Talk:Keep on the Shadowfell

This article is within the scope of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dungeons & Dragons-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, or join the discussion, where you can join the project and find out how to help!Dungeons & DragonsWikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & DragonsTemplate:WikiProject Dungeons & DragonsDungeons & Dragons articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

D&D to-do:

view

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Merge : Various articles
Stubs : Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, Swords & Spells, Variant Dungeons & Dragons games, More...
Update : Rewrite to be out-of-universe: Companions of the Hall, Dark Sun, Elf (Dungeons & Dragons)
Verify : add sources to novels planned for merge to List of Dragonlance novels
Other : Collaboration: Dave Arneson, Drow (Dungeons & Dragons)

External Links

I added external link to Eleven Foot Pole; this appears to be the most comprehensive online analysis of the module. It IS however, a site run by me. I've added it to improve the quality of discussion, not for self-promotion. Link was deleted by a bot as being possibly not relevant - it's clearly relevant, the question is is it notable. I undid the bot's change. I'd welcome this issue being looked at by a pair of human eyes but it seems to me to be a clearly useful resource for people looking for more information on this (fairly specific) topic. DustFormsWords (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it looks more like a very short first contact report than a critical review. WP:ELNO is to avoid external links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. furthermore at the end of the blog entry it is suggested that further posts will be forthcoming which could be constructed as self promotion. Conclusion is to remove it.--LexCorp (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The further posts (some 40 something to date) exist and form the majority of the site. I've been writing on game design to a professional level for some years; this site is a dedicated look at a macrocosm of game design through this particular module. As far as I'm aware this is the most detailed look at the module which currently exists and directing those looking for more information to it is probably a good use of space. If any editors out there are aware of a higher quality or more comprehensive source I'd love to see it replace this one. In the mean time I'd argue for its retention in the absence of any dissatisfaction with the quality, accuracy or neutrality of content on this (non-profit) site. (I suspect there's not enough traffic to this particular entry for anyone to care enough to vote for deletion or retention, but still...)DustFormsWords (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note the link in question has been deleted while I was posting my argument for retention. In the absence of a consensus for deletion (or more than one voice for deletion at least) I'd intend to undo this change but before I do I'll provide some time to argue against that course. -- DustFormsWords (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to revert until more opinions are in. This article is still a stub so WP can be relapsed until a more robust article evolves. If you are a professional writer on game design instead of your blog maybe you could cite or refer to some of your published material. It is still bad WP etiquette to put your own stuff on links or ref even if you think it deserves to be there. In fact a notability test will be for independent editors to want to link to your work because of its notability. What you do is or comes close to WP:CONFLICT. I recommend you to read WP:COS WP:CONFLICT WP:ELNO WP:EL#ADV.--LexCorp (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]