Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Wraith: The Oblivion books/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Wraith: The Oblivion books

edit

List of Wraith: The Oblivion books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): AlexandraIDV 05:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My Changeling FLC was promoted, and my Mage FLC has four supports (still waiting for a source review), so here's my fifth World of Darkness FLC: the critically well received but commercially underperforming Wraith: The Oblivion, in the same format as the previous lists. As before, I appreciate any constructive criticism as I want to make these lists look as good as they can!--AlexandraIDV 05:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I got nothing. You've got these down to a fine art now :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you! I try to take comments from previous FLCs into account when working on these, so hopefully they'll just continue to go smoother and smoother.--AlexandraIDV 17:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead isn't long enough to be a DYK there has to be more to say about this series of RBG books --Guerillero Parlez Moi 04:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Guerillero: Sorry, I'm unclear on how DYK is related? Did you mean to post this here?--AlexandraIDV 06:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I did. The lead is only 1324 byes (202 words). I don't think that is enough space to properly introduce the subject and define the scope and inclusion criteria of the list. I'm not looking for a 1k word treatment, but it should at the very least meet the 1500 byte lower limit for DYK. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just curious - do the DYK guidelines cross with the FLC guidelines for something like that, or is that more of a personal preference? BOZ (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Guerillero: What is it you feel is missing? You say the inclusion criteria is not defined, but I think it's very clear that it covers all the RPG books published for the game Wraith: The Oblivion. It also introduces the game (bearing in mind that this is a list of the books and not an article about the game itself) and describes what types of books were released, and how they were received. To be clear, I'm not trying to be "difficult" or avoiding doing the work - I don't mind expanding if you think something is missing - but I don't want to pad the lead with fluff to reach a threshold for a different Wikipedia process.--AlexandraIDV 06:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm confused as to if this is a singular game or an expansion of another game. How does this game relate to the rest of the World of Darkness? Why are you playing as wraiths? I'm not looking for fluff but for context. (I also believe that the lead of an FL should have a small amount of heft to it. If the top Country songs of any particular year can have 3k bytes of text as a lead, any FL with enough context shouldn't be below 1.5k byes.) -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 03:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Guerillero: I apologize for the delay - I have been busy this month - but I believe I have addressed your concern. The lead is now just above 1.6K, and gives some more context and detail for how Wraith relates to the larger World of Darkness series, and how the series consists of horror games about supernatural beings. If you would take another look and see if there's anything else you think needs fixing, I would appreciate it a lot.--AlexandraIDV 07:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Guerillero Parlez Moi 06:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ftr, if any of the FLC delegates/director are reading this, I'm working on addressing the above now that I know what specific questions Guerillero want answered - I have not abandoned this FLC).--AlexandraIDV 00:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "series of horror tabletop role-playing games. The games in the series" bit repetitive on the prose here.
  • "where supernatural beings exist. These supernaturals " likewise.
  • You said it's an "interpretation of the real world" but then characters are playing wraiths "in the afterlife" which doesn't seem very "real world".
  • There seems to be very limited information on how these books performed commercially or how they were received critically.
  • I never find a compelling argument to make Notes (which are usually free text) to be sortable.
  • Only five of these items have an article. What makes those more notable than all the others?

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Responding in turn to each:
  • Reworded
  • Reworded
  • In this game, the afterlife is portrayed as overlapping with "the human world" - another layer on top of our reality. See for example the entry Necropolis: Atlanta, which is about Atlanta as it appears to wraiths. I want to avoid going into too much detail about the fiction in this type of article - should I perhaps just remove "in the afterlife" for raising more questions than it answers?
  • I can get more material on the critical reception if you think it currently is too thin, but I don't know if I can find any more specific sales information for the line as a whole as this does not seem to be anything White Wolf Publishing made public.
  • Set notes to unsortable - I had copied some other list when I set this up, but I don't disagree now that you point it out.
  • WP:RPG is a relatively small WikiProject, and most of these books' RS coverage is found in print media - it is not so that books in this list that do not have stand-alone articles are not notable, but rather that all those articles have not yet been written. Is this an issue?--AlexandraIDV 21:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Rambling Man: This is a vague enough request that I need to check: are you asking me to write one article for every item on this list that meets WP:GNG? And if so, you are requesting enough work that I have to ask you: what criterion are you basing this request on?--AlexandraIDV 23:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm saying if the books are all notable enough, they should be linked. If that means we have a list of too many red links then yes, you'll need to write some more articles to meet the FL criteria. I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned before, and sorry if you find this "vague". The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @WP:FLC director and delegates: I'm withdrawing this as something requiring far too much work to be done in a reasonable time frame, and am unlikely to do anything more at FLC.--AlexandraIDV 18:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How unfortunate. I didn't even oppose. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot research and write however many articles are required for this in a reasonable timeframe for this FLC, regardless of whether your comment formally is an oppose or not. There is no point to keeping it open.--AlexandraIDV 18:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the only reason you'd say that is because you agree with my position, because as you've noted, the precedent is set with previous FLs of yours and no-one else has asked for due consideration to be given to the other nonlinked elements of the list. Other people and delegates may have different opinions. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no need to withdraw this. I disagree with the need to create articles merely for the sake of creating articles, and this list is a great example of how we can still cover generally non-notable items without each of them having their own page. I even question the need for independent articles for some of those that already do here. However, I would suggest slightly longer descriptions. These basically just rephrase the title and say what the books are but not what's actually in them. What is special about the character types? What does the reader get out of buying that book vs another? Only other minor thing is no comma after '1994' or 'consistency'. Reywas92Talk 19:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not asking "to create articles merely for the sake of creating articles", I'm asking why some books are deemed non-notable compared to others, and if they are notable then they should be linked. Thanks, but don't misrepresent my thoughts. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree that there is no need to withdraw this yet, and I feel that there is no deadline or need to rush on creating more articles for notable works, and it should not interfere with the FLC process. I have come to respect Alexandra's work though, and if Alexandra wants to withdraw this then the list can be promoted again at some point in the future if necessary when more of the articles have been started. BOZ (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(I have already asked to have this withdrawn and am regretting getting into FLs in the first place. There is no need for further comments)--AlexandraIDV 20:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is deeply regrettable based on a sensible and open conversation about what constitutes Wikipedia's finest work. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a shame, since the discussion seemed to be moving towards a significantly less amount of work than "write a bunch of articles", but it's your nomination to withdraw. Closing. --PresN 02:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Wraith:_The_Oblivion_books/archive1&oldid=1009722866"