take if you hadn't also tagged game locations and characters as books. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for agreeing that it is a reasonble approach. There are indeed numerous instances of me incorrectly applying the WP:BK where clearly WP:FICT is the correct criteria to apply. Where this has happened, I would attribute this to a copying error rather than an inability to understand article content. As I have conceded many times, I have made many mistakes, but they are easily correctable, and as I encounter them, I will make the corrections myself if that has not been done already. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Where a game has an ISBN, I personally think it reasonable to apply WP:BK, as it is the nearest specific guideline that applies where the game comes in book form, at least until the RPG notabiltiy guidelines are finalised. i fail to see this making any sense. the article on D&D clearly states and was featured thusly that it is a game. the individual books that make up the game material are books, but part of the game. if you can identif7y a single book that holds the entire game of D&D for its 34+ year run then it might make more since that this single book is the game and vice versa. but D&D has libraries in peoples houses and stores just for the amount of manuals that exist over the years. just because something has an ISBN doesn't make it a book as i said in respect to my Harry Potter DVD. which means i cannot also incldue your line of thought to define it as a book, even though the DVD isn't a book, but based on one. for example say a version of Monopoly was released that was a book, with punch-out pieces on the pages except for the board itself, and had pages of cut here community chest and chacne cards. while this "book" exists it is clearly that this is a game and not something JUST for reading. again which would more closely categorize D&D "books" as instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions from WP:NOT states that wikipedia is not an instruction manual and that is where the good coming from deleting the multitude of monsters themselves comes form with your work where it reduces the need for the actual products from the copyright holder (Hasbro/WotC). as each monster that ever existed for D&D sicne 1973 or any other RPG doesn't need an article on it. but that doesn't mean those monsters are not notable, it just means in most cases they jsut don't need an encyclopedic entry outside of the encyclopedias for sale from the publishers called Monster Manuals. and also doesn't make them "stock characters". there is probably some probably some guideline for articles ON instruction manuals, but that would need to be combined with RPG and game related guidelines here to adjudicate the D&D and other RPG articles. it cannot be said that they are just books so must fit with other books. it would be like asking ppeople to define fantasy. some people think of it in terms of something not of this world past or present while others have more specific definitions. the "experts" of D&D just see that these are not just books, but something more. would you classify a book of poems the same way as one of short stories, or a single novel contained within its pages? there must have been a reason to create the Dewey Decimal Classification. for example economics don't belong with fiction because all books are not the same. now this whole book things may have been a past error that you have since corrected, but it leads into the time where people are worried about your edits. if an area doesn't seem right for tagging something then by all means look for a better one, or discuss where/if provided the proper area that has guideliens for the subject at hand. thus a reason i don't tag much of anything is because i don't know my way around here yet. but i will correct minor typos that i may find and add information that may have ben overlooked, or just not added to articles. that is why people have asked you to actively join the wikiproject for D&D and discuss this with its editors. then we can all work to making that which can be better here on wikipedia, and remove that which doesn't belong. shadzar|Talk|contribs 21:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Observation: Books & Games

1. : this is a game. most games come with instruction manuals as well do appliances, automobiles, etc. there must be a reason for further division of a field such as books into things like ficiton and non-ficiton because not all printed and bound materials will follow the same publication rules, and therefore have their own set of criteria and guidelines here on Wikipedia for each of their own little niches.

heck that applies to most of the things in that list. if would be impossible to jsut say ever book must follow the general book guidelines as they are not all the same type of material contained within the books. and since you yourself state this is a game then wouldn't it make more since too follow a set of guidelines set up for "games in book form"?

shadzar|Talk|contribs 16:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• This is a debateable concept, but I would argue that they can be described as books (except the video games, of course), and there is evidence to support this view. Have a look at the articles in question: in most cases you will see a book cover featured in the article, details of the publisher and lastly an ISBN number for identification. I know that an RPG is more than a book, but I would argue that the other elements are accessories to the game, the box it comes in is packaging but the rule book is key to making the game work. Lastly, and probably this is the key to understanding the nature of these publications, is that the rulebooks are important to the publishers in terms of enforcing intellectual rights in the market place, as things like maps and miniature figures, dice etc can easily be copied, but copywrite law is easier to enforce. Hence the cleanup template "Notabilty (books)" is appropriate in my view. Even if you don't agree with me, I think think these are strong arguements. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I could accept that explanation if you hadn't also used that template to cover fictional locations and characters. Given that you did, it seems far more likely that you simply had a block of tags to copy-and-paste and didn't give thought to what you were tagging. It seems especially odd given that a less-specific notability tag would have done the same job just as well. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I acknowledge my mistakes (as you can see above), and as you can see from this discussion, it is sometimes hard to identify what exactly a "game system" actually is and which notability guide applies. I am happy to correct the templates as we go through the list, and I appreciate that you have brought these to my attention. However, it looks to me so far that lack of evidence of notability is a problem with a lot of these articles, which is the motivation for them being put there in the first place. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Where you've talked about something like unisystem, unisystem is not available in several books, there are simply several games (that are available in book form) that make use of it. It'd be a bit like saying that English is a book, because there are dictionaries available. SamBC(talk) 17:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I would have to disagree with you as the evidence would indicate that Unisystem is a set of rules covered in several books [156][157]. I would argue that this article is not very clear what a game system is per se. The article does not give a clear definition system or discusses its origins in precise manner. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• An article doesn't have to say what a game system is - we have game system for that. NB: I haven't actually checked that article to see if it's entirely clear or correct, just pointing out that it exists.
• In any case, a language is also a set of rules covered in several books (like dictionaries). It has an existence beyond those books. The same can be said of a gaming system; books describe (or even define) it, but the system is the set of rules distinct from that. This is especially true for general systems like d20, GURPS or Silhouette, and for systems that have been used in multiple games, like tri-stat, unisystem, or D6. SamBC(talk) 17:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Unlike a language, someone had to write down the rules before they could play the game. Whether those rules were published as part of a game or in a dedicated book is debatable in the case of Unisystem, but either way these game rules where published as a book, rather than a computer program. My point is that it exists in book form, hence the book template. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• What about computer languages, then? Is the language C a book? After all, there's the book "The C Programming Language", and the creators certainly had to write down the full specifications of the language (in considerably more detail than the typical role-playing game system) before anyone could really use it. The question should surely be whether the system is considered qua system, rather than as one or more specific books. SamBC(talk) 19:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with you that a language is not a book, but then Unisystem is not a language, is it? I think you may have to approach this question from a different perspective: is Unisystem a system of book based rules? If not, what medium is it based on or in? You can try giving alternative answers, but it always comes back to books (or rules presented in book form). --Gavin Collins (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

A better example: Are poker or blackjack books, or are they games whose rules are laid out in books? 19:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't need a rule book to play either poker or blackjack, but have to have a rule book in order to play a game with Unisystem.--Gavin Collins (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? Your definition of the difference between a game and a book is based on how easy the rules set is to memorize? -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There are any number of gaming systems that I can readily play without any reference to a book. Except for the most rules-heavy systems, pretty much every system is played by seasoned players without reference to the book. SamBC(talk) 10:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• You do realise of course that the two books you have listed above ESP #1[158] and ESP#2[159] are in fact periodical publications and neither actually contains the rules needed to play a game using Unisystem. They are supplemental periodicals. This is just another piece of evidence that you don't actually read these articles at all. Web Warlock (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I am not sure what you are trying to "prove" here. The discussion is whether Unisystem rules come in a book or some other format. There is no evidence to the latter, and the article supports the former. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) How about looking at it like this. RPG rulebooks are just that. The rulebook explains how to play the game, but it is not the game itself. The ISBN manual you reference below supports this; games "SHALL NOT" be given ISBNs. There may be some confusion in the matter, but one good example is found by harking back to AD&D 2nd Ed. To play that game required (it being rules heavy, that really is pretty much true) a minimum of two books—the DM Guide and the Players' Handbook. Neither "contained" the game, and the game went far beyond what was in either. The game in all its entirety encompassed the contents of many books, magazine articles, supplements, pamphlets, online articles and what was in the head of the players. The book is about the game; it is not the game. SamBC(talk) 11:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

For that matter, a number of the articles you tagged did not list an ISBN, so you can't really claim that you claimed it was a book in ignorance because of the ISBN. A publisher doesn't mean it's a book, as board games, computer games, and any number of things are published and have publishers. SamBC(talk) 11:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not reading and understanding articles

Actually, the discussion was originally about the evidence that you tag articles based on vague, sweeping impressions, and most importantly without reading and understanding them. To my mind, these games cannot be said to be books. The books is not central to playing them, the rules could be written on index cards, the vital tables that some games have are often found on GM screens to reduce (or remove) reliance on the book during game-play. The card game analogy is, in fact, perfectly accurate. Gavin, we're not trying to tell you that you were or are wrong because we like telling people they're wrong and proving our own supremacy or something (at least not in my case). We're trying to help you understand what you have done that bothers a lot of people, help you be more constructive, and help you to learn about this subject area that you've taken such an interest in. SamBC(talk) 10:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• There is no evidence that I tag article based on vague, sweeping impressions. If you have specific evidence then make your case. However, if you are making vague, sweeping generalisations about my editing, they just don't stick. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was basing it on the evidence above, the majority of which your only defence of is "no, it is a book, and I know I'm right!"

However, my comments above were uncivil and I've redacted them accordingly. Would you care to respond to the substantive portions, rather than just the uncivil portion? SamBC(talk) 10:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• you are defending a defunct company of their copyrights. you classify RPGs as a choose-your-own-adventures book. you don't know what the material is about as evidenced above some times. i would say these are vague sweeping impressions of what RPGs and in particular what D&D is. its great you want to help protect the copyright holder, but shouldn't you know who that is, and what isn't allowed to be published without a license as well as what they do allow to be published for free without a license? likewise shouldn't you NOT try to get something to conform to your ideal of what it is? find out the difference between a choose-your-own-adventure book and an RPG. both are available with D&D as the subject matter. i will give you a short difference. CYOA books are a compelte story with multiple endings arrived at by choices made udring its reading. it isnt a straight forward book that can be read form front to back to get the story. more of a collection of short stories that start out the same. and RPG book on the other hand is a set of instructions. you cannot get a story out of most RPG related books. even though some "fluff" is contained with the "crunch" this is jsut to give you an idea of how the designers see things. this does not mean that these books tell storyies. some that are not novels contain mostly this "fluff" material to help expand your own stories. yes they are all books, but they are more than that. people are only asking that you not blanket a specific type or article without taking the chance to get familiar with some of the subject matter so that your tahs are not out of place. like D&D books that are a set of guidelines, Wikipedia notability, books, etc are also a set of guidelines and are NOT hard and fast rules. sometimes things step outside of the standard guidelines and require for a new set of guidelines to be made or the current ones to be adjusted to allow for new things. RPG books are books, but they are also in parts fiction, non-fiction, collections of data, collections of art, instruction manuals, etc. so generalizing them to just being books is unfair to them and those company, writers and designers working for the company your wish to protect their intellecutal property and copyrights of. shadzar|Talk|contribs 11:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• They are just my opinions. If I apply the "Notability (books)" to an adventure, a game module or a set rules as a book, it is just my opinion at the end of the day. However, I have based my opinion on reasonable evidence: they are published with an ISBN, they have book covers and printed on pages. Even if they are not not books, WP:BK comes close to be the nearest notability guideline that applies to them. If you disagree with this viewpoint, take the matter to the WP:Village Pump, but I predict that my (not unreasonable) arguments will be strike a cord with other editors. If you wishto change the templates from "Notability (books)" to a less specific guideline, that is fine by me.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, they haven't when they've been raised elesewhere. ISTR these points being made at your RFC as well. Remember, we're generally supposed to defer to more experienced editors in areas where we have little experience; do you have a great deal of experience with RPGs? You contributions and arguments seem to suggest not. SamBC(talk) 11:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Again, this is a generalisation that won't stick. I admit that I am not a RPG expert, but like you, that does not disqualify me from editing or commenting on RPG articles. My edits are entitled to the same consideration as any other editor (vandals and sockpuppets excluded!).--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, but when you are told, repeatedly (and with admittedly varying degrees of politeness) by a not inconsiderable number of people who do have considerable expertise that your edits are, in some way, inappropriate, I believe that most would agree that that's a good signal to take on board what they're saying, rather than a most unconstructive version of "agree to disagree". How about we try to get a wider sample of RPG-players and see how many would agree that "the book is not the game and the game is not the book". SamBC(talk) 12:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I understand if the presentation of the articles made you feel that the book and the game are the same thing, and if so that is probably something that needs fixing. I'm not even disagreeing here that notability wasn't a concern, and I'm not trying to jump up and down on you saying "Bad Gavin! No biscuit!!". I'm trying to help you to understand, to reduce future misunderstandings and friction, and to help you make better contributions in future, including to RPG-related articles. SamBC(talk) 12:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It's great that you recognise some of your mistakes, and as far as I can tell those you recognise you then make less in future. Just consider this: notability tags might be received better with less aggravation by editors if they weren't inappropriate. Just use general notability tags, and then people can discuss the real issues rather than getting annoyed by tags that give the distinct feeling that you haven't read the article. This goes for the inappropriate {{tl:inuniverse}} tags as well, and all the others listed in the points that started this discussion. SamBC(talk) 12:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This isn't an attack, Gavin, and you don't need to be defensive. Any sense of aggression (from me, at least) is down to exasperation more than anything else. We try and help someone, explain things to them, help them to understand, and they insist that, even though they admittedly know little about the topic, they will refuse to listen to what people are saying? I'm sure you can understand how that frays one's temper. SamBC(talk) 12:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• From where I stand, not only is this a personal attack, but it is blatant POV pushing, just like Percy Snoodle's comments on my user page. Consider this: no other RPG editors are adding cleanup templates, appropriate or otherwise; that is why the overwhealming majority of them have cleanup issues. So when you say "notability tags might be received better with less aggravation by editors if they weren't inappropriate", I think you mean you don't want cleanup templates on RPG articles. When you say that I "refuse to listen to what people are saying", its because I have heard this repeatedly from many editors, but frankly when it comes to POV pushing, it just goes out the other ear. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, like a lot of editors at the wikiproject, I think a huge number of these articles do need cleanup of one sort or another, and many do have notability issues. I'm trying to tell you, in friendly fashion, that a major contributor to the bad reactions you've received is the fact that the tags are inappropriate. I'm not saying that a notability tag was inappropriate, for example, but that one for a book is, and we're getting carried away with this example. The number of articles you tagged, and the speed you tagged them, also made people feel that you couldn't possibly be reading and understanding the content of the article. Please listen to me, please assume good faith, and understand what I'm trying to say. This is not a personal attack. People have behaved inappropriately towards you, including me (although I claim the defence of exasperation and the fact that I have retracted afterwards, with good grace) and I'm sorry about that. That is not excusable, and I'm not trying to excuse it. I'm trying to help you see an underlying issue, which isn't even a fault on your part, simply a misunderstanding. If any fault can be claimed on your part, it's that you refuse to listen to even reasoned, constructive criticism; I do not consider that claim proved, although I would say that the balance of evidence tilts slightly in favour of the claim. SamBC(talk) 12:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, try to understand that text doesn't convey tone, and were I saying this all aloud, it wouldn't be with a raised voice. It's with a calm, gentle voice with a slight edge of aggravation at being falsely accused of a personal attack, although I understand why you think I've attacked you. I'm trying to be conciliatory here, not because of any rules or guidelines or ideas of etiquette, but because I regret the misunderstanding and animosity that seems to have been engendered by this horribly long-running and recurring debate. SamBC(talk) 12:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    • That is just your opinion. The tags are not inappropriate, and I have evidence to support this view where there have been disputes. Where there have been disputes, new sources have been added, or other editor have supported my viewpoint at RFC. But rather than speak of generalisations, please give an example of what you mean. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Sorry, which thing I just said is "just [my] opinion" and you want me to give an example of? The fact that I don't mean you offence and am trying to help? Please try to keep hold of that point: I am trying to help. I'm not saying that notability was inappropriate, I'm saying that a lot of people felt the specific tag for books was, and this contributed (and may still contribute) to the friction you've received. I'm not trying to get you to do anything different, except for your own benefit. SamBC(talk) 13:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point, but hopefully you will have understood mine. I agree that WP:BK is not absolutely the correct criteria by which RPG notability should be judged, but I have used it because, as specific guidelines go, its about the nearest. That is my viewpoint; if you have an alternative, put it forward by all means. As regards "friction", most of the friction to date has been related of instances where the notability template has been removed without justification: see Azure Bonds, Raistlin Majere and Kate Novak for specific examples.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Does an ISBN denote a book?

ok so i am looking at my Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix DVD. above the UPC code there is something else. ISBN 1-4198-5934-X therefore my DVD should be classified as a book here on wikipedia since it has an ISBN? shadzar|Talk|contribs 10:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• I can't answer your question myself, as I am not an expert in electronic publications. Have a look at the following quote, this may help:

"Where a publication is available electronically (e.g., an e-book, CD-ROM, or publication available on the Internet), it will qualify for an ISBN provided that it contains text and is made available to the public, and that there is no intention for the publication to be a continuing resource"[160].

Perhaps this DVD contains text (such as sleeve notes) relating to the film? Maybe it contains text which you can view, like an e-book. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's most likely to be for onscreen text which qualifies. However, I think you've missed Shadzar's point, which was in relation to the discussion above; an ISBN does not demonstrate that something is a book; of course, the ISBNs in question are referring to a book, but there are many other reasons to argue that the articles aren't about books, as have been made above, and which you bizarrely refer to as "no evidence". How about taking the word of people who actually have a lot of experience dealing with and playing these games as evidence? SamBC(talk) 11:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, ISBN does not demonstrate that something is a book, but I think you will agree that book has a wide definition, as in this context it could include booklets or e-books for example. However, if they are not "books", then what are they? Give me an example from this list above. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm trying to say that the ISBN issue is a red herring, actually. RPG rulebooks are, of course, books. However, the book is not the game and the game is not the book. You can get fairly large books explaining in detail the rules of various sports, and to adhere fully to these rules you may need to refer to the book unless you have a very high degree of familiarity with the rules; you may need to refer to it occasionally, but not usually. Only the referee or umpire might need to refer to it, and everyone else just needs a vague understanding. In that case, would the book of rules be the sport (game), or just be about it? Thing is, each of those things I say about referring to this book of sports rules is generally the case in (between them) most roleplaying game sessions. SamBC(talk) 12:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• I would have to disagree. To play an RPG game, you have to buy the book first, in the same way you have to buy a tennis racquet to play tennis, and you have to buy another book when you want to play a different RPG game. RPG rulebooks are more that books, they are the game. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No; you can be taught the game by an experienced player, even without the book (in most cases—the exceptions being very rules-heavy systems, in which case reference charts can be used in place of the book), just like tennis. You need dice in most cases—that's the equivalent of the tennis racquet. The book isn't the game, it's a set of instructions to play it. You don't need the book to play. I speak from experience here. SamBC(talk) 12:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • In that case, Tennis should come under the new Wikipedia:Notability (Racquet) guidelines, a subset of the more general Wikipedia:Notability (Sports Equipment). :) (Sorry, I couldn't resist). - Bilby (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Gavin would you pelase stop creating subsections of your talk page that can take things out of context of what is being discussed. as stated the context of the DVD ISBN question was directed at the point that you make of saying things with an ISBN are books. as evidence by the DVD having one this disproves your idea that anythign with an ISBN is a book. that was its point in its entirety. not everything is so easily classified as you would want it to be. such is the nature of things that fit into multiple caterogries. also as stated above games can be played without books, even for those with libraries worth of books on the subject. Bridge is a popular card game as well is Blackjack. many books have been written on both of these subjects bu do not define the subject as being a book. just because RPGs have books it doesn't mean all RPGs are books. D&D and many other tabletop RPGs do present material and isntructions in the form of a book, but others do not. this includes CRPGs that may not include a book on how to play rather than how to control the user-interface of the software. just because they are not contained in book form does not make them an RPG. as such this is why RPGs cannot be confined to your book example. not to sound funny but you seem to be judging the book by its cover rather than its contents. for a non book related analaysis maybe you don't see the forest for the trees? in that i mean again that these "books" are more than simple books and cross the lines of many genres and catergories that means one specific catergory cannot contain all of what they are within it. IE books, games, fiction, etc. these are parts of RPGs but they are not independantly the whole of RPGs as each is an intergral part and must be evaluated as a part of the whole rather tha as the whole. shadzar|Talk|contribs 13:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In fairness you are misrepresenting my view; I don't happen to believe that things with an ISBN are necessarily books, and I agree with you that RPG must be evaluated as part of a whole game package. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying my view in general

Okay, I don't necessarily want to move the already-in-two-threads discussion here, but I want to make something clear.

Gavin, I think you've done a lot of good in a number of places, including in the RPG mileu. You'd probably have done better if you knew more about the subject matter, but that isn't necessary for the contributions, and you've (for the most part) acknowledged where you've made mistakes and stopped making them.

There has been a problem with tension and friction building due to, in my belief, misunderstandings. I want to try to help prevent those misunderstandings. I'd also like to help inform you a little about things which are so commonly accepted with the world of roleplaying that they don't generally need to be said—that's why it's hard to show you evidence of these things. I'd say that an extension of AGF would be to take people at their word when there's a number of them and you admit that they know the subject better. If we wanted to include these matters in mainspace articles without documentary evidence, I agree that would be a problem; using them to inform practice and/or policy, however, is perfectly reasonable.

I'm not saying this to have a go at you; I respect the work you've done, and to an even greater extent I respect your intent. I can't speak for other contributors or others who have taken part in this or other discussions, but my intent here is to help you on several levels:

1. Contribute more helpfully in these areas in future, which is not to say that your previous contributions were not helpful.
2. Understand why friction has occurred, rather than thinking that most RPG editors are too protective or have ownership issues.
3. Learn a bit more about RPGs, just because learning about things is generally good—and isn't that why most of us think wikipedia is a good thing (among other reasons)?

Okay, I think I've said what I'm trying to say here. Please take it as it is meant. SamBC(talk) 13:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Another suggestion: Stop adding the Notability template. You have already admitted that you don't know much about RPGs, and thus you are not the best judge of what is notable within the genre. Cleanup tags are welcome, even necessary, and citation tags are also appropriate. What is inappropriate is adding Notability tags to, for example, the Forgotten Realms setting. FR has sold millions of copies. It has spun off a line of fiction so wildly successful that even its novice authors have a very good shot at becoming New York Times bestsellers. It has provided the setting for a number of smash-hit computer games. Applying the book notability template to this subject suggests that you don't have any interest in educating yourself about the subject, and makes it much easier for other editors to accuse you of having an ulterior motive in tagging these articles.

Let me be clear: I applaud your desire to clean up Wikipedia. Some of these articles desperately need that cleanup. But I think you're going about it in the wrong way. Snuppy 14:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with your views, nor will I accede to your requests. From where I stand, your suggestions are based on the POV that "you can't edit RPG articles unless you are an expert". If that was the case, all RPG articles would be Good Articles, but that is far from the case.

Have a look at articles such as Helm (Forgotten Realms) and see for yourself how badly this article needs cleanup; there are no reliable secondary sources, as notability is very a much a concern with a lot Forgotten Realms articles. I say again, if there is specific article you wish to discuss your concerns, then bring it forward for discussion. Generalisations about my editing style just don't stick.

I understand why friction is occuring with RPG editors, its because nobody likes to hear bad news. However, these tags are not necessarily bad news. Already sources are being added and more editors are getting involved with cleanup. If you don't like the notability template, then ignore it. But telling me that I am unqualified to use cleanup templates is holds no water with me. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what I am saying. These articles desperately need cleanup. Using the cleanup template is fine. It is the Notability template that is the issue. Adding notability tags indiscriminately (did you really tag The Mekons?) instead of refimproves or citation tags suggests, again, that there is an agenda to set up these articles for deletion wholesale, rather than improving the quality of the area as a whole. The friction is occurring because you insist on adding the Notability tag, which is a precursor to AfD, rather than a more general, all-purpose cleanup tag.

I am not suggesting that you need to be an expert in RPGs to edit RPG articles. I AM saying that you ought to have a basic understanding of the genre before you begin throwing around the notability tag. In the meantime, I'll start a discussion at the Village Pump about notability of RPGs. Snuppy 15:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I would have to disagree; there are no reliable secondary sources to support your assertion. Secondly, I disagree that the notability tag is a precursor to AfD; its not - a cleanup template is the precursor to cleanup. Lastly, if there are no reliable secondary sources, then how can even an expert tell if the article is notable or not? There must be evidence of notability: your POV is insufficient as claims of notability must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on verifiability; it is not enough to simply assert that a book (or a band) meets a criterion without substantiating that claim with reliable sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A couple of points:

1. We need reliable sources, not even necessarily secondary ones, for article content. Arguments and points in a discussion don't need that.
2. The text of {{Notability}} certainly makes it sound like it's a precursor to a deletion discussion, or at least to the common outcomes of it.

Just to point those out for clarity. SamBC(talk) 15:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• There is no evidence for these opinions.WP:V says you need reliable secondary sources; {{Notability}} says best way to address this concern is to reference published, third-party sources about the subject, and if they can't be found, only then should AfD be considered. {{Notability}} is a cleanup template not an AfD template.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:V makes no mention of secondary sources, it talks about third party sources—not the same thing. It's also a policy for articles, not for discussions. And I'm sure you can see how people can read {{Notability}} as threatening, or at least appreciate that other editors say they can see how it's read that way and respect that. SamBC(talk) 16:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • We're not POV crusading here, Gavin, please don't be so confrontational about it. SamBC(talk) 16:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:V uses the term third-party sources, but that is what is meant by secondary source, primary sources being the source material itself.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources also states This page is a guideline, not a policy. shadzar|Talk|contribs 16:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Secondary sources and third-party sources are not the same thing. A third party source is a source authored by or otherwise from a party that is not the subject of the source. A secondary source is a source written without directly witnessing the matter in question. So, say we're talking about a shop. A first-hand account from a customer is a third-party (they don't work for the shop) primary (they actually used the shop) source, while a newspaper account making a story using this first hand account would be both third-party and secondary. And we're now wandering off the point. No policy or guidelines requires any sort of source, nor forbids original research, in a discussion. Discussions can be based on editors own experience, and it's courteous to take that experience into account and not require people to have documentary evidence for everything they say. SamBC(talk) 17:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the note on your userpage

Just to let you know that the wording on your userpage ("I am currently reviewing RPG articles, which have various notability and style issues that will require cleanup") sounds like you believe all, or nearly all, RPG articles have these issues. I doubt this is what you meant, so I thought I'd point it out.

An easy fix would be to change it to "I am currently reviewing RPG articles, a number of which have various notability and style issues that will require cleanup" (italics denote addition). SamBC(talk) 15:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair comment. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd go with most of which if it was on my page. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures Game

just so you know there will likely be no new information added to this article until after April. as this game is going under a complete revamp and those knowledgeable are trying to understand the new game itself it is unlikely that until the full release in April 2008 that anyone will have much to add to it, or at least after the convention coming the weekend of Feb 28. after april i am sure that any news articles about this game will become more clear and its notability. so as a suggestion the notability template is there so give it time to work, and i have given you a time-frame that this product still has in transition and notification of WHY it may or may not be editted between then. this goes for D&D undergoing a new edition since August 2007 (to be released in June 2008) there has been much confusion with its 4th edition, which can sometimes add to problems where the D&D wikiproject already has to convert its articles to a non-biased format with any additional clean-up tags anyone may add. if you were unaware of this it may help to explain some other frustrations with D&D articles at this time as everythign is changing and that requires work to fix ALL the articles anyway. may save you some time so you don't have to tags anythign else as EVERY D&D article will need checking with the new editions of both the minis game and the RPG. also the use of the "general" notability tag i see as a step in the right direction for at least showing it could use clean-up. now if i knew what was good sources i could add articles from slashdots website and other places, but i don't know if they coutn as reliable here on wikipedia. (ignore the typos, the coffee pot isn't finished brewing yet so not fully coherently thinking) shadzar|Talk|contribs 11:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Dromite

EDIT: for the Dromite i say this is one of those articles that is a prime candidate for deletion as it is one of those monsters that isn't that notable or needs its own articles as any further information at this time would probably only serve to try to replace the published material on it removing the need to buy said material. so i would be glad if (since i am sure i would mess it up) you would add an AfD to it, and i will explain I asked you to on its deletion discussion page to prevent any confussion as to your actions in doing so. shadzar|Talk|contribs 11:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sturm Brightblade

Someone removed the notability tag from the above, providing a third-party reference. It isn't significant coverage to my mind, but it's a start. --Sturm 09:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Iggwilv

this is another example of why people don't think you read the RPG articles you edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iggwilv&oldid=194636599#History , where you added the who template to the History section, you failed to read the entire sentence to notice where the info that was cited could be found. as was pointed out the cite was at the end of the sentence in this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iggwilv&diff=next&oldid=194636656 , and removed your misplaced template. again please if you refuse to research any of the material for validity about the RPG articles, at least read the articles themselves rather than blanketing then with tags that don't belong. feel free to add this to the compiled list above that you are responding to about your edit and explain why you feel the who template belonged when there is suficient information in the article to explain where a reader could find the information itself, rather than filling the article with all the published material on the character to remove the need of purchasing the published materials, thus possibly taking away profits from the copyright holder. shadzar|Talk|contribs 18:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw the citations, but for some strange reason the weasel words still remain in place, despite the fact that phrases like "it is said" can be replaced with details of an actual person who is the source of the citation. If you don't believe me read the guideline. Reading the article is a bit like seeing a someone who has been cured of their limp still pretend to limp - it is sad and unecessary. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

so you are saying if phrases listed in the weasel words are actually used in the location the information was found such as a game module, then they apply to real life out-of-universe? as in the editors of articles here are using these words on purpose to not provide proper information. i ask because there are vague descriptions of things within the game that may not be attributed to WHO said them. for example if the information doesn't come from a novel, but a game module and the NPC was an extra without a name. like in a movie credit you see drunk at bar #1, how would you place the who in the article? does it come from in game perspective or real world prospective? if its real world perspective then any official product would have the who being the copyright holder as they allowed/paid for the material to be published. game perspective would bring into question things like in-universe and other clean-up tags unnecessarily. again rather than tempalting how about trying to edit the sentences yourself? if you know enough better that the editors adding content to the articles on writing, then it would make more sense to instead of jsut identifying grammar erros to fix them to make the articles better. shadzar|Talk|contribs 15:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does not matter whether the weasel words are used by the primary or secondary sources, they are still weasel words. For example, in the article it states: "Iggwilv is said to have once been named Natasha", but this begs the question, who said this? I can only assume that this a regurgitation of fictional characterisation presented as fact; the weasel words still sound pretentious and condesending, despite the fact a citation is given. This instance highlights the issue of in universe style that plagues D&D articles: accepting fictional phrasing as if it were fact. There is so much in universe and weasel wording in D&D articles that I think RPG editors no longer beleive that WP:WAF and WP:WEASEL apply to them. I am not sure why this style seem to prevade so many articles; I can only presume this style comes from the source material itself. The correct way to write an encyclopedic article is to step back from the primary source and ask: who wrote this and why? Accepting statements like "Iggwilv is said to have once been named Natasha" as if this were a fact or truth when in fact it is a fiction represents a basic failure to ask questions - my reaseach indicates the character started as being male[161]. If I had access to suitable sources I would write something that is not in universe like "In the Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, the ficitonal witch Iggwilv was identied by the author Gary Gygax as being an adopted child, whose name was Natasha, who later in the story took the name Iggwilv when she completed her apprentaship as a witch. Gygax chose these names because....". I think what is of encyclopedic interest is why Gygax used or made up these names, rather than the in unviverse content that makes up the article, which seems to fail WP:PLOT. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

On reviewing WP:WEASEL, specifically this section, I feel that the use of the words as they appear in sources (if they do so) is appropriate. However, the question of who said it is, in that case, still there. I have changed the reference to indicate that published background states that "it is said", that would seem to be most appropriate given the specific context and the guideline. It also helps with the real-world perspective issue. SamBC(talk) 16:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"pretentious and condesending" what?!?!? how can you be offended if something in-universe is meant to be ambiguous? are you just offending by RPGs? did you have a bad time in one at one time? i don't see any way you can see "it is said" as condescending (talking down to someone). if you feel the editors of RPG articles are writing them to make you feel stupid, inferior, or in someway lesser than them by all means report any grievance to the appropriate administration. but i think you will fidn the articles are not intended as that. if you just can't udnerstand the subject matter and why it may presented as-is in-universe then maybe its a simple matter of RPG just not being for you. as may be apparent by your involvement with them here. they aren't for everyone. so if its a subject that doesn't agree with you then why wory about it for others. i jsut don't see how you come to "pretentious and condesending" from "it is said". as for your saying in-universe being assumed as real-world fact again i ask did you read the article? it starts with "Iggwilv is a fictional spellcaster". anyone should be able to understand then that all material about her would also be fictional. it would then seem to me you are saying that some readers are unable to seperate fact from fiction? and for the fiction these things ARE facts in THEIR universe. or you seem to fail to realize that not every person that edits wikipedia is a professional writer. as it would seem since you are offended by the use of in-universe style. well if you are better than again by all means don't jsut tempalte articles, fix them yourself if you are a better writer. that is why you have an account and like every registered memebr and random visitor you can edit the articles to amke them correct. so why choose weasel if you problem is with in-universe writing? another instance of copy-pasting tags to articles without making sure you have the correct tags in the first place? shadzar|Talk|contribs 17:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the heavy in universe perspective that fails WP:WAF or the WP:WEASEL words that pads out this article. By pointing this out to other editors, perhaps they will be edited out over time. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

so you are or are not offended by the article by calling it condesending? i know many D&D articles need work and that is what we are all agreeing with you. heck it seems now we are going into spring cleaning and actually putting into action some of the things the wikiproject has discussed. it would be great if rather than being on the outside looking in you would participate in the discussion page for the wikiproject and voice your concerns about the articles in general as you seem to do with RPG wikiproject. i am not a memebr of RPG wikiproject, not that i know of. so don't really look there as i don't know much about other RPGs. so i personally visit the D&D project because i do have knowledge of the subject matter, but am a novice at wikipedia learning as i go. so for other that may be like me it would be helpful if you participated in the direct discussion about things or helped do some of the cleanup you suggest if it is things you can clean up. i think it would go a long way to showing the other editors you actually care to have the articles fixed by helping fix them rather than jsut tag them. i am no professional writer and try to alter sentences and paragraphs in articles to make them better. odds are i may even make them worse, who knows. you are being bold in editing and adding templates where you think they belong. but it doesnt mean you can't also help clean up the articles. again each article has a talk page where you can palce a note about your tags to tell people which specific parts you are refering to when you tag an article. for example i recently tagged the editions of D&D page with something saying future game. this not only lets readers as well as editors know that its not fully out yet and the information may change. i could have made a section on the talk page about it, but the editors already know that 4th eidtion is out and anyone who feels against the tag for that section coudl remove it or make a section on the talk page asking why it was placed there. i think it is understood so i didn't start a section and it seems others may agree while more information on this edition is being flooded to people form the current convention this week. are you willing to particiapte in discussion of your tags in places other than your own talk page? i think this would really go a long way to cleaning up the D&D related articles. communication afterall is not a one way street. shadzar talk 21:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not offended by the subject, just the style which assumes that the reader is not capable of asking questions. I will have a look at the article again tomorrow. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Brain in a Jar

i must commend you for notifying a sock puppet of User:Grawp about the AfD. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Garyxxxxxx&oldid=195159295 . again this shows no evidence that you read pages you edit or you would have noticed the sock puppet notification from one month ago. shadzar|Talk|contribs 18:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

For shame, Gavin! Garyxxxxxx is from the same damn CU case as all your impersonators; why the amnesia? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 19:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I know that; I just had a moment of enjoyment. Forgive my indulgence. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

..."Moment of enjoyment?" What, is Tom Servo going to start singing a "Wrong-Tagging" song now? Is Seth Green going to have this whole incident recapped by a suicidal man in a blue suit? Honestly, enjoying yourself at another's expense, especially if the "other" has been known to single you out for harassment, only proves that you are no better than he. I don't mean to seem like Frank Sloth here, but Schneelocke-dammit and Ciz-dammit, you're not proving yourself a better man OR helping your case (there's still a bit of bad feelings towards you by most WP:D&D members because anecdotal evidence is saying you're not the person to be tagging D&D articles in general). My suggestion is that you think carefully about your current status with respect to other Wikipedians before you post on a page, and that you have your facts straight about the basics of a subject before you go on a tagging crusade. It's for your own good, and although I have no problem with you tagging articles that truly need it, I have a problem with how little you actually know about the Role-playing game industry. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew)} 08:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have apologised once, and that is really all I can do.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Dresden Files

Gavin, you called the subject of the article a game when the article identifies its subject as a series of mystery novels in the first sentence. --Kizor 18:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the novels. The discussion was about a new game (yet to be published) which will probably come in book form [162]. However, the game has not been published yet, so the article has been deleted for the time being: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dresden Files (role-playing game) for details. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

i think this is talking about this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Dresden_Files&diff=195095893&oldid=194629509 and not the RPG page, but where you identified the series of novels as a game in your edit summary when adding the plot tag. probably just a copy-pasting tag error. shadzar-talk 23:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The article was not deleted, it was redirected to The Dresden Files with the possibility of unredirection if game is released. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• The article was redirected not deleted, and I stand corrected. To go back to --Kizor's point, I don't see where I identified the books as a game - I think you may be mistaken. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In the edit summary here, where you place a plot tag at the beginning of the article, you refer to it as a game. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't correct an edit summary, so you will have to live with it.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah, it's just an ordinary mistake, things happen. Just wanted to let you know where it was. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay: it turned out that there were some surprising real-world concerns to deal with. Argle nailed the edit summary and the intent behind my message. I did not link to the summary as I was not aware of that AfD and the resulting need to disambiguate. These things happen, but from our previous discussions it seemed like the kind of thing you'd want to know about. Cheers, Kizor 20:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Plot templates and games -- new tag needed?

I completely understand why you put a {{plot}} template on the Tome of Battle article -- there's way too much detail, especially in the "Sublime Way" section. However, as a general note, I don't think the plot template actually applies, since it isn't a standard work of fiction that has a plot. What would you think if I wrote a new template that would specifically address issues such as this -- possibly called {{Game-excessive-detail}}? The creation and the use of a more specific tag could cut some of the issues you're having with other editors with tag applicability off at the pass, while providing a more specific way of saying what kind of cleanup an article needs. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the {{Game-excessive-detail}} template falls between two stools, namely {{plot}} and {{howto}}. Rather than have a new template that does not deal with both problems, perhaps you would reconsider the plot template once again? The reason why I say this is that although this is a game, not a book, its purpose is to enable a fictional scenario to be role-played. The long descriptions relate to details of the game's mechanics, but the mechanics are fiction driven. I think the {{plot}} template should remain. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a fictional scenario -- it's part of a template for generating and working within user-generated fictional scenarios. Tome of Battle is not a D&D supplement describing a pre-written scenario for gamemasters to run (nearly all of which have notability issues, but I digress), it's a set of rules and mechanics -- templates and rules for characters rather than specific characters, mechanics for plot rather than a plot.
If it's anything like the D&D I used to play 17+ years ago, Tome of Battle doesn't describe a plot, it suggests and describes game mechanics (like the older Player's Manual which this partially expands and replaces). The proper tag would be closer to {{howto}} instead of {{plot}}. I do believe that a tag belongs there, but it probably should be a tag more applicable to games and sets of rules. {{Game-excessive-detail}} or {{Game-excessive-mechanics}} should be created and replace the plot tag here and in several other places. It would properly and exactly describe what the problem is, enabling either cleanup or other actions. A plot tag here is nothing but a focus for arguing about the tagging, instead of the article. I'll work on a tag across the next couple of days and propose it in various projects that might be interested. Since your stated goal is to clean up the RPG space, and since it would target the issue exactly, I think you'd find the replacement acceptable once it is completed. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Kopru

Kopru is up for deletion. Thanks for improving the article. Make sure you vote if you didn't! --SpockMonkey (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent D&D related AfDs and your votes.

thanks for voting to help remove some of the non notable articles. however i must point out again why people think you are not working with other wikipedians. i am no authority on this matter, nor am i in a place to dictate policies. i just want to show you in case you missed it when you link to fancruft in your votes.

• Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil and an assumption of bad faith.

this is the last sentence in the section on fancruft, and exactly what some people may be talking about in the past about your edits not appearing to be in good faith.

as well your continued use of calling everything in D&D a stock character and linking those words to a list of D&D monsters doesn't help either. again i simply ask what others have asked before, please try to look at the material you are editing. at least try to understand the articles and their content and your edits and maybe attitudes to and from other editors will vastly improve. otherwise as above people may only conclude you are acting in bad faith and just vadalizing articles related to D&D. shadzar-talk 20:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

When you say that "I don't understand the articles", what you mean to say is "I don't like what you are saying". So lets agree to disagree. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

no i say what i mean and don't appreciate having my words twisted to satisfy your needs. i don't hide things with other words. when i say "you don't understand the articles" i fully believe the context of those exact words. i don't like your attitude towards the articles, and towards editors of them, or the attitude you seem to have on occasion to RPG players. but that is not what i was talking about. your use of terms to describe something do not fit what you are describing. again the stock character link you provide is to a list form the publishers website. i don't think you understand stock character or the articles as you constantly call just about everything in D&D a stock character. the article on stock character shows it to be something other than what you are implying it to mean. and your use of the term for many of the D&D related article means you may not understand them as well. this may be true for other RPG related articles, but i don't just go looking for articles you have edited as i may not understand them as i don't know all RPGs. i focus on information i have knowledge of here on wikipedia in order to create better articles with the knowledge i can provide for them. again you use this stock character idea for any monster/creature in D&D and they clearly cannot be defined by what a stock character is unless you are jsut over generalizing all monsters in D&D to be an opponent/challenge for the players. that would then mean that any character would be a stock character if it is an antagonist or protagonist either one, because all stories have them both. and D&D is not a novel, but it does help tell stories so i am relating it in a way that you should understand hopefully with your classification of all thiings D&D to be just fiction and under WP:Fict.shadzar-talk 22:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The discription of the D&D monsters as stock characters is not intended to be pejorative, but is, (at least I believe) to be an accurate discription of them. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

now we are getting somewhere! D&D monsters provided within the game manuals can be considered stock 'creatures. they are provided for you within the game so you dont have to imagine new ones. just like a car bought from a dealership with no customization or added options is stock. but these creatures do not occur everywhere as literay devices. yes fantasy fiction may have mosnters, but it doesn't mean every D&D monster is derived form a specific mythologycal creature or one knwon to have its own story and used for that. there are a few that may well be considered stock, but not all. i can't think of an example because there are over 30,000 maybe published D&D monsters. thankfully they are not all here on wikipedia. also while some actual character in a D&D novel may be considered a stock character at first glance to some it doesn't mean they are. Drizzt could be construed to be a stock character in line with just another guy from the bad side of the track, so to speak that goes on to better things and forsakes the ways of his family for working towards a better life for all people. may not be worded right, but i hope you get the idea. but Drizzt is very much a notable character, even if his initial idea is a stock one. this is why people ask you to invest some time in researching the D&D and other RPG articles you edit. so you can understand the subject of the article in its context to better understand what they are about. and even so i see nowhere that even a notable stock character is not allowed to have an article on wikipedia. so at lesat if nothing else take this little bit of information from this little discussion. D&D monsters are not characters unless they are specifically named like the dragon Smaug from The Hobbit. D&D monsters are more akin to objects like a table or a lamp, something there to be interacted with or something player characters encounter along their travels. a little research into RPGs would provide this information and much more to you to prevent future confussions. if available you may wish to read forums on RPGs, or visit a store local to your area that carries RPG products and ask someone that is knowledgable about RPGs. but it will not be a simple thing to just learn all the ins and outs of RPGs. shadzar-talk 19:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your collaboration with Jack Merridew to tag a large number of Fantasy related articles with the Notability Template

I now aware that both you and user:Jack Merridew are working together as proponents of a very strict and narrow interpretation of WP:FICT. Therefore in that spirit, I would like to direct you a section of WP:FICT which states that editors are "urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles" and to refrain from making these types of edits en masse. That section provides a link to a ArbCom Case which I also strongly encourage you to read: WP:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters

I hope that having read these linked articles, you will be more amenable to compromising on other, possibly more appropriate cleanup tags in the articles you feel are insufficiently sourced. Which is to say, that I understand and applaud your desire to try and improve Wikipedia by removing fancruft, and highlighting articles which need better sourcing; but I strongly disagree that the argumentative, combative, and insistent methodology you are using in your attempt to achieve these goals is producing any results other than the frustration of myself and other editors. Thank you for your time considering what I had to say. Dalamori (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Dalamori, meet Pixel; Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gavin, I guess we're collaborators! Any idea who's sock this is? Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jack, your frequent, quick-to-judge accusations of sockpuppetry against anyone who persists in having a problem with you are as much violations of WP:AGF as anything they're saying about you. I understand that you've had some legitimate problems with sockpuppets, but it has made you more than a little paranoid. BOZ (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

BOZ, I have not made any accusations of sockpuppetry against anyone who has not been proven to be a sockpuppet, so you can count me out of your tirade. As regards the accusations of Dalamori, if he would like to give a specific instance of his complaints, perhaps that would help clear the air.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies; I meant that as a response to Jack. I have corrected my original statement. BOZ (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you give a specific instance? Generalisations can be counted as little more than flaming, but specific instances can at least be discussed in a rational fashion.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If you insist; they're not hard to find: [163] - don't know what became of that but the accused user isn't blocked. Often he's right, but sometimes he's wrong; sometimes he thinks they're Grawp when they're really not, like when he implied that Hobit and Rray might be: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grawp. It seems "frequent" is a bit much on my part, but suggesting that people might be sockpuppets based on little or no evidence is definitely a WP:AGF problem, and probably a WP:CIVIL issue as well. BOZ (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Jack has been very dilligent when it comes to dealling with sockpuppets, so you should cut him some slack if he is not always right. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"Geek Love"

It's an opinion piece, but maybe you will find it insightful? Or just something to get a laugh out of - or both. :) [164] BOZ (talk) 01:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice article. Sorry to hear about Mr Gygax.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please cease and desist from editing closed AfD debates

Please do not change closed AfD debates such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GURPS Technomancer, as this is against WP guidelines. Your current editing to remove yourself from the debate is pointless: a clear audit trail leading back to your original edits remains on the record permanently, and cannot be removed.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, but I am unable to discuss the subject with you, if you have any specific issues, I suggest you direct it to others who can engage in a discussion with me on this issue. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note if alter any closed AfD debates again, I will go straight to WP:ANI as I cannot imagine any circumstances in which archived discussions should be altered in any way.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Reorx

I added a secondary source to establish notability in the Reorx article, and given your involvement in the Paladine notability discussion, I'm giving you a chance to respond before I nuke the notability tag. Please see Talk:Reorx for details. Dalamori (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Please?

VINCENT: A "please" would be nice.

THE WOLF: Come again?

VINCENT: I said a "please" would be nice.

THE WOLF: Set is straight, Buster. I'm not here to say "please." I'm here to tell you want to do. And if self-preservation is an instinct you possess, you better fuckin' do it and do it quick. I'm here to help. If my help's not appreciated, lotsa luck gentlemen.

JULES: It ain't that way, Mr. Wolf. Your help is definitely appreciated.

VINCENT: I don't mean any disrespect. I just don't like people barkin' orders at me.

THE WOLF: If I'm curt with you, it's because time is a factor. I think fast, I talk fast, and I need you guys to act fast if you want to get out of this. So pretty please, with sugar on top, clean the fuckin' car.

[165] BOZ (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil to all users

[166] Per WP:CIVIL, which is an official wikipedia policy and not to be taken lightly, name calling is strictly forbidden, even in edit summaries. BOZ (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe Iuz is a ficitional character. If he does turn out to be real, then I had better apologise to him. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You're sure you weren't calling Robbstrd, the person who wrote that line, a dummy? Because it sure looked that way. BOZ (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That's incredibly out of line Gavin. You owe him an apology at the very least, because he's perfectly justified to call an admin in over that.Shemeska (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

An apology would be nice, but I won't hold my breath. This is par-for-the-course for Gavin. Not the type of behavior I'd expect from someone his age.--Robbstrd (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I must admit I did not know it was Rob that wrote that. He is a plain talking guy, so he won't take offence.--Gavin Collins (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I call Bravo Sierra. I refer you to the rather rude message you left on my talk page[167], regarding the same article.--Robbstrd (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Gavin, regardless of how you think someone will respond, it is inappropriate all the same. BOZ (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I started a more civil discussion of the issue of lack of context and in universe perspective on the page Empire of Iuz. --Gavin Collins (talk) 04:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

And still no apology... *sigh*Shemeska (talk) 05:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think any is really required, but I am happy to provide you with an apology if you feel in anyway slighted. The phrase "It's fiction dummy, not real-world!" is meant a rhetorical statement, not an insult to any particular person. You might remember the phrase "It's the economy, stupid; the substitution of dummy for stupid seems a little more polite in my view. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think we can AGF and accept that's how you meant it; you can see how it was misunderstood, right? SamBC(talk) 12:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Of course I can see how rhetoric could be misunderstood as personal slight.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Template spam

Hi,

I don't really feel that this was necessary. If you think that an article has so many problems that it needs more than two tags, it's probably better to use the {{articleissues}} header rather than pushing the article content halfway down-page with individual tags. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You might be right, one cleanup template is probably a neater solution.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)