This is an archive of past discussions with User:BOZ. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Welcome!
Hello, BOZ/Archive 2006-2008, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Kukini06:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey dude, good to see someone working on some D&D articles, so thanks for your help. If you dont mind me saying though, its not necessary to have individual articles (especially stubs) for anything and everything relating to D&D. For example, its better to have one article with many sections (as long as they arent too big) than many stub-like articles with little content.
Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure is one example, we could write stubs for every module out there, but that would be pointless unless we actually have something interesting to say about them all. Just something to think about, I would hate to put you off doing stuff. Happy editing.
I plan on going back and adding to each of those in time (soon, in fact). Right now I'm just adding them, to give others a chance to add info first, which in some cases they have been. BOZ
Cool thats great to hear, sorry for me jumping me gun, but you know what some people are like. Ill attempt to add to these too. Good luck dude. -- Lewis15:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome. Nice to see there are other users working on the D&D articles, I find most of them (especially the monster-related ones) rather rushed. :| Giganthrax "Do you hear me?" 14:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
This'll be a very stupid question. How do I create a brand new page? I'm unable to find the option to do this on wikipedia. =p Giganthrax —Preceding comment was added at 14:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Since I don't have any of my books at hand, I'm really unable to improve this article. If you could, that'd be great. I'm not sure if it's notable--dunno if it's even made it to 3.0 or 3.5. As for Thoul & Nilbog, I'm not really concerned, as neither of them have made it into 3.0+ to my knowledge (or Greyhawk). The tag's already been removed from the Draeden article.--Robbstrd21:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Power Pack parents
I just noticed your creation of these two articles. While your effort is appreciated, I'm not sure that either character is prominent enough to justify their own page. There doesn't seem to be a lot of information available that couldn't be presented in the Power Pack article. I almost redirected them but wanted to find out if you had plans/ideas to expand them before doing so. CovenantD23:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
D&D IM
Do you IM? I'm at peregrinefisher@hotmail.com. I say this because you, User:Robbstrd and I seem to be the main D&D editors. It might be good to coordinate. - 08:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
re: MU Sidebar
That was more or less my reason behind putting it together: Give a place where the multiversal characters could have the MU multiverse scheme explained without the jargon showing up in the lead.
That said, I'm hoping it doesn't wind up on "Mainline" Marvel character/team articles where no alternate universe characters or teams are discussed.
Yep, after reviewing the edits, I believe that it's not a bot alright. Still, the entire spree of edits seems to be damaging many articles as those additions apparently lack context and substance. An editing pattern such as that can often alert recent changes patrollers and be halted with an emergency block until an admin investigates the situation, which I'm doing now. Regards, Húsönd15:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, please don't continue with these edits which prompted the block. I'm still trying to understand this "The Initiative" flood. Perhaps you could explain it to me. Thank you. Regards, Húsönd15:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
It is not appropriate. It lacks connection with the rest of the article. Furthermore, I recommend reading WP:CRYSTAL as a reference on also why is this not appropriate. Not to worry though, I've been rollbacking the damage. Keep up the good work but in the future please avoid editing articles in a way that resembles spam. Thank you. Regards, Húsönd15:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
D&D wiki project consensus
A call to all members of the D&D wiki project.
We are currently having a major dispute that needs to be settled by all members of the D&D wiki project.
The dispute is as follows.
1. Should we put disambiguation tags on D&D articles preemptively or should we wait until there is an article conflict with some other Wikipedia article.
Vote on preemptive or wait.
2. What should we label these tags? Example "child's play (module)", or "child's play (adventure)" and at this point we are taking all suggestions.
email me at Dm2ortiz@aol.com or post on the D&D wiki project talk page
Normally, you'd make a link like so, but that's not really the point. External links are for websites which provide a unique resource beyond what the article could (key word) provide were it brought up to code. Other Wikis generally don't fit this description. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
It's mainly just for GH, but given that there's a lot of crossover, it'd probably be okay to transfer some monster articles, such as I did with Death knight. However, since non-GH content would be marginalized or not listed at all, you may want to look at something else, such as this wiki. Either way, I welcome your help.--Robbstrd02:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Some quick thoughts
You seem to be powering through the minor Marvel characters and filling in the gaps but could I make a couple of suggestions:
When you create an entry drop a note into the "recent creations" section of the Comics Project Notice Board. I've been trying to keep up with your pace but am starting to lag behind ;) Having them posted there can be very handy as it lets other editors know about them and they can cast a quick eye over them and
Watch out for over-ambiguating, e.g. you created Hidden Races (Marvel Comics) but there is no Hidden Races and I noticed you moved Iron Cross (comics) to Iron Cross (Marvel Comics) but general principles are to go for the least disambiguated naming. Obviously, there might other comics/characters of the same name but that isn't clear from the above (which are only a couple of recent examples) so if there are then think about dropping a note in somewhere or even sketching out a disambiguation page as I just did here: Hecate (comics).
If you make non-ambiguous pages then check back for a disambiguation page to add a link to (as it'll help people find it if they are struggling), for example I made this one Hildegarde (Marvel Comics).
Hope that helps. If you need a hand starting disambiguation pages then drop me a line - I've done more than I can count. ;)
OK cool. I had assumed that might be the reason but it ends up with odd things happening like the DC Comics team now redirects to the Marvel character or something like that. As I say I have no objections to creating disambiguation pages (as I'll do with Iron Cross now you have pointed it out to me) so if you spot anything like that drop me a note and I'll fix it up. (Emperor17:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC))
Cool. Well as I say if you want a hand (after all you are doing a lot work - I can help dot the is and cross the ts if need be) just drop me a note. (Emperor17:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC))
Blimey - I should be careful what I ask for ;) That's great stuff - well spotted. This does seem to be a big deal in comics and I suppose if you are working through the Marvel characters alphabetically you are going to spot a lot of them. Anyway plenty to be going on with there (and it looks like they all need sorting out to help people find the right person) and I'll get cracking on it later. Thanks for that. (Emperor12:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC))
That's great - thanks for all the hard work. I am working through the list (but ran into a touch of "disambiguating fatigue" yesterday ;) ). Basically what I've been doing is creating disambiguation pages when the potential page is either empty or a redirect. In cases like Apollo (comics) I've just disambiguated (although if other characters of the same name started cropping up then a move might be in order). Scarecrow (comics) is tricky as it is the major character and moving it would lead to a lot of broken links so I'd like to avoid that if possible - I'll return to this one in the future. Others (like Agent (comics) will need moving but I'll get around to that later after I've fixed up the ones that are simplest to address. It'll take a few sweeps through the list to get everything fixed up but when finished it should mean everything is running a lot more smoothly (as this is a big deal for comics where the Big Two, and others, seem to have had similarly named characters ;) ). (Emperor18:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC))
Your recent edits
Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot16:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you for backtracking and taking care of the little edits such as spelling for me. When I do rewrites of questionable articles - such as Korvac - I often just keep writing and don't get back to doing the minor touches straight away. It is appreciated.
I agree completely. You may not be aware that I have actually "redone" many of the Asgardian characters and monsters, including Balder the Brave; Odin; Mangog; World Serpent; Destroyer; Fafnir; Perrikus; Dark Gods; Surtur and Ymir. Yep, will get there, but for every article I help improve, I see five more that need work! If Wikipedia want to pay me six figures to edit full-time, I'll get there that much faster! Once again, thanks for the assists.
Thanks for the heads up, man. I've got a guy at the Greyhawk wiki who is really good at copying stuff over, so I think it'll be okay for now.--Robbstrd —Preceding comment was added at 20:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Busy
I'm not 100% sure if you are saying I've been busy recently or if you were saying you have been, but I've not been doing too much on that front other than tidy up after other people (there have been quite a few broken links to chase down and fix - which reminds me there was one on my mental to-do list but it has fallen afoul of my forgetting what it was ;) ). I still haven't finished going through your list yet. (Emperor01:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC))
Thanks for the clarification - I am often easily confused ;) Good work - I'll run my eye over them over the next few days. The two big factors are WP:MOSDAB and making sure the incoming links are re-routed to the correct page (which can be the big job of doing such things). Thanks again. (Emperor15:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC))
Thanks for the list. I'll focus on the second one as it does look like quite a few of those are over-ambiguated for no good reason and so I'll do some more digging and set the ball in motion. You can see on some how it came about - Umar (comics) was a redirect to another page so someone clearly made the other page and then the redirect was changed later. Just the way things grow and develop so it is worth flagging these for attention. (Emperor00:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC))
No problem - you've probably produced more Marvel-based articles than anyone recently and I know you've been through nearly every character entry so you have a good overview of the field. Just the kind of thing the work group needs. (Emperor15:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC))
I see - well when you create the red links let me know and I'll try and find what it should be the child of (or find someone who does - Steve Block has been on point on this so should know what is needed). (Emperor01:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC))
If you're going to merge articles, please do so, but don't replace an article with a redirect without merging its content. In a number of cases, for example, you have merged articles into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities without merging their sources as footnotes into the appropriate listing in the target article. I'm reverting those that I find, but please feel free to merge these articles with their content (especially sources). -Harmil22:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Sentry
Which vol of What If is this? It can't be I or II (unless a back-up story). Can you help so it can be sourced?
See the Whizzer talk page. I think Tenebrae just gave the perfect starting point, so please comment on that talk page and we'll proceed from there. BOZ (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I have commented on FT2's talk page, but I think the time to follow up on this is after Jan 2. when more people will be around. DGG (talk) 16:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Ongoing RPG notability/AfD situation
Hi, BOZ. Was wondering if you wouldn't mind reading my take on this situation around here of late, with all the AfD stuff going on in the RPG sector. My user page article is here. Thanks in advance. Compsword01 (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Ye Art Cordially Invited to the Annex
Hello, My good Fellow, listen and I shalt telleth Ye a Tale of a Wiki that well comes All Manner of Articles relating to Fiction. What is This wonderful Place of Fantasy, You ask? It is the Annex, Haven to All fiction-related Refugee Articles from Wikipedia.
Before nominating or proposing a fiction-related Article for Deletion, It is My sincerest Hope that Ye import It to the Annex. Why do This, You wonder? Individuals have dedicated an enormous Amount of Time to writing These Articles, and ’twould be a Pity for the Information to Vanish unto the Oblivion where only Administrators could see Them.
Here is a Step-by-Step Process of how to Bringeth Articles into the Annex:
Ye shall need at least three Browser Tabs or Windows open. For the first Tab or Window, go to Special:Export. For the second, go here. (If Ye have not an Account at Wikia, then create One.) Do whatever Ye want for the third.
Next, open the Program known as Notepad. If Ye haveth It not, then open WordPad. Go to “Save as,” and for “Encoding,” select either “Unicode” or “UTF-8.” For “Save as type,” select “All Files.” For “File name,” input “export.xml” and save It. Leave the Window open.
Next, go to the Special:Export Window at Wikipedia, and un-check the two small Boxes near the “Export” Button. Input the Name of the Wikipedia Article which Ye wish to import to the Annex into the large Field, and click “Export.”
Right-click on the Page full of Code which appears, and clicketh on “View Source” or “View Page Source” or any Option with similar Wording. A new Notepad Window called “index[1]” or Something similar should appear. Press Ctrl+A to highlight All the Text then Ctrl+C to copy It. Close yon “index[1]” Window, and go to the Notepad “export.xml” Window. Press Ctrl+V to pasteth the Text There, and then save It by pressing Ctrl+S.
Now go to the Special:Import Window over at the Annex. Clicketh on “Browse…” and select the “export.xml” File. At last, click on “Upload file,” and Thou art done, My Friend! However, if It says 100 Revisions be imported, Ye be not quite finished just yet. Go back to Wikipedia’s Special:Export, and leave only the “Include only the current revision, not the full history” Box checked. Export That, copy the Page Source, close the “index[1]” Window, and go to the “export.xml” Window. Press Ctrl+A to highlight the Code all ready There, press “backspace” to erase It, and press Ctrl+V to pasteth the new Code There. Press Ctrl+S to save It, then upload once more to the Annex. Paste {{Wikipedia|{{PAGENAME}}}} at the Bottom of the imported Article at the Annex, and Ye art now finally done! Keepeth the “export.xml” File for future Use.
It was brought to my attention that Agamemnon (Pantheon) was created. This should be at Agamemnon (comics) in line with naming conventions, so I've moved it and merged teh page histories. In the past I'd redirected Agamemnon (comics) to Pantheon (Marvel Comics), in line with WP:WAF, WP:PLOT and WP:FICT, and the new article mirrors the old one somewhat. What do you think is the best course of action here, let the article stand or reinstate the redirect? I've left the article as an article for the minute, although I feel a merge and redirect is best practise based on guidance and policy. Maybe it could be handled better in the future, perhaps merge all members to one page. That would be the eventual goal, I'm not in a major rush to do it in a hurry. HidingT09:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey BOZ, thanks for responding. I just wanted to say that I'm not trying to pick on you. I just happened to be looking at the Comics redirect category and spotted Agamemnon there. I was thinking, "Wait a minute, I know we have an article about this same character." Since Hiding had redirected the original article, I thought I ought to bring it to his attention. Cheers, GentlemanGhost (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, it wasn't my intention to accuse anyone, I just wanted to work out the best way forwards. The consensus seems to be that no-one is in any hurry to merge, so I reckon we can leave the article alone for now and see what happens. Would everyone agree? HidingT16:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure - is this a new thing? Is it just a tool for easier reverting? (Like, such when someone will make two or three vandalising edits, and another editor will revert only the most recent one because he missed the previous ones; is this a tool to avoid that?) If that's what it is, I could see it being useful, although I may not use it all that often. If I'm not catching what it's all about, please correct me. :) BOZ (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Rollback feature. I've given it to you anyway, using my own judgement I don't think you will abuse it. Remember, only use it to revert instances of actual, indisputable vandalism. Any other edit should be reverted by hand, the old way. HidingT19:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Gotcha. If you check my most recent edits, you'll see that I've already discovered how easy it is to abuse. ;) One-click revert - do not use by mistake! If I find myself getting into trouble clicking it by mistake too often, I may ask for it to be removed, but we'll see how it goes for now. I've noticed that it only applies to the most recent edits, unlike the undo function. I could see it being most useful when a vandal comes on and makes 2 or 3 edits, allowing you to get a clean revert. BOZ (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Now that I've officially withdrawn my nomination, I'm going to wait for the debate to be officially closed before I redirct the article. Stephen Day (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, BOZ. An edit war is brewing at Bucky, a page on which you've edited, so I'm posting a neutral notice that you may want to comment at Talk:Bucky. See you 'round the Comics Project. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Images help
Sorry that I had to leave. It's not that I don't want to help, it's just that I don't have time to help right now. So I felt it only fair to remove my name so I didn't give false hope that I would be able to continue to help. I still have the page saved so I can visit and help if the time ever arises. Good luck and I'm sure I'll see you around the edit histories on occassion! -Freak104 (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Save an article!
Hey, some guys seem to have something against new articles based on comic book characters. I know you're a good/respectable guy, so could you go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mister Negative to post something to help keep the article alive? There's no reason it should be deleted; there are a lot of comic book articles significantly shorter than his, and with less comic book appearances. -Freak104 (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
There's a spate of B-graders that have only had 2-3 appearances that I plan to work through now, and I started with Arsenal. They only take me about 45 minutes apiece to knock over. I'll do a few lacking images first. Need a break from the big ones - getting Scarlet Witch in order was exhausting, and its' opened doors on work I need to go back and do on Quicksilver and Vision...but not yet!
Thanks for the list! Yup...knew about some of these but almost all are just "one panel" cameos and hail that terrible period in comics called the 90's. :(
Yup, well done. Good recovery on the Plunderer. The poster who recommended the article for deletion obviously doesn't know their comics! By the by, I'll do the Enforcer for you soon - he's from Water Wizard's era so no biggie. Just nailed Terraxia so there's another one down...
Yup. Looks like we have a sook on our hands. I gave him a gentle pointer, but he obviously didn't like it. No matter - the article's going nowhere. We will persist.
OK...I see where this is going. Well, while it won't work I think it is fairly petty. Perhaps this is all the same poster with an axe to grind? I will watch with great interest.
Yup. Two wins. A quick peek ay Edit Histories, however, reveals sour grapes in the form of action on other pages. No matter. We'll get there. After helping to put out that fire and stave off a bot, I can get back to some more construtive editing!
It should be fine - the key is persistence. If we can keep the talk page focused on improving the article I'm confident we can renominate (if it gets delisted) and the admin noticeboard can soak up the disagreements. My main worry is that a random passing admin blocks (as there is enough material to justify one) which wouldn't be a proper reflection of the underlying conflicts (more his reaction to them) and his input will be important in improving things.
It needed intervention and as I hadn't edited the entry it made sense. The slow and steady approach will work in the end but is clear we'll have no overnight miracles.
I have asked for more input as it shouldn't be too difficult to get things back on track and we can get a consensus together on the best approach which should avoid the big editing problems (which should have been taken to the talk page when it was clear there was a problem). (Emperor (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC))
Socks
Hi. I saw your comment on Gavin's page. While I think I'm right in these cases, I don't have proof. In the case of Dalamori, I find it quite odd that the account would appear after 23 months of not editing and start a line of argument about a very current issue; his argument seems very much like a field test of the issue under discussion here. Note that he has not gotten back to me when I raised this concern with him on my talk page (a thread he started). As to the Kiwi, I see a very similar editing pattern to a known sockmaster. Time will tell, in both cases.
Your point about AGF is noted and I do feel that I should be a bit less quick to make an explicit comment. Thanks for the reality check. FYI, I don't have a nytimes login and generally avoid sites that seek to track users that way. Also, I had no idea that Gary Gygax was ill or had died when I made the Spring Cleaning comments. I won't refer to it again. Cheers, Jack Merridew09:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem - it is easy enough to be less than civil on here, or anywhere on the internet, as I myself can attest to. :) BOZ (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you feel a sense of validation? :) Now, I'll really be floored if you're right about Dalamori, since as fas as I know that one came out of left field. BOZ (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think vindication is the right way to look at it. I comment to the effect that I have a concern because of what I've seen and what I saw in that case was a new account, going right after one of the same articles the others had. He wanted a like-resume tag gone. This guy might beMartin Banwell, or a student of his, who didn't like his teacher. Overall, it's about bad edits; this guy messes with articles and treats this all as a game.
Dalamori, is a different case; he shows up arguing for a loophole and showing an awful lot of knowledge of current debates. The 23 months; seems like someone has a whole lot of sock accounts queued up. Again, I don't make such sock comments lightly. Cheers, Jack Merridew12:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I suppose time will tell, indeed. I don't know anything about this user (as you say, he/she has been inactive for awhile), certainly not enough to say whether this user has or has not gone by other names. This in and of itself is not breaking a rule, only if one or more of the "shared" accounts has already been blocked for sockpuppetry - using one or more accounts abusively. I've seen people change accounts/identities to avoid harassment and such - perhaps that is the case here? Or maybe this person abandoned the account for some time and just edited as an IP and then decided to come back to an actual account? Or forgot the password and then found the piece of paper with it written on it? Or got really busy with real life, but kept tabs on what's been going on with wikipedia? I don't know though, but you can always ask the source. BOZ (talk) 12:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I find it quite ironic that a person who was so concerned with rooting out sockpuppets turned out himself to be a sockpuppet. BOZ (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Re:More deletions
Oh, alright. I thought the consensus was pretty much that the deletions were the best bet? I was under the impression that we were gonna continue with the deletions, then write the lists? J Milburn (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me for butting in, J, but just whose consensus are you talking about? You're not planning to work as a team to delete articles, I hope? Especially when it's wikipedia policy that merging is a preferred alternative to deletion when possible. DGG (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It was kind of going that way for awhile, but we've been discussing alternatives lately. At least, that's what I thought was happening before I saw more new deletion discussions today... BOZ (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I noticed it yesterday briefly, but am not entirely sure what it's about. Will read in more detail when I get a chance. BOZ (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you for the kind words. I doubt I'll ever truly depart from Wikipedia, but there are certainly aspects I no longer care for. I will certainly be limiting my time and the areas into which I participate. Take care, and all the best. HidingT14:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I thought you were leaving for good, out of frustration. :) (Can't say I would blame you; I can't see myself here in 2009 with the current climate.) Well, in that case, I still meant what I said, and happy editing! BOZ (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Marvel images
I have lots of images for Marvel characters. I'll be glad to put them up. :)Mfowler11 {talk) 9:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
-I've been adding FUR to every single one so they should be good. I'd like to ask, for the characters whom I've already put an image up for, may I take that off the list? Mfowler11 (talk) 9:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you :) Mfowler11 (talk) 10:00, March 2008 (UTC)
-My apologies. I forgot to tell you I was on vacation in Florida. I'll get back to the images. Mfowler11 (talk) 8:42, April 11 2008 (UTC)
Marvel Pics
I was just grabbing them off Marvel.com - the search facility gives you links to the character profiles which often have pics. As long as you fill out the rationale we can use them. Exxolon (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: Monster chat!
Yeah, I think I'll just get the names and page numbers down, it would be nice if we could get this live as soon as possible. What are the books we are putting in this? You've done the first two, I'm doing third, that means we still need 3.5, 2 and AD&D, right? J Milburn (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, hopefully. I'll maybe slug through the 3.5 MM once I have gone through the 3.0. I think others will be more willing to edit 3.5 content anyway, so if I put down a list of names, they should have descriptions reasonably quickly, especially if we start redirecting. J Milburn (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Too long. On the central page, we only need the monster book for that edition- the others can go on the subpages. J Milburn (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see, you think the central list should have no tables at all, but be limited to links to tables in other articles? Although that would work, I don't think that sits well within Wikipedia guidelines. If there is no 'core' monster book (the MM is the obvious 'main' monster book in 3.X) then perhaps just the first published, with {{main}} used to link off to the articles listing that edition's monsters more thoroughly? J Milburn (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
That's an absolutely spectacular idea, provided we can find a few sources to cite other than just the monster books themselves. Any ideas? J Milburn (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll have a look around... Perhaps there have been articles about what is changing in terms of monsters in Dragon/Dungeon magazines around the start of the various editions? Also, we could fill space in the main article by listing the monster books by date, which would also allow us to link more specifically to the tables- for instance (with unindent)-
Hello – I've restored the article at your request. For the time being, I removed the self-redirect it creates on List of Greyhawk deities#Lesser deities, because Mouqol redirected to List of Greyhawk deities, which had a link to Mouqol that redirected to List of Greyhawk deities, and so forth in a never-ending circle. I leave it in your capable hands to decide what's next. :-) Thanks - KrakatoaKatie03:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Deity Redirects
Yes - I have resurrected these as redirects. Apologies that you didn't receive the warnings - my AfD script usually sends them automatically. Black Kite12:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Re:Moving along nicely
Be aware that 3.5 has a few monsters 3.0 doesn't (possibly vice versa) and some of the descriptions change slightly. You're the one putting most of the effort into this, and I apologise; I will get it finished, I think I'll be happier writing out a few lists from some of my favourite supplements- Libris Mortis, for instance, a table for which would make a nice addition to the GA I wrote on it. J Milburn (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yup, this one was just a troublemaker. The other one, User:Blast Ulna, is still lurking around. He was annoyed the votes didn't go his way and claimed there was stacking, which was promptly shot down by User:Doczilla. We seem to have had a rash of belligerence of late, but hopefully they will all drop off with time.
Hang in there. :) I see you are a D & D fan. I used to play back in the 80's with the original Advanced Edition. Used to love the modules (the S series were my favourites). Might try and help out with some of these time allowing. Be good to chat sometime about this stuff.
Ah, the Giant/Drow series! That was fun. I remember the huge fight in the Hill Giant King's Hall; fighting mind flayers in the caverns and confronting Lloth in her spider-ship. You must play the S series...great stuff!
Great stuff. I won't say anything to spoil the surprises (other than I hope you retrieved the ring with 3 limited wishes from the open cavern - just don't use fire to kill the beast!).
Yeah, sorry, I'll copy it across now- I'm sorry, I've shown no committment to this, depsite the fact that it was my mass nominations that instigated it. If I move it across, others will be able to work on it a little more freely, and it'll hopefully actually get done. J Milburn (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I've wapped it on the 3.0 page- remember to link the diffs (as I did- check my edit summary) when merging if you were not the only contributor to the table you're copy-pasting- the last thing we need is for this to be deleted on a copyright technicality... J Milburn (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, that's fine, but didn't work in my case- copying the table from my sandbox to an already existing page. As for looking through the lists, none are perfect (incomplete, italics, stuff like that) and some referencing and a better lead would be nice for the main page, but I feel getting them live is the priority now we have something down- then, we can start linking to the list all over the place, (get it on some templates, link on all the main D&D articles) and completing/tidying it, then start redirecting the less notable monsters to it. J Milburn (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, that makes sense to me. As I recall, that was one of the options raised at the time. I think it's a good one, and have done so. - Philippe01:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
for finding a particularly elegant way to get some articles undeleted and redirected, and for taking the time to enact it. A great example of collaborative editing! - Philippe01:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
One from me too
The Original Barnstar
For being the driving force behind the lists of D&D monsters. They still need work, but so does everything, and getting them to where they are now shows impressive planning and work. J Milburn (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah... I'm working on the lists a little now. I'm gonna put them on the monster templates, I've written leads for the two editions I'm properly familiar with, I'm categorising, I'm gonna cite the books just so they don't look unreferenced and the capitalisation and italics are bugging me a little too. I'll also maybe get around to writing some more at some point. Are you gonna make a start on the redirects? J Milburn (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
If I'm honest, I don't really know anything about non-3.x. I have played a lot of 3.0 and 3.5, a small amount of AD&D2E, but not any of the others, so I can't really help out there. Speaking of which, I am going to be primarily editing the 3.0 and 3.5 lists, and will probably start on 4ed when that comes out. J Milburn (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I went and relisted it on the main RfC:User page. Looks like it somehow got taken off the list while still active. Hopefully I don't get my ass bitten off by someone or other for it. McJeff (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Said this on my talk page but I'll put it here too. The first thing I think we should do is leave evidence that the dispute is still going, and once that's been done, petition the closing administrator to reopen. One of Gavin's history pages shows pretty much a solid wall of adding templates. However, I read the dispute and checked Gavin's history, and it appears he has at least slowed down a LOT when it comes to prod/AfDing articles, so it's possible the RfC is no longer needed. Still, I'm not exactly sure how "closed due to inactivity" should be happening - isn't an administrator supposed to step into the RfC's, hand out a few decrees and declare it closed, instead of ignoring it and declaring it inactive? of course, considering the way the RfC I started on RobJ1981 is going, I'm currently holding a very low opinion of RfC's. McJeff (talk) 04:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Monster Templates
Hey, were we adding templates for players to the lists of monsters or no? I took a quick glance back through the discussion but didn't see anything. I imagine it was mentioned somewhere, I just don't remember. Thanks. Baron (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, when I saw Athach up for AfD, I thought I'd just jump in and close it before another admin who didn't know some of the background did. I technically ignored consensus there, which was to "merge", but I think your strategy of "redirect to a list and fill out the list as you have time" is more elegant. I'll keep my eye out for others like that. - Philippe17:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
RfM thingy
don't know what to do with this, or what to say. where should i put myself in those options as for either geting GC to leave RPG related articles alone, or stop editing them until he gains some knowledge of the subject matter, and in either case is more civil to editors regarding such articles be they casual editors or gamers themsevels, which he sems to dislike. i do not really know these procedures for these thins, but have been wanting something done to get GC to learn to work with the RPG/D&D communities and wikiprojects here, rather than trying to control them. do i belong in involved, or support, and am i just supposed to sign with 4 ~'s, or actually write something like you and Jeske did? thanks for helping the WP policy ignorant figure this out so we can return to making good D&D(and all other) articles without much disruption. shadzar-talk20:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The Paladine one is very interesting, and I had before not even seen it. It brings another question to mind I have been having about the RFC supporters of Gavin, but I don't want to add any speculation to this matter. I think you will understand what I am talking about if you read the Paladine talk page. Is it possible some connection between these users other than agreeing on issues? shadzar-talk05:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
RfM
Hi, since I do not edit D&D articles much (I am not an RPGer, but a chess player), I'm not sure if I could really be called a party to mediation. But I hope you guys and Gavin can work out something, since I don't think his purpose is to cause grief. If mediation will help, then good luck with that. :-) Sjakkalle(Check!)06:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
D&D Creatures and redirects
First all, I just wanted to say "good work" again on the many lists for the D&D creatures. I know that several people put in work on these but you spearheaded the result. As you're doing lots of redirects, I thought that I'd suggest that when you do them, you could update the {{D&D}} talk page template as well to indicate that the page has been redirected. (This would involve altering it so it says something like {{D&D|class=redirect}}.) I've done this for the articles that you've redirected so far (I think I hit them all). So for example, you'll see something like this on their talk page.
By updating the template in such a fashion, this would properly indicate the article's status when the bots automatically update the project statistics (which can be found at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/D&D articles by quality statistics but also shows up on the D&D WikiProject main page. Updating the talk template so it's a redirect means that it won't appear on the statistics as a "stub" or "start" article, so the statistics would more accurately affect the status of the articles in the project. These redirected articles could still be found at Category:Redirect-Class D&D articles for future reference.
No worries, I don't kill people for those kinds of things, I just make them endure long-lasting agony. ;) (But then you've had enough of that lately with all the work you've done on the lists...) --Craw-daddy | T | 09:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
And getting an RfM ready. ;) There were a few more monster articles that got redirected yesterday; when I have some time I'll try to go back over them and add the redirects. BOZ (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you want me to say about Gavin - I wasn't even sure who he was as first, but I remember the only thing I had a problem with him was his marking the Car Wars article as non-notable subject, but I thought that was resolved. Cyberia23 (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Gavin Collins
BOZ, thanks for the note both about mediation and possibly arbitration. Just wanted to let you know that I really haven't fully kept up with all the recent developments. I'll try to catch up on the happenings, but best case is over the weekend. And I really don't want to give an opinion till I see what's happened since I was last involved in the RFC. Thanks.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Noted
I read your recent comment and took it to heart. I am sorry if I offended you in earlier days as you are one of the editors I have come to respect. I would like to continue working together to keep upgrading many of the near non-existant articles (when we're not working on stopping the ship from going into the reefs that is!).
Gah! Another one! More persistent than rust monsters! Well, I've fired a shot across his bow and suggested he read the recent discussion on sources. And yup, it looks like the other serial nuisance has also fallen by the wayside. I don't know what caused that sudden urge for mass deletion, but there it is...
Thanks. That link took me straight to the Edit Histories, so I didn't see it had closed. I've added a vote to support mediation between said user and yourself, as that snipe on the AfD on Artemis told me all I need to know. Methinks it will not end well for him if he continues in this fashion. That first user who pushed AfD's everywhere has since been banned, and it looks like the second - to judge by your observation - has stormed off as he didn't get his way. He certainly didn't like User:Doczilla shooting down his theory about vote stacking.
Hi Boz. I was tossing up whether I should be listed as an involved party or not, but as the dispute is mostly in regard to Kender, and as I was heavily involved in debate and some of the rewriting, I probably should have been added. Do you know if I can add my name at this stage, or would be be easier if I sat it out. :) - Bilby (talk) 07:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that - I'm happy with whatever the decision was. I'd like to see mediation work, and after thinking about it (for too long) it seems that for mediation to work everyone with a significant involvement should be willing to take part. :) - Bilby (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Re:Monster list vandalism
Yeah, this is one weird user. I'm talking to her now; not sure quite what's going on, they seem to be undoing edits at random but acting in good faith. J Milburn (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Crimson Dawn
Hi Boz. This page has been tagged for cleanup. I've removed all of the unsourced stuff, trimming the article pretty much back to the specifics. I think this is more likely to survive on Wikipedia as part of a list. Do you know the best place to merge it to? HidingT12:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Good work. I wish I knew more about it, but I was getting less enthused by X-Men comics (as opposed to my once-rabid fanboyism of years past) by the time that concept was introduced. I know we have a list of vehicles, and probably some other things, but do we have a list of Marvel comics objects? I know there's a category, but... BOZ (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
It's way before my time. I stopped buying around 293, but my interest had waned with the Inferno storyline. If there's no list, is it something worth creating? I've had a go at Psylocke, too, but I think the powers section needs work. Ultimately I think the article could make a GA. If I can find some decent secondary sources, I'd have a stab at FA. HidingT15:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Inferno was one of my favorites. :) There are a ton of stubby "Marvel object" articles (and plenty of cool items that aren't even stub-worthy), if you want to create a list article to merge them into? Good luck with Psylocke, we could always use more comics GAs, and FAs are always great but so elusive to achieve. :) BOZ (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. Regarding Kruthik, there did not seem to be any real support for keeping it as a redirect (that was mentioned by only one user in the discussion). If it were a redirect, though, it should be a new one, and there is no real reason to resurrect the deleted article and its history, since it would make it possible for someone to accidentally (or purposely) revert it to a revision that had been deleted by AfD. However, in this case I'm confused since Kruthik does not even appear in the article that you referred to (List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.0 edition monsters), so a redirect there would not be appropriate. --MCB (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
True, if someone wanted to make a problem out of it they could. But I've had dozens of articles restored in this manner so far, and haven't seen a problem with any of them yet. I've got them on my watchlist as well. True, Kruthik is not in the list yet, but if it helps I'll get to adding the book it came from. When I've done that (might not be soon), I'll let you know. Usually when articles like this come up for AFD, I will vote to redirect, but in March there were many like this nominated for deletion, and I did feel overwhelmed and did not vote on all of them. Anyway, thanks for listening! :) BOZ (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Done - Kruthik is restored and redirected. I removed the wikilink in the list article since it just redirects back there. However, this should not be taken as encouragement on anyone's part to resurrect the material in the independent article in the list article or to revert it to its previous status, which would require deletion review. Best, MCB (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Same answer as for the guy in the above section. :) I'll try to add that one on Monday. Sorry for the brief answer, but I don't have long to talk... BOZ (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
--Fixing to express my viewpoint in a more mature (less crazy) way--
I view "Gavin.collins" and the other "tagbox posters" as being worthless. They add nothing, but think they have the right to fight to removed the work other people have done for the better understanding of all. He doesn't do anything but post a large set of tagboxes hoping that some stick. There seems to be a view that if you run around slapping up tagboxes everywhere, you get invited to be a moderator. I don't feel there is a need to talk with him, I feel there is a need to monitor this changes and then remove them when he just cuts and pastes in a block of tagboxes.
I do wish you all well, perhaps you all can keep him busy expressing his flawed viewpoint so that he doesn't have time to harass those good people who aren't just after a power fix. --Cozret (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm just hoping that the dispute resolution process yeilds some positive results... *got my fingers crossed and everything* and I understand where you're coming from. BOZ (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
BOZ, I would like to offer up the following post by Gavin as proof of his stalwart view that none of the RPG articles will be of any use ever. Talk:Paladine_(Dragonlance)#Examples.3F he says that the Dragonlance books are not noteworthy (despite four of them being on the NYT bestseller list) and that of the entire LotR series only Gandalf could be construed as notable. These are blatant decrees that he has no intention of ever being content with a Sci-Fi/Fantasy article and I think the comment should be made note of for future reference. I don't know how it would fit in your current RfM but it's too telling to let disappear. Padillah (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I'm not sure how, or if, that information will fit into the RfM, but that is interesting to note. He doesn't seem to be claiming that only Gandalf is notable, but rather than the articles on the other characters don't demonstrate the characters' notability apart from the source material. Not sure what to make of that, though. :) BOZ (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The next question in the ongoing quiz is: What non-article discussions provide good examples of the issues in dispute?
This sounds like an invitation to showcase some of the AfD discussions, especially the ones where nastiness reared its ugly head. I wish I could raise this issue myself, but having been muzzled, my only recourse is to drop hints to game show participants. ;-) Freederick (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Heh - I'm not sure how to answer, but AFD discussions definitely did come to mind. I'll have to give that one some thought when I have the time. BOZ (talk) 04:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I think, for historical perspective, someone might want to mention Gavin's first RPG edits, which were the AFDs to delete everything GURPS related, including the main article, as spam (Articles_for_deletion/List_of_GURPS_books, Articles_for_deletion/GURPS_4e_Basic_Set. I know that he's come a long way since then, backing off of the highly contentious AFDs, but I think that it helps to frame the entire dispute. And truth be told, many of the same fundamental problems that persist today can be found in their nacency there. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The deleted D&D monster articles
Hi, if you notice any more similar articles that were deleted and you can't contact the admin responsible, just leave me a note and I'll undelete the history under the redirects. The outcome in all the drvs is going to be the same, and it'll cut up on the bureaucracy. Thanks. - Bobet18:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes. (Longer answer: you can look that up for anyone with Special:UserRights, or just look through the logs for a user, you'll usually see some deletions, protects, or blocks in the first page for an admin.)- Bobet21:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, cool. I have gotten a few dozen restored, and no one's said no yet, so I figure it must be uncontroversial enough! BOZ (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Elemental Drake (Dungeons & Dragons)
I've undeleted Elemental Drake (Dungeons & Dragons) and redirected it. If you come across any where the deleting admin seems to be posted missing or is on a long break, there's no need to go to deletion review. Just let me know and I'll happily undelete them. Seems to be entirely uncontroversial. All the best, Angus McLellan(Talk)08:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. Sure, I am happy to restore and redirect. One minor prob is that there does not appear to be a comment of any kind about Dolgrims on the page you want to redirect to. Should there be? I am slightly pushed for time now, but will do it this evening. --Anthony.bradbury"talk"11:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
DMA installed and all updates loaded. Just tell me what you need from the 250 issues found within on kender and I will get the best source information I can, as I have time, to help with the RfM. shadzar-talk16:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi BOZ, sorry to be so late to the party, but I appreicate your invitation to the mediation with Gavin. Could you please catch me up on what to do ( and where to go ) to participate in this? Thank you in advance for your help. Dalamori (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
BOZ, I happy to hear you liked my work on Stellaris and Centurius. What other sorts of characters would I be interested in working on? Hmmm, hard to say. I tend to work on whatever strikes my fancy at the moment. I worked on Centurius because I happened across an old comic where Captain America finds Centurius' skeleton in a cave under NYC and I was curious who Centurius was and why he died there. My current interest is in characters with associations to the Celestials, thus the work on Stellaris. If you can find another Celestial related character I would certainly consider working on the article. Mainehaven (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I will leave the second Stellaris redirect alone (unless of course I can find an out-of-universe source). ;) If this is the standard that is going to be used, then I would expect a lot more of the existing comic character entries to be redirected in the future. Has this out-of-universe source policy become the accepted Wikiproject Comics standard for comic book character entries or is this policy more of a subjective editing judgement on the part of the Wiki Administrator "Seraphimblade"? Mainehaven (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Good work on fixing the Stellaris "problem". I have been busy and I haven't been on Wiki for some time so I just today saw your note. Is there anything that can be done about the fact the old Stellaris page redirects to the Celestials page which doesn't mention Stellaris at all? It would be nice if someone were looking for Stellaris info that they ended up at the new page instead of being redirected to the Celestials page. Just wondering. Mainehaven (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Ego
I know! I thought I'd mentioned that. I kind of wish members of more fiction-oriented wikiprojects would participate in the discussion, since they're going to be the ones more painfully affected if anything like these separate fiction guidelines go into effect. Ford MF (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:Kender-MC4.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Kender-MC4.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
Hi, I created the redirects for all of them, and restored the edit history under Lake of Steam, Sembia, The Vast and Sea of Moving Ice. Of the others, two (Ruathym and Tortured Land) were copyright violations, and the rest of them had nothing but headers and sometimes external links so I didn't undelete them. I think a couple of those places (at least Ruathym) aren't mentioned in the target article, so you might include a mention or they could still get deleted as unhelpful redirects.
They look really good. They're not going to help with notability though, so be carefull now much time you put into it. They may end up deleted or redirected. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks...
It's always good to hear from you, B. What with everything going on at Vertigo (DC Comics), I had a little sense of dread when I saw the "new message" banner — so, yeah, you couldn't have been a better ray of sunshine! With my regards, -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Nice!
Hi BOZ,
I do like what you've been doing. The one thing you _might_ think about is making those sections all one section and a bulleted list. I think they might take up too much space as they are currently presented (unless you think those sections will get expanded). But very nice job.
Sorry for being so slow, I've been spending my limited wiki time on a deletion review that is annoying me greatly (unrelated to gaming). Hobit (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
And you are doing a hell of a lot of work adding ComicsProject class/grade boxes and detailed rationales to a lot of articles. I, for one, and I'm sure other regulars would join me on this, want to acknowledge and thank you for doing so much needed and time-consuming work. That's above and beyond, BOZ, and we should give you a round of applause! -- Tenebrae (talk) 03:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes it was one of the early ones I assessed and with hindsight I realised it would have been borderline and as I am doing an improvement drive in Marvel UK titles and expanding David Thorpe I thought it was a good idea to try and get the complex publication history straight (I have a lot of the originals from around that time but keeping it straight can be tricky, especially as Marvel Superheroes is a renamed Mighty World of Marvel and then it switched to the second volume of MWoM).
Also aiming to more densely reference what happened when (the key events need pinning down to the issue they happened in) will really help with a push on to improve things further. What it really needs is expanding in the area of character development and get some comments from the creators (I'll have a dig through early Alan Moore interviews and see if there is anything there for example). (Emperor (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC))
Thanks for the welcome
Thank you for the welcome, but I would like you to read this proposal to see how to save the most important information of the deity articles and maybe keep the anti-cruft people happy. LA @ 14:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I know you know a good deal about fantasy articles. By any chance can you help us work to rescue this article? Some sources have been provided in the AfD that perhaps could be incorporated into the article, or if you know of any other sources, and we'd appreciate the help! Thanks! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!17:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
David Anthony Kraft
Finally added some more material to the DAK entry. Seems to me that to really do Comics Interview justice, it needs its own entry. (Possibly same thing for his imprint Fictioneer Books...) Stoshmaster (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
RPG Wiki
Hey, I notice you've written a lot of articles about D&D monsters on Wikipedia, most of which have ended up being deleted or merged. I thought you might be interested in knowing that I'm working on a wiki devoted specifically to role-playing, and if you'd be interested in contributing, articles like those would be welcome there. I haven't announced my wiki anywhere yet or officially opened it up to the public because I wanted to work on it more myself to get it to a more presentable state first, but given your apparent eagerness to write this kind of article I figured I'd let you know about it early, and invite you to contribute if you're interested--the wiki is at www.rpedia.net.
(By the way, this is by no means intended as a slam on Wikipedia or a complaint about its deletion policies--with its broad scope, I think it's understandable that Wikipedia has to hold very high notability standards. That's why I wanted to create a wiki specifically devoted to role-playing, where the threshold for notability would be lower and I could allow articles that wouldn't be considered notable enough for Wikipedia--not because there's anything wrong with Wikipedia's policies, but simply because of what it is.) --Smeazel (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, I understand, and honestly I was kind of afraid you'd respond like that, but unfortunately in good conscience I couldn't see a reason for keeping that material in Wikipedia, for the reasons I gave in the AfD. I understand you disagree, and seeing something you put so much work into put up for deletion certainly can't be pleasant. I wish I could come up with a justification for keeping those articles--I really like them, and I even saved copies myself in case they do get deleted, but I just couldn't come up with a good reason to keep them under current Wikipedia policy. If that upsets you to the degree that you don't want to contribute to my Wiki, I'm disappointed, but I understand. Hope there are no hard feelings, and keep up the good work. --Smeazel (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
No, when I said I saved copies of the articles for my own use, I didn't mean I was going to use them in my wiki. I actually wouldn't want these lists as is in my wiki anyway--individual (and categorized) articles on each monster, yes; long lists of monsters like this, no. But that's not the point; even if it was something I wanted in my wiki I wouldn't want to use it without your permission -- I know technically anything contributed to Wikipedia falls under the terms of the GFDL and is open for copying elsewhere, but I still wouldn't feel right about it. As far as voting in AfDs being a choice...you're right, and if I had to do it all over again, I probably would have just kept my silence. For what it's worth, I did abstain on List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters, and even argued against the grounds given by the nominator for its deletion. (And that was before I saw any of your comments on my talk page, so it wasn't in response to your comments.) And...huh, looking over there it looks like that's just been snowball kept. Well, that's enough for me to change my recommendation on List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. I want to make it clear that I'm not changing my recommendation in order to placate you so you'll contribute to my wiki, though, but because I think it's the right thing to do given the circumstances; it would make no sense to delete that article and keep the list as a whole. If you're still feeling stung enough by my initial delete recommendation that you don't want to contribute to my wiki, I fully understand. Cheers, and congratulations; it looks like your lists are likely staying on Wikipedia after all. ;) --Smeazel (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't know all the details about the history of the articles and the feedback you'd been getting from admins; I can see why you were upset. I'm glad the articles did end up being kept (well, the AfD on List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters hasn't closed yet, but if List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters was kept, I'll be surprised if that one isn't); even though I did initially recommend delete on one of the articles, it was with considerable reluctance. As for my mention of "most" of your articles having been deleted or merged, hope that didn't offend you; that was the impression I got from the few I looked at, but they may not have been a representative sample set. Anyway, glad everything seems to have worked out, and sorry again to have upset you with my initial delete recommendation. Now that it seems the articles are being kept, maybe sometime I'll dig out some of my old books that don't seem to have been covered yet and contribute to the list myself. --Smeazel (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
User:Stoshmaster
Is there a problem or something specific I should be looking at? I checked back through their contributions but it all looks fine - very useful. (Emperor (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC))
Ahhhh right - I see. Thanks for the info. I've picked up quite a few new creations that didn't make it to the noticeboard so will update those now. (Emperor (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC))
I added some basic publication history sections to Loviatar (Forgotten Realms) and Torm yesterday, though, looking at the way you've done them, I'm not sure if I'm achieving the same objectivity. Here are a some cuts from the two articles:
Loviatar's first appearance is in the 1st Edition Forgotten Realms Campaign Set book, where she is described as a pale maiden in white armour who wields a wand-shaped dagger of ice, and is stated to be the same Loviatar as the one in Finnish legend.
Hey, someone added a crapload of information to the Boccob article, and unfortunately they added their sources to the list at the bottom instead of using inline references - so I have no idea what came from where. Could you have a look through the sources added and see if you can tell which pieces of information came from those sources? --Muna (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
All those darn tags
After you pointed me to the section about the tags I had a read through some page histories and that whole malarkey with Gavin.collins. Has it been questioned whether he is a sock account of Jack Merridew/Davenbelle? --Muna (talk) 03:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
One thing I don't get is that sets of tags have been added to a lot of stub articles, which I saw which adding the D&D deities template to pages), which seems completely pointless because you know a stub will have a battery of problems. It looks like quite a few of those articles, as well as non-stub pages were removed due to those tags being longstanding, which makes it seem like that is the intent of the tags (and partly why I suspected sock puppetry, since Jack seems to have turned quite a few pages into redirects as a response to Gavin's tagging), and that unquestionably seems like vandalism. Out of curiosity, why hasn't Gavin been blocked? --Muna (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
As a note on that previous point about Jack turning pages into redirects following Gavin's tags, I may have confused him with someone else, though I do recall that his edits were following a very similar vein to Gavin's. --Muna (talk) 04:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
As for Gavin not being an issue anymore - all those tags scattered across articles look like they're going to be problems for a while, especially since it's evident some of them have been turned into redirects as a result of the tags being there (with summaries like "notability concerns had not been addressed for months"). One problem with removing tags, even if it's justified, is that it's implied that you're supposed to talk with the user who tags them to talk about what needs to be done - and it seems doubtful that Gavin keeps a list of what is wrong, and when specific pages are brought up he seems to avoid stating what in particular needs fixing, instead making vague statements (and adding "vague" inline tags to pages :P). Here's a more constructive question, though: How do you go about addressing power level changes through the additions? Torm, for example, is a demigod in 1st, lesser deity in 2nd and 3rd, and a greater deity in 4th. Would I put "Power level: Demigod (1st edition), lesser (2nd-3.5th edition), greater (4th edition)" in the infobox? Additionally, how do you deal with 4th edition information with regards to the infoboxes? The current infoboxes seem to be pretty focused on the 3rd edition, and changing the infobox would probably cause problems. --Muna (talk) 05:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Gods by pantheon: a thought on AfD sniping
One thing we could do to arrange some of the deity articles which probably won't stand up on their own is merge them into pantheon articles, which would preserve these stubs while happy little anons like 67.162.108.96 and 204.153.84.10 find and add content, possibly bringing them back out into their own articles in time with much more stable footing. For example, Skiggaret and Grankhul appear in very few sources, and are stubs anyway - wouldn't it be best to merge these into an article with a name like "Bugbear pantheon"? Blanket publication histories for all of them detailing each in a single section combined with the more likely prospect that a pool of references would provide a more convincing credence of notability, in addition to the likely rise on the notability scale and lesser number of articles to maintain...well, it's got to help keep these pages above water, don't you think? :) --Muna (talk) 08:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I've been adding snippets of information to Bugbear pantheon, though I've been trying to focus on context and readability from the standpoint of an outsider to the subject. Since the article itself is only a step in the direction of standing up and saying "you can't delete this" (;)), it may be wise to turn it into something like List of goblinoid deities at some point in the future to give it some added mass, which would give a result akin to List of Pokémon (1-20), which seems acceptable, so long as infoboxes could comfortably be accommodated. I'd only really think that would be necessary if it seems likely that the article would become a candidate for deletion, or actually does. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter. --Muna (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I copied over the material from some of the goblinoid deity pages which got turned into redirects, plus that Bhuka deity, to User:Damuna/Sandbox 2 and removed the sections (save for references). It looks like with a handful of short paragraphs the infoboxes don't get pushed through the section bars and get all messed up, so a List of goblinoid deities would be viable. I'll keep those there and maybe rewrite them at some point, in case it ever becomes necessary to make that larger list. :) --Muna (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems that Planewalker missed a book for Hruggek - I found him in Faiths and Pantheons. Did that submission for the other bugbear deities ever get published by Dragon, by the way? I happened upon the thread about it on ENWorld when hunting for domains. :)
I think the bugbear pantheon article is now coming to a stable stage, including important information regarding the deities plus infoboxes, so I may remove the construction tag soon. I'll probably add some more inline citations to show that the material isn't original research, and hopefully some independent sources to try and establish notability if I can actually find some. If it doesn't look like I'm going to be able to make a case for notability, I may go ahead with the List of goblinoid deities idea. One problem I'm having is writing so as to keep things out-universe - I gave Writing About Fiction a read, but I'm still not sure how well I'm managing. Any advice? --Muna (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Re: Ahazu
Hi, I userfied the content to User:BOZ/Ahazu. It'd probably get deleted through afd, but if you think there's something to merge from it, go ahead. Let me know when you won't be needing that page anymore and I'll move it back to where it was. - Bobet09:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I restored the article to its original place. Like I said, it would probably get deleted eventually so redirecting it might be better (but I left it alone for now).
Hi BOZ. I have restored the article behind a redirect. Bear in mind that the article was deleted for good reason, so - please - only merge across referenced material that is not written in an "in-universe" manner. Thanks. Neıl☄13:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
RE:D&D
Hi, and thanks for the talk page note. I've tried participating in D&D before, but stopped after I got shut out of the mediation with Gavin.collins. I'd be glad to help though - anything in particular you think needs it? McJeff (talk) 04:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you only got shut out of the mediation because of timing - a lot of other guys wanted in and they beat you to it. It was nothing personal as far as I could tell, and I always wanted you to be involved. It's pretty much ground to a halt at the moment, but I'm always willing to give it another go if interest revives among the other parties (or if Gavin gets mean on us again). :)
In the meantime, the D&D Wikiproject seems to be just about dead, in the wake of Gavin's "reign of terror". ;) Hardly anyone actively edits D&D articles anymore besides me, so take your pick! What we'd need most is providing creator commentaries, finding useful quotes in interviews and product reviews, providing publication histories (see my user page), rewriting in-universe text to out-of-universe text, and general cleanup here and there.
See the project talk page for more details on the 0.7 release. Four articles (Dungeons & Dragons, Gary Gygax, Dragonlance, and Drow) have been selected, so we need people to work on those. Aside from that, anything on this page (the higher up on the page the better) can be a contender for nomination if we work on it and improve it, or you can just nominate a (small!) number of articles that you feel are really exemplary and well done. BOZ (talk) 04:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I've got an idle weekend ahead of me, I'll see if I can do something with Dungeon Master. Head to the library and see what they've got about tabletop games... there should be something to establish that elusive real world notability. McJeff (talk) 02:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the hard work! :) If you like, please post on the wikiproject talk page to show other people that someone besides me is working on this. ;) BOZ (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7
Good stuff - much appreciated as it really helps when I decide to target a few. I have been rather randomly rating everything I come across so probably haven't been keeping very good track of what I have done. Last one was... phantom (comics) I suspect. I will do another batch soon but if there is anything that should be done asap let me know and I'll do it first. (Emperor (talk) 02:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC))
Excellent - we've turned a corner then.
I'll run it past the project later but I was thinking for the future we maintain a list of say... 300 articles (well if we want a number it might as well be 300 (comics)) that are significant (rather than relying on their crude algorithm) and are maintained at a decent standard - Dark Horse Comics is significant but pretty poor and I have no quick fix for it but it is something that needs addressing in the medium to long term. (Emperor (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC))
Exactly. I don't think we should kill ourselves over the 0.7 release but we should use the ideas and enthusiasm that we currently have over it to be preparing for 1.0 and if we can have a list of 300 we feel are the most significant then we can make sure they are all up to a reasonable standard (say C or above - as that will mean they are on their way and usually only need denser referencing). I'll get the ball rolling later today. (Emperor (talk) 14:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC))
Excellent - very handy!! If this idea gets the thumbs up and we can finalise a list of 300 it should be possible to break out smaller lists for ones that need cleanup, need images, etc. (hopefully they'd all have infoboxes but I suspect there might be one or two that still don't). So we are already off to a good start. I'll post my thoughts on the Comics Project talk page. (Emperor (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC))
A few things came up in fiddling with comics set indices and I thought I'd throw them over to you as you've got a good overview of the Marvel articles here:
Red Queen (comics) - specifically the Jean Grey one - is it actually mentioned anywhere? Does she count as a version of Pryor or Grey? Is there another Red Queen in Uncanny X-Men at the moment? I ask the last question because when looking for information I found this discussion.
I also did a bit of moving around to make Red King (comics), as the DC character has only appeared in a handful of comics while the Planet Hulk character has appeared in quite a few [2] although I assume their story is largely covered in the article and they don't warrant their own article. The others, like, presumably being covered in Hellfire (comics)
I note that in Shinobi Shaw's Inner CircleBenazir Kaur and Reeva Payge have been deleted for copyright violation (as it is an obvious straight lift). I am unsure if they need their own article but I see Benedict Kine has one and he has a similar number of appearances.
Doing Doctor (comics) I noticed two Doctor Nemesis (Nemesises?) and they both seemed to have a reasonable number of appearances and factor in bigger stories (like being the inventor of the Human Torch).
It may be that nothing needs doing with them but the Doctor Nemesis business looked worth a look and the lack of information here on the Grey/Pryor Red Queen seemed odd (although double-checking I suspect she might be the one mentioned at Jean Grey#Queen Jean, if some it still needs some degree of clarification). However, all those matters are pushing the envelope of my Marvel knowledge (although with all the editing it is shaping up and filling out nicely!!) so I thought I'd pass it over to you as you are better placed to make the call on this. (Emperor (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC))
Thanks for that. On the points:
Yes crossing checking the details it appears "Queen Jean" is what is the Red Queen so I'll clarify the heading and add the sources I have. Technically, Jean Grey was never the Black Queen (comics), as it was the Phoenix pretending to be her, or something similar. The joys of decades of continuity and other versions - it makes it difficult keeping these things straight (hence my questioning you ;) ).
I found more on the Doctor Nemesis on the Marvel Appendix: The Human Torch-connected Doctor Nemesis was Horton's silent partner, it looks like the character appeared in Lightning Comics but was only written into Marvel Universe history in the nineties [3]. The enemy of Hank Pym seems to have had his history clarified in the Files of Ulysses Bloodstone so I'll dig that out and see if there is anything interesting in there.[4] I'll add those in too and if someone wants to make an article the information is all there. There seems to be more there than for some articles but then that is arguing through other stuff exists which is never wise.
One other thing I ran across was Greg Pak wrote Marvel Nemesis, that page was a disambiguation to the comic and the game but they former and that page have been redirected to the game. I'm not sure if it needs its own article or a section on the page for the game as I know nothing about either but it seems a shame there isn't something explaining it. (Emperor (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC))
My mian information came from the difs [5][6], which isn't much and on the information in the summary (given the release date and the date the comic was released, September 2005 compared to May 2005, it seems the comic came first but given the lead time of a video game it must be close). Making a sacrifice to the Great God Google I find this, which is clear that the title was a prequel spun-off from the game and released before it as a lead in to the launch of the game. Not sure about the best approach but I suspect splitting the summary section to make one for the comic might be the way to go - it is likely the fans of the game will have read the comic and will run with it (as they did with, for example, Dead Space (comics)). (Emperor (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC))
It is probably only worth having a disambiguation page if there is going to be an article on the limited series and am unsure there will be - it is possible that given his higher profile now more people might check it out and he might want to use some of the ideas or bringing them back in some form, but until then it seems unlikely. Good spot on the dif though - updated (although there isn't much to see). (Emperor (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC))
OK I'll just go for a quick and dirty split of the summary and add the interview. It'll do for now unless someone enthusiastic wants to take it in hand. (Emperor (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC))
D&D WikiProject
From the looks of things there's a number of core articles that require immediate attention... I don't have time to look at them all (gotta head back to work in a few minutes) but I'll look at some of the high priority articles tonight when I get home. I think there's a lot of work ahead to get some major items ready for 0.7. Cheers. Torinir ( Ding my phoneMy support callsE-Support Options ) 20:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
So, how do you actually determine what articles under a topic (D&D in your case, cue sports in mine) are CD selections? How does one nominate something to become one? I know of only one cue sports article so far that qualifies, but surely a bunch more of them should (eight-ball, nine-ball, etc.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)›20:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Well I thought they were an artifact of the AfD results, as they didn't appear to provide any benefit beyond what is already shown on Geographical index of Toril. In fact I found it rather disappointing to click on the various entries under a category only to find they were all redirects to the same article. it seemed deceptive. Hence, in short, I didn't see a need for them. But I apologize if this conflicts with some larger plan at work.—RJH (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if most of those were actually AFD'ed, but rather simply redirected due to notability concerns. The italicized items in a category are redirects, but the benefit of having them in a category helps someone browing the category find the content buried in the redirect by checking the edit history. Removing the categories prevents a browser from finding the articles which once existed. BOZ (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
In that case you may want to mention this in the category message. Otherwise it may cause confusion or annoyance.—RJH (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Responding to Invite
BOZ:
Thanks for the invite! Glad to have been noticed in a positive way. I'd be happy to help. I am passionate in my support of Wikipedia as repository for knowledge, from fictional as well as nonfictional sources. The recent torrent of attempts to strike down the efforts of people to contribute through intimidation and rapant deletion have left me disappointed and frustrated. It seems wikipedia has become increasingly less a place where peole are encouraged to contribute to make it better, but rather where people tear it down to diminish it. I've seen articles I've cared a lot about get gutted or removed--good articles that I think added to the quality and scope of wikipedia. It makes it hard for me to want to be involved in the political side of editing. The hostility of some of the critics can be daunting. So I just try to put out articles as I learn new things, like bread upon the water, hoping that it's relevant and helpful. If people are grateful for the things I add, then I am pleased. If they wish for it to be organized/sourced/re-written differently, then I heartily invite them to improve on what I've contributed. If they want to tear it down because they don't think it's worth people's time to read...then, well I'd just rather not know about it. It's all offered in good faith, and that's the best I can do. That said, I am still glad to have been invited to contribute to your efforts, so if there's anything I can do to help--just let me know.
As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I would like to know where I have ever edited on a D&D article. This strikes me at an attempt at distraction when I am most busy with other hard fought article issues . Nice tactic. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
So you have already judged me to be an asshole, I was coming here to appologize and tell you I have been acting on/through my frustration lately and though the timing of your invite was really bad it was not your fault. I have not played D&D for about 12 years and your invite was probably just coincidental spam, but I would like to know people that still play.
If I had the time to start again it would be to try and play a (reincarnated) ferret Ranger/Bard, or a Paladin/Wild Mage for comic relief.
Ok so wikipedia does the ISBN thing correctly when you just type it,so tomorrow I will see about getting those numbers for it. I will stick them on the talk page for the article for you to inject into it in the way you think will serve best. shadzar-talk03:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I already did (or thought I did) - see here. I brought this up some months ago and saw no objections to it, so I chose to be bold and make the change. I will cross link this to the template talk page for discussion and I'll revert if the consensus is against it.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Phantom Rider (Hamilton Slade)
Thanks for the vote of confidence. I apologized becaused making two moves in such quick succession seems like a little bit of bad form to me. I think it works out in the end though as I can see somebody possibly looking for the article at Hamilton Slade (Phantom Rider). At least the extra link my mistake made will actually serve a purpose. :) Stephen Day (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Can you read this section and then offer your opinion on the points raised, specifically the issue of titles in the FCB, length and detail of given sections, what constitutes “fannishness”, etc.? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks guys - it's actually long overdue that the work that Alan and others put into the EGG article in the first place achieve some recognition; most of my changes were cosmetic, and the meat was already there. But definitely, thanks, and I'm going to keep going until I run out of decent B-class articles to get there. ;) BOZ (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I think I mentioned on the D&D project page that I tend to drift in and out, though maybe not. Since the academic year started up again, I'm not really around much. I took down the busy tag I had up since I've got a few days of rest, though I haven't really done much Wikipedia-wise - I did stick that reminder up on my user page, though I haven't gotten around to uploading those pictures yet.
I know that I did mention that I'm quite eclectic when it comes to editing, so once I drift back in I might not be editing the same sort of subjects as before. One irritation I find is that I can't edit Wikipedia from the campus computers unless I log in, and it does grow tiresome constantly typing in my username and password, so that's one of the reasons I'm not editing as much as normal.
If you could give a list of some tasks I might be able to do on the D&D pages, I'll be happy to look into them at some point down the line, though right now is mostly just a breather from life, and I've been blissfully doing nothing. :) --Muna (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
WotC
I think the only things I've done on that article are make sure it's properly categorized. While I might be a footnote in WotC's history, the fact that I worked on all of their products makes it pretty shaky for me to be involved. So thanks but I'll say no for now. If you have any factual questions, don't hesitate to ask.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to discourage you from using the "Death to the Minotaur" Salon piece as a primary source. That piece has been disputed by a number of Wizards employees as being mostly opinion or narrow perspective of one designer (my friend John Tynes), rather than a credible news piece.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
My suggestions:
Remove "Currently" from the end of the first paragraph, as it's been part of Hasbro longer than it hasn't.
I'd separate the personnel (Adkison, Caluori, Hueber, Greenwood, Leeds) moves from the product moves (Avalon Hill, MGTO, Origins & Gen Con).
I don't remember us rehiring laid-off game designers from TSR. We definitely hired the ones who were still there, but whether any of them were laid off at the time is unclear to me.
Pokemon's effect is underreferenced. It caused the company to grow to 800 employees.
You've got Hasbro spelled incorrectly in the "As of January 1st, 2001" paragraph.
The Game Keeper was a brand of stores that WotC bought, not created.
The bit about the Tech Emmys is odd. WotC's won every award imaginable.
The references to the website fans getting WotC to change products and personnel, and the D20 Character Optimization reference, areunsupportable and should be cut. That whole section could probably be one paragraph.
I'd suggest a picture of Magic and one of a WotC edition of D&D.
A user has created 7X and Jeff Leeds. The former is confusing, makes no sense and there appears to be no such character (it seems to be a hodge podge of other characters). The latter is close but again there is no such character. In fact this appears to largely be taken from Ned Leeds.
It is confusing and a mess but before I PROD (speedy?) them I wanted a second opinion from someone more knowledgeable in Marvel matters to confirm my conclusions that these are both nonsense. (Emperor (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC))
Cheers. It looks like most of their article creations have been speedied but I can't quite figure out what speedy criteria those articles would fall under so I'll just PROD them. (Emperor (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC))
Half-elf (Dungeons & Dragons)
To be sure before I restore it, is this also for simply a redirect link (to the gnome deities article?) to a list of characters articles or just restore as an individual article. --JForget16:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Um... the Half-orc is in 4th edition now via one of the Forgotten Realms books. Humans invaded orc lands and the result was half-orcs.... Thought you might want to know since it is listed on your user page as not in 4th yet. shadzar-talk20:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Wizards of the Coast
I just wanted to let you know that I've made what improvements I can to the article so that you could take a look at them. Unless there's something else that you think needs to be added, it seems like a good time for a re-review now. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
BOZ, thanks for helping out with the D&D watchlist. I've made up a userbox here that provides a link to it if you want... the box will be easily accessible on the new main page once its running. Drilnoth (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for all your hard work of late on the D&D articles, Gygax adn everything else. Wish I had the tme to help you out like I did in the past. Web Warlock (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
No problem. It'll take time and perseverance, but we can get 'em all. There really aren't that many left, considering how many there probably were. BOZ (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
You grognard!
Here is an award for service to wikipedia, and one that I think goes well with your work on the D&D wikiproject as well. shadzar-talk03:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
This editor is a Grognard Extraordinaire and is entitled to display this Wikipedia Vest Pocket Edition.
Since you've kind of been keeping track of what articles have publication histories, I though I'd let you know that I just added one to Balhannoth (yes, it's short; I'm trying to see how good I can make a VERY low importance article like that). -Drilnoth (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! One of my (many) current goals is to try and get most of the short stubs looking at least like that; I'm going to search for more secondary sources momentarily, but I think that if we can get a minor article like that to pass the Gavin test, we can get anything to pass the Gavin test. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Trying to impress Gavin isn't one of my goals... you only get one lifetime. :) The fact is, he doesn't really care about anything in an article if it doesn't pass his notability test first - and 95%+ of all fiction-based articles do not. BOZ (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
It isn't exactly one of my goals, either, but if we can figure out exactly what he wants the articles to look like we may better be able to handle his tagging. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
It looks really nice! I like it. I don't honestly care what Gavin wants; I don't think there's any way to get him to stop outside of his taking up an interest in something else, or admins making an official decree that he stop harassing and disrupting us. I think the more resistance he gets, the more he gets encouraged. If there was no resistance, he would just PROD/AFD everything until we had maybe 20-50 D&D articles left. This is what he was doing around Aug-Sept 2007 to RPG articles, and eventually he settled on just D&D (probably because we have the most articles). His RFC/U focused a lot of attention on his deletion activites as Vassyana mentioned, and after enough admonition he settled on mostly just tagging articles. Look at his contributions from roughly a year ago to March of this year - that's all he did, deletions and tagging D&D articles. He got hundreds of them in that time, every single thing he looked at. Now that he's back, I don't see him stopping anytime soon; we just have to deal with it, or give in and let him impose his will on us. I have yet to see anyone offer any compromise that he found acceptable, as for him notability is an all-or-nothing proposition, and he is a very harsh judge of notability. BOZ (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Hundreds!? Really? I thought that it was maybe one hundred or so that he tagged for AfD. At least he's stopped that. Now, why don't we try a different tactic? Let's just not talk to him. Revert unconstructive edits, but end communications on his talk page and article talk pages unless an edit war would break out. Maybe he'll go away if he isn't getting any attention? -Drilnoth (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll have a look at Grick. No, no, he didn't AFD hundreds of articles (dozens, definitely, going about 50/50 with regards to delete/not delete); he tagged hundreds of articles, I meant. I'm perfectly fine with not wasting my e-breath talking to him, and just fixing/reverting his unconstructive edits. He may or may not go away, but you know what they say, you don't feed a troll. BOZ (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah, jeez. Well, we'll deal with it. If he continues his current course of action for another week an official complaint will probably be called for. Also, I do find it interesting that he admits to not knowing much about WP procedures. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
And if Gavin encourages him to do something that gets him into that kind of trouble, that would implicate Gavin as well. BOZ (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean recent people, or anyone who's ever been involved? Because you're pretty complete if you're thinking the former, but more like 10% complete if the latter. BOZ (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Recent people and previous people who had a major involvement, not a more minor position such as what Webwarlock and ColorOfSuffering are in right now. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
WebWarlock was once a more major participant. The list could go on and on. I'd have to take some time to look over old talk pages and such. BOZ (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
As far as who has been involved since Gavin came back to us, it looks pretty complete. Jack Merridew is not yet an active editor again (and no idea whether he wants to jump back in like Gavin), and Jeske and Vassyana are more outside the issue at the moment. BOZ (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I understand that JM is not yet active, but after Gavin's post on his talk page I felt that it was worth including him and providing a background on his participation. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah, defining everyone's roles seems like a good way to do it. You'll probably want to conisder adding or removing people upon request - I'm in, of course, at least. When you're more or less ready, post a notice on the D&D project talk page at least. BOZ (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I plan to; and I'm doing more than just defining roles. If you look through subpages near there you'll see other things that I've been working on to help with this; it will be a cohesive whole when it's all done, but right now it's a work-in-progress. And whenever I come up with an overview/background of a user's participation, I will be requesting that they look at it and see if it is fair or needs modification, or if they want it to be removed altogether. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there really is anything useful to restore in the two articles you listed. Thann family article in its entirety: "The Thann family is one of the seven most powerful families in Waterdeep, and is deeply connected in many business ventures." Moonstone Mask article in its entirety: "The Moonstone Mask is famous Neverwinter's bordello. It is run by matron named Ophala Chanderstone, famous art collector." If there's something notable about the subjects, starting a new article (or a section somewhere) is probably a better idea. - Bobet11:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
No useful content at Nimor Imphraezl (I think). "Some guy from who's Anointed Blade. Likes to kill people. Assassin. Disguised as drow, but has wings. Possibly draconic? Half dragon, half drow? Half demon, half drow? Who knows." The same thing was userfied to here. - Bobet13:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I know that you have recently been active in some Dungeons & Dragons articles, so I thought that I'd point out a new proposition that I made regarding their notability at WT:D&D#A new proposition. Any input on the idea would be much appreciated. Thank you. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Shadzar
Hi. I just wanted to make sure that you saw new discussion on WT:D&D, where Shadzar has left the WikiProject because of discussion regarding Gavin.collins, although Gavin WAS NOT involved in the discussion itself. I thought you might want to comment. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah. :( I can understand the frustration from having to deal with the same situation for so long; believe me, I've been there right alongside him. I hate that this conflict has caused these feelings in people; maybe Shadzar is just blowing off steam, but if he has quit he wasn't the first by far and probably won't be the last. BOZ (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my Request for Adminship, which passed with 77 supporting and 2 opposing. Regardless of your position, I thank you for the time you took to examine my record and formulate your response. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I just looked for your thread on EN-world and read a few things on there and that is not a good site I would think for any information. The first thread in their RPG forum where your Ravenloft thread was located had the owner of the forum calling people childish and making ad-hominem attacks on the users and anyone else that disagrees with him. So I would suggest not using that website for any real references as it seems highly biased. shadzar-talk01:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
After I read your thread there for any info left, the first thread on the list was about a deadline on something and I thought for a minute GC was on the forum and the avatar said that the person making the personal attacks and ad-hominem attacks at people and there ideas had "owner" on the avatar. That is all I am saying. I quickly left there never to return as I never visited it anyway and google just offered it up when searching for Ravenloft and your name so I could help find and gather information from any places you may have gone seeking it. ~shrugs~ So don't know what you get there, but just think you may want to double check anything you do/have gotten from there. shadzar-talk01:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
After reading about the site from various places and the site itself, it seems they are very biased considering they are a game publisher backed by the WotC licenses, so any info form them will be likely unhelpful and very biased. Are they really the industry leading information site? Shouldn't you need to be separate from the industry rather than a publisher of it? Sounds like the RPGA which iss just a D&D players only club hiding under something else. Well IF I have time I will check ravenloft info I can find other places as well participate in the AN/i that is going on, but right now my time is very limited as personal matters are a bit more important than wikipedia matters, but will help where/when/if I have time with any of it. Finding sources for Ravenloft may be a bit hard with how old it is and the kind of sources some people require you to have on any and all articles. I will do my best thought to play the research monkey time permitting. shadzar-talk02:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I trust people are who they say they are and a forum claiming to be the industry leader might have the integrity to not allow fictious names and identity theft if they are still operating a forum. So If someone comes on and is proven to be the person like J Tweet, or David Noonan, I will not dispute their own words that they were laid off. I was skeptical of this PaizoCEO person because it seemed like a hoax at first... That doesn't mean I still trust the everyday users there for much as it seems a lot of people might be related to someone we know around here. But I am not a heavy forum user, so always skeptical under proven wrong. =P shadzar-talk22:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
RFC/U
Nice work. You've really helped condense it down to the write issues and finding some more really good examples. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
No problem! It's important to do this right. I'm going to have a look at a few more articles, but that shouldn't take much time. It will have to wait until later today though. BOZ (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7 - reply to your invite
Hi BOZ. Thanks for the invite to your project. I'm too busy to help out (and the information about what you wanted help with seems to have been pulled from the WikiProject's talk page) but have replied on my talk page.Big Mac (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Spelljammer Wiki
Robbstrd has already informed you about Greyhawk Wiki (aka GH Wiki). I thought you might also be interested in Spelljammer Wiki. The SJ Wiki is a lot smaller than GH Wiki, but hopes to become the number one resource for checking SJ canon. I'm still working out things like policy at the moment, so would especially welcome useful help with citation styles and templates that help categorise things, in the most helpful way.Big Mac (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I let them have a piece of my mind. I'm very worried about Gavin getting his hands on the Notability guideline. I was a bit disconnected lately, and didn't know about this; but hopefully he has bitten off more than he can chew, this time. Freederick (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I'll have a look at this. Unfortunately, this user is way too "my way or the highway" and may end up getting banned if he persists. A shame. Asgardian (talk) 08:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me about this on my talk page. I've had a lot of fun working on Wikipedia, but sadly the deletionist attitude of a minority of people makes it very difficult to 'learn on the job'. I believe (like Gavin does) that good citation and good article writing is vital, but do not believe that a 'tag and run' strategy is of any benifit to the community. People who disagree with 'bad writing' should take the time to improve the article, or work with editors to help improve their standards. People like Gavin make me want to leave, rather than improve. These days I'm more interested in working on outside wikis (like Spelljammer Wiki) than spending my time creating content that is highly likely to be deleted within a year of going up (instead of being improved in that time). Big Mac (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, BOZ. You have new messages at Elkman's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Re:Gavin.collins
Thanks for the note. I haven't really interacted with him, but I am aware of what he does and what some editors think of him. I will keep an eye on the RfC, but I doubt I will become much involved. J Milburn (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you for your reminder on my talk page. I think that further rewrites, caused by your comment, made my response more fair and helpful in reaching a consensus. I'm trying to remain calm in this whole situation, although it can just be difficult at times. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Well done, sir. :) I had to restrain myself as well - which is something all of us have failed on in the past, to one extent or another. BOZ (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Whoah, be careful there - you're playing with fire! I don't think involving WhiteCat is a good idea, and I don't want ArbCom coming down on us for stirring things up. If anything, I want as little interaction with Jack as possible (although I'll drop him a line in a moment).
As regards Jack being back, well we'll just have to keep an eye on things. He says he is going to be on his best behavior, so I'm hoping that's the case. Casliber has agreed to mentor him; it would be a good idea to keep him "on speed dial" - not that we should bug him over every little thing, but we need to make sure that things don't escalate into this or this or any of the many edit wars of the past. Grawp is bound to find out (and I wouldn't be surprised if he knows already) that Jack is back, so if Jack does decide to resume his D&D article activity, Grawp and his IP pals are bound to mess with the templates on D&D articles just to piss off Jack and Gavin. Those were some less-than-fun times. BOZ (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm with BOZ on this one; don't mention this to White Cat. If he wants to get involved, he should do it on his own. Any sort of question like "Please edit these articles so that Jack doesn't" would probably be a very legitimate reason for a speedy ArbCom and/or block. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Well it didn't take long for Jack to award Gavin a D&D barnstar, which at a minimum seems in poor taste given the current RfC and long-standing editorial disputes between Gavin and pretty much every editor working on D&D articles, and at worst it seems like a slap in the wiki-project's face. Not a good sign for Jack remaining on best behavior if he pulls that out out after being unblocked for less than 48 hours. Sounds like back to the same old same old. Shemeska (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I can't disagree, but like I say we'll see. Casliber already had to strikeout a bit of Jack's sass on the RFC talk page. If he's going to hang himself, we'll let him do just that - I don't want to be a party to it. He's got all sort of eyes on him who'd love to see him blocked as quickly as possible, so he doesn't need me watching his every move. :) BOZ (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
You can certainly let me know about other pages to be recreated, although I'm usually a bit hesitant to create a page someone else deleted before giving them the chance to weigh in (just as a courtesy to them). I'm also not the most active admin these days, but I'm certainly happy to take a look. Keep up the great work! Cheers, --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
For your excellent and ongoing work adding publication histories to D&D articles, I hereby award you this barnstar. Keep it up! -Drilnoth (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
It is super kewl that the article is being reviewed. I started the process, but I didn't have the energy with all the wiki changes in protocol. So I'm glad it is finally making it up to par! Lovely! Thank YOU.--K.Nevelsteen (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Email sent... Please be kind and respect Gary's wishes that not too much information about his immediate family be posted on wiki. If you would like to remove your email address from my discussion page against spam or whatnot, feel free. --K.Nevelsteen (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Nah, It is not top secret. As long as you respect the above along with the others you pass the document to, then it shouldn't be a problem. Success with the FAC! --K.Nevelsteen (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I remember you from the Necromancer Games messageboards, where I went by the name Thasaidon. I honestly don't spend a lot of time editing WP, but am happy to help when I can. Certainly I think there's plenty of room for improvement on the D&D articles, and I like to add details relating to the history of D&D, esp. from the pre-2nd edition eras. Your work has been very encouraging and a big step in the right direction. Let me know what I can do. I'll check into the wikiproject. Truly Trivial (talk) 07:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi BOZ. I created that Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: Pool of Radiance article several years back as a stub, and a merge into the regular Pool of Radiance article was discussed (briefly), but nothing ever really came out of it. I'm pretty open to it being either way: the NES port is substantially different and I suspect could probably carry an article of its own (Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (NES), had enough extra material to merit its own article and reach GA status). On the other hand, my Wikipedia tendencies are to merge when possible; one good article is preferable to one okay article and two or three perma-stubs in my opinion. So I'm certainly not opposed to a merge; I do feel, however, as I did back in 2005, that if a merge is performed, the NES port should be given its own section. We could lose the gigantic, unsourced plot section (someone else added that ages ago and I've never felt too comfortable with it) and keep the relevant information and, in particular, what differentiates it from the other ports. This might require more research, since both Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: Pool of Radiance and the current section for the NES game in Pool of Radiance are both a little vague, but it doesn't have to be gold when the merge happens, just left open with the possibility of expansion. Cheers, CP19:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
