Talk:Steve Jackson's Sorcery!

Edit war

Recent edits on this article seem to be edging in the direction of an edit or revert war. I think that it would be helpful for editors to describe what they would like the see on the page so that we can obtain consensus and edit more effectively. Euchrid (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I recently reverted the Libria section back it's previous place and wording, but accidentally pressed enter before finishing my explanation of why. What I wrote before pressing enter was: "Libria fits better following the fragments detailing spells than in the one detailing inter-book-continuity." (that use of inter- appears not to be used in English, what I meant was "continuity between books".) I also wanted to add that the phrasing and placement that the unregistered user(s?) keep reverting to can easily be misunderstood to suggest that the book includes an additional plot where the player's character summons their goodness and not that the summoning of Libria is a game-play function integrated to the main plot. Also these reverts removes the mentions of the option to use Libria to cure the player's stats and remove curses. The earliest reverts also reinstated a typo in the article. --Painocus (talk) 02:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

He has done it again! And still without any justification for his actions even though I've repeatedly asked for it! He has at least taken notice to my complaint that he keeps removing the mention of Libria's abilities to (as I wrote) "restore stat values or remove any curses and deceases the player's character may have picked up", but have substituted it the much vaguer "or provide minor aid such as curing a curse". (Additionally, removal of curses/deceases and restoration of stats can hardly be considered "minor aid" and the article should try to avoid such judgments anyways.) It is as if he have some obsessive need for his text, and his placements there of, to be present in the article regardless it's clarity and information. What should I do with him? Since he appears to be constantly changing IPs trying to contact him on his talk page would be impossible. Furthermore, he does not appear to read this talk-page and if he does he ignores it. Trying to have this page temporary semi-protection would be rather excessive to ward of a single person, but trying to have him banned would be useless (due to the changing IPs). Should I try to revert it again and leave a message in the edit-summary telling him to go to the talk page and hope that he actually reads/cares abut it or that he finally gives in? --Painocus (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

If you feel strongly about it, I'd suggest taking to the Administrators noticeboard. They don't intervene on content disputes, but users refusing to communicate about their changes is against policy. They may decide to temporarily ban the IPs that the user is using. Euchrid (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Article Title

Hi,

First off, I'm no book title or ISBN expert, but it appears to me these books were originally issued (by Penguin through their Puffin imprint, in the UK) as "Steve Jackson's Sorcery!" in 1983. Only the year after, did Penguin Books issue them in the US as "Sorcery!" (dropping the "Steve Jackson's" part). This through WorldCat. It appears I only have to say ISBN 0140067949 and you can check for yourselves.

Now, two proposals:

1. is this article really edited for British English as it should be (authors/publisher clearly UK based)?
2. should we rename this article to Steve Jackson's Sorcery!, questionmark. What source would we at Wiki consider definitive for purposes of naming our book articles?

CapnZapp (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The series was Steve Jackson's Sorcery! when first published by Penguin and when reprinted by Puffin and Wizard, although there was a period when the prefix was dropped from the Puffin covers. The definitive guide is You Are The Hero by Jonathan Green. Chapter 5 of his book is subtitled Steve Jackson's Sorcery! so an article rename is called for I would say - even if the prefix is dropped when the series is named in the article. Deagol2 (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Is Green's book your source for the title when first published? Any particular reason library data won't suffice for this (see my questions)? I'm not sure why'd you call Green's book a "definite guide" on a subject like this - for internal goings on, who talked to whom etc, sure. But a title should be easily confirmed with the publisher's data, I'm just no expert here. I did notice most online databases have dropped the name from the title, but as I said, one hint could come from WorldCat: how this was a UK/US thing more than a recent abbreviation.

Also please note that all these questions don't prevent me from noticing you agree on a page move :) Just wanted to get the details out of the way first. CapnZapp (talk) 08:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Personally I find databases like Worldcat to be prone to errors and omissions with older books, so I quoted Green's book as a widely accepted reliable source on the subject. I can confirm the original title from my own collection, summarised here if you wish to extract ISBNs to check elsewhere. The American editions were almost identical to the British editions, so this is not a US/UK thing. My guess would be that SJ's name was used because the first two Penguin volumes were not branded as Fighting Fantasy gamebooks. This happened for the reissue by Puffin. Deagol2 (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Move from Sorcery! to Steve Jackson's Sorcery!  Done CapnZapp (talk) 05:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

also, archiving

While not exactly massive, most discussion here is really old. I propose to add archiving (as instructed to prior to actually doing it) with slow-moving parameters. CapnZapp (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done CapnZapp (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)