Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games/Goals/Archive 1

Suggested goals

Discussion moved from the project talk page:

Catalogue all the notable publishers.
Organize and categorize all known RPG systems (eg. D20, interlock and others), and write decent articles on them.
(Eventually) catalogue notable RPG games.
Add other essential RPG-related knowledge to Wikipedia.
Get Role-playing game to a FA status
Play some RPG.

Angelbo 13:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those look pretty good to me. Perhaps we should have one about terminology too. Percy Snoodle 14:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The terminology goal could be phrased "Describe terminology that is common to most RPGs", in order to emphasize terms like "GM" and "NPC" over, lets say, the use of "raise and see" in Dogs in the Vineyard. I think it's more important to get those basic terms right than to have specialized jargon described. Jonas Karlsson 15:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some more possibilities:

Create an RPG WikiPortal
Add an infobox with an appropriate image to all RPGs
Find a good mini-image for {{rpg-stub}}

Percy Snoodle 15:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think they look good (especially #6, that one we should keep), and with good additional suggestions from Percy Snoodle. We could divide them into "Long-term goals" and "Short-term goals" if we want to, and keep, for example, "Catalogue RPG games" as a long-term and "find image for stub" as a short-term. It would be nice to have a category of goals that are measurable and achiavable, as opposed to the long-term ones which we'll never be done with. Then "tasks" could be steps to reach those goals, both long-term and short-term. We could keep a portal as a long-term goal until we feel it's time, then move it to short-term to get it done more quickly. Or do you think it would add unneccessary complexity and extra administration? Jonas Karlsson 15:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on that it will be good to split them in long term goals and short term goals. I also like to have all the articles of RPG's to have an infobox. I don't know if we should have an infobox for systems and publishers also. or for publishers we should use the standard Template:Infobox Company. I like the idea of a portal too. sounds great and it will make a great entrance for RPG related articles, both for the novice and experienced gamer, who visit wikipedia.
Angelbo 17:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the long/short term goal thing, too. A portal would be very great, as well as some major categories, so that we can centralize it all. And I think we should make Infobox Templates for Systems and for publishers. The Company Infobox of course meets a lot of requirements, but I think some adjustment could do no harm. E.g. you could change Products into something like Major games or product lines and add the systems the company uses (or maybe even invented) -- Genesis 20:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about this?

Short term goals:

Find a good mini-image for {{rpg-stub}}
Clean up the Category: Role-playing games
Decide on a Userbox-look

Long term goals:

Catalogue all the notable publishers.
Organize and categorize all known RPG systems (eg. D20, interlock and others), and write decent articles on them.
Catalogue notable RPG games.
Add other essential RPG-related knowledge to Wikipedia.
Get Role-playing game to FA status
Describe terminology that is common to most RPGs
Create an RPG WikiPortal
Add an infobox with an appropriate image to all RPGs
Play some RPG.

Genesis 12:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

looks good Angelbo 15:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added it to the main page and added some more wikilinks -- Genesis 15:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RPG/CVG goals

Discussion moved from the project talk page:

merge Tabletop role-playing game into Role-playing game
(politely) ask the WP:CVG people if we could move Computer role-playing game to Role-playing game (video games) or similar, to emphasise that it's a different use of the same term, and create Role-playing game (disambiguation) to point the two out
Make sure that Role-playing game (video games) and Role-playing game are used correctly on article pages

This could be a little devisive, but I'd like wikipedia to be correct - and I'm certainly of an opinion that Computer role-playing games and Role-playing games are two separate things with similarities, not two types of the same thing. Percy Snoodle 18:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above mentioned goals due to the fact that computer role-playing game can and sometimes is confused with Computer-assisted gaming in regards to ordinary RPG. Angelbo 18:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a regular WP:CVG participant, I understand your concern, but would also point out that it is one that is not likely to be shared by the majority of non-gamers. Also, the common abbreviation for "computer role-playing game" is "CRPG," so renaming the article would be misleading on those grounds. I would suggest that, if you really wish to differentiate between computer and non-computer RPGs, it would make more sense to create the appropriate subcategories, as is the case with both Category:Computer and video role-playing games and Category:Live-action role-playing games. Moreover, I'm of the opinion that, while there are clear and significant differences between CRPGs and other forms of RPGs, they all still fall under the same basic umbrella term, and that it is inappropriate to effectively co-opt the term for what is only one subset of the concept. Just my $0.02. – Seancdaug 19:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I disagree, but you knew that. I'm not sure what you mean by "non-gamers" here - If you mean non-RPG-players, you're probably right, since there are more CVG-RPGers than RPGers; but that doesn't make them right. I suppose my concern is motivated by literalness - in RPGs, you roleplay. In CVG-RPGs, you don't, so calling them a subset of RPGs is wrong, since they don't share the defining property of RPGs. Also, outside of wikipedia, I've never, ever, ever seen "CRPG" used. It's always just RPG - so it's a different use of the term, not a specification of the term. Still, you've confirmed what I suspected - that CVG-RPGers' opinions differ from mine, and I should be careful when it comes to assumptions. Percy Snoodle 21:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a simple Google test shows that "CRPG" (127,000 hits) is in relatively common usage outside of Wikipedia. Don't get me wrong, though: I am familiar with the distinction between traditional RPG forms and computer RPGs, and I don't argue that. But it's an academic argument, really, because most people use the term "role-playing game" to refer to both forms interchangably. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should reflect this usage, as well as the strong connections and shared history of the two forms. – Seancdaug 22:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off - good citation, thanks. However, 127,000 is hardly "most" when theyre are 8,400,000 for RPG ps2 - clearly "most" CVG-gamers just use "RPG". Also most of those results are non-en; but I'm not sure if that matters. Additionally, I'm concerned that you're using "most people" here to mean "most CVG-gamers" - most RPG-gamers would disagree with you, I think, and "most people" don't use either term, or care. Finally, Wikipedia is not a democracy - if "most people" are wrong, then Wikipedia need not follow their example. I'd like to see Wikipedia be correct. Percy Snoodle 10:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely relevant, though. Yes, most people refer to computer RPGs simply as "RPGs." However, when it is necessary to differentiate between computer RPGs and non-computer RPGs, the far-and-away most frequently used term is "CRPG." Since Wikipedia does need to differentiate, we should use the standard term, and not reinvent the wheel. The argument that CRPGs are not a "proper" form of the genre is, ultimately, a minority view. The vast majority of English language speakers do not make that same finely-grained and overly literal distinction, as evidenced by your own Google search. Moreover, though Wikipedia:Naming conventions is relevant here, I would think: specifically "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." – Seancdaug 02:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"does not conflict with the names of other ... things" is exactly the point - you think they're the same, I think they're different. Please, please, please stop saying things like "The vast majority of English language speakers" - the vast majority of english language speakers have never heard of RPGs or roleplaying. The vast majority of CVGers use RPG to mean CRPG because that's the correct CVG-term; roleplayers use RPG to mean RPG because that's the correct RPG-term. There is no correct neutral term - or if there is, it's using RPG to mean the horrible management-training exercises. But the defining property of a non-cvg-rpg is that you roleplay - which, in a CVG-RPG, you don't. CVG-RPGs are called RPGs because they share the common features (game mechanics and setting), but they don't share the defining quality: roleplaying. Gah! I'm sick of this conversation - I give up. You win.

You clearly haven't "given up," as you have continued to to redefine and recategorize a number of RPG-related categories based on your exclusionistic definition of "RPG" (see Category:Role-playing game terminology). No matter how "right" you feel your definition is, the simple fact of the matter is that the term "role-playing game" is used just as frequently to refer to CRPGs as any other form of the genre, and your narrow definition does not match Wikipedia's own accepted description of the subject (see Role-playing#Role-playing games). I would have hoped, at this point, that my concerns have indicated that there is, at the very least, a debate on this subject, and would ask that you please broach the topic at WP:CVG before pursuing any further changes. I'm sorry if this comes across as overly strident, but I do maintain that the situation is more complex than you seem to admit, and this is the sort of thing that really needs to be discussed, regardless of the outcome of that discussion. – Seancdaug 18:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I get the indentation wrong, but I'm not sure what the big deal is. Tabletop RPGs are not the same as Computer RPGs, right? We all agree. They are, however, similar, and strongly related, right? We all agree. All the rest are minor details that should not be worth spilling so much blood over. What exactly are you two arguing about? I know a lot more about Tabletop RPGs than about Computer RPGs, so as long as they are separate categories, and the name is unambiguous, and we can sort articles correctly, I'm in favor of letting the Computer RPGs experts decide what the Computer RPGs category be called. GRuban 18:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's just one of those messy terminological disputes that occupy so much time and effort here on Wikipedia. :) – Seancdaug 18:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving "Reduce and organize Category: Role-playing games" discussion from main page

Discussion moved from the project talk page:

Reduce and organize Category: Role-playing games a bit. I (GRuban) see this category as the "spiritual home" of this project, so making it clean, neat, and well organized should be a useful goal. It's over 200 entries now, which means it doesn't fit on one page, that should be a good goal to strive for. There's some discussion of how to do that on the talk page, "by genre", for example. Anyone have any better ideas?
Been there, done that. I hope I did not do it too agressively, but at least I managed to shrink it down to one page :-D -- Genesis
Good work. Right now I'm moving stuff to a new subcategory called "Published role-playing games" which will make it easier to see how many game articles there are, and how many about RPGs in general. Jonas Karlsson 22:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Cat:PRPG is on CfD, I'll start moving games into Category:Fantasy role-playing games, Category:Science-fiction role-playing games, Category:Horror role-playing games and others as needed. Percy Snoodle 12:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

right - that's done. There are about 5 left which defy categorisation - I'll leave those to the experts.
(Applauds Percy) GRuban 13:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't like the idea of dividing games by genre at first, as it can be hard to figure out where they fit, but as they can be members of more than one category that's no problem. I was planning some subdivision of "Published RPGs", but that would just have added an unnecessary level of detail. I think it looks good, and I don't think it's a problem that you emptied the category before the vote has ended since I, as the category starter, agreed it should be deleted. The last two games should probably be moved to cat Role-playing games for now, until we know what to do with them. Jonas Karlsson 14:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good plan. Do you think it would be a good idea to put something like User:Percy Snoodle/Template:RPG genres in the genre categories, or perhaps to put them in Category:Role-playing games by genre? Percy Snoodle 14:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The category looks really good now. Can we consider this Project (and the similar Goal) done, delete this big page chunk, and summarize with a line under Reached Goals? GRuban 20:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We should put the conversation into an archive page. Maybe it would be easiest to move it to the talk page, where it can be archived along the other topics (That was Genesis, on Jan 26, who is allergic to signing his name. GRuban 17:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Disambiguation

Discussion moved from the project talk page:

I have been looking at the (seriously lacking) terminology page and noticed that the disambiguated names are inconsistent. Some are (RPG) (eg Munchkin (RPG)) and others are (role-playing games) (eg Attribute (role-playing games). I think these need to be consistent. Any thoughts on which is better? Brehaut 19:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Role-playing games is the official term. RPG is as if you'd name an article Gothic (CVG) instead of Gothic (computer game). We definitely should move the articles to the correct pagenames. (I did something like this at the World of Darkness articles already, changing disambiguations from the role-playing games name (e.g. (Vampire: The Masquerade)) to (World of Darkness)) -- Genesis 22:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the terminology page a bit Percy Snoodle 10:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, but we need to distinguish between a role-playing game and things related to role-playing games. Any "RPG" occurrences should be removed of course, first in page titles and second in article texts, as the abbrevation might confuse non-players. Jonas Karlsson 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox goal measurable as short-term goal

Moved from Template_talk:Infobox_RPG:

At WikiProject Role-playing games we currently have "Add an infobox to all RPG pages" as a short-term goal. I think it's hard to measure when we're done, as I don't feel like going through all pages on my own to check things up. How about we splinter it up into smaller goals, with "All RPGs" as a long-term goal and, for example "All GURPS pages" as a short-term. Then it'll be a lot easier to check different parts of the RPG Wikipedia one at a time, and move them to "Reached goals". What do you think? Jonas Karlsson 09:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea. GRuban 22:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start by adding GURPS, moving the "all RPGs" to long-term and add "Category Indie RPGs" to "Reached Goals". We can go category by category, and if anyone wants to focus on a specific category just add it to short-term goals. Or is it better to go by genre? I can't find GURPS in any of the genres (for obvious reasons?). We don't want to have to go through the same pages two or three times, so a smart strategy is called for. Jonas Karlsson 08:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason many of the GURPS articles (specifically the 4e stuff) isnt in genre categories is cause i have been putting together a lot of what is there when i can and i didnt realise there were cats for that, so sorry about that. Also, thanks for getting those infoboxes in, i had been planning to do for a few days. Brehaut 00:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through the GURPS category and added infoboxes nearly everywhere, except for some supplements ( see Template talk:Infobox RPG). I only added information from the article though, so we still have to fill a lot of the gaps. Some like "designers" can be found quite easily, but I really ain't sure about some of the genres. And does Steve Jackson Games publish all GURPS books? Oh, by the way, I'd propose, given that a GURPS setting is based on novels or stuff, we mention it at the footnotes. (See GURPS Witch World) -- Genesis 12:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've mostly added stuff to the GURPS infoboxes from the articles as well, except "designer" and "publication date" which I got through RPGnet review searches and Amazon.com. Some of the RPGnet reviews list genres as well, if you're willing to take someone else's word for it, but not always the publication date. Amazon, on the other hand, always lists the publication date. Jonas Karlsson 14:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, the genre categories were created just a week ago, so it's no problem that stuff isn't categorized yet. My "obvious reasons" comment was based on the fact that I don't know that much about GURPS (I only own the Time Travel book), so I don't know how hard they are to classify. When you feel that all relevant GURPS articles have infoboxes, feel free to move the goal to "reached" so we can attack another category. You, or someone else who knows frequent GURPS articles probably knows better than me when it's done. Jonas Karlsson 14:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding infoboxes short-term goals

Create a subheading for discussions on separate categories as short-term goals. General discussion on infobox layout goes on in the infobox template talk page.

GURPS

All articles I can find on GURPS have infoboxes now, thanks to our joint effort in adding them. The only articles I looked at, but didn't add an infobox to are GURPS Gulliver, GURPS Espionage, GURPS War Against the Chtorr and GURPS Timeline, because they have merge notices and stuff on them. Feel free to add boxes there if anyone wants to. I've used the articles themselves, RPGnet reviews and Amazon for information to the boxes. I'm not good at GURPS, so please look for mistakes. Anyway, I'm moving GURPS infoboxes to a reached goal, and add World of Darkness to short-terms instead. Jonas Karlsson 21:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the genre-tag to the infobox for GURPS War Against the Chtorr. Sadly, it is the only one of the four listed above that I own. I've been trying to gradually improve the GURPS In Nomine article as well. The Bearded One 06:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World of Darkness

I've begun adding the infoboxes and encountered a problem: World of Darkness books are the joint effort of quite many editors. Can we really enter that many designers? I believe it makes the box quite long (example: Hunter: The Reckoning). And what will we do about games like Vampire: The Masquerade, which got 3 editions and probably different designers for every edition? (example: Changeling: The Dreaming) -- Genesis 09:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Pen-Paper.net Database mentions what the jobs of the editors are. By using this information we could decide which people to list as designers. Original Concept and Design? Authors? Both? All? -- Genesis 11:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I'll just add the designers of the first edition, as they are what could be seen as the creators of the game. -- Genesis 16:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think first edition designers are the safest bet. On the other hand, the designers of the latest edition are probably more relevant to people browsing games now. Both creators and authors can be important, it's hard to say how to handle them in the general case. With multiple editions, we could go wither for multiple boxes or for multiple entries to each field. I don't know what's best until I've seen it done. Jonas Karlsson 19:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we have to define, what the entry is thought for. I believe it should be about the people that originally had the game idea and designed it. As for how many to choose, I'd say we should choose as few as possible and as many as necessary. As long as they were provided, I have now added Designers only, but if none were mentioned, I used authors. This is not all correct, but I couldn't think of a better way. I don't support multiple boxes (unless the article is about two distinctly different versions of the topic) as that would cause double entries and make the page crammed. We want to have an infobox, so it should contain all important information at one glance. It does not require a full list of people who worked on a project, just the most important ones. A list of the whole staff can be added at the end of the page. And Pen-Paper.net is a better place for that anyway -- Genesis 22:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World of Darkness a reached goal? Nice! We're making progress. I'm going to try and help out more on the comedy games, they should be fun to do. Jonas Karlsson 22:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy

Comedy role-playing games now have infoboxes. I was a bit hesitent on Ninja Burger, since the page is not exclusively a role-playing article, but I put it there to see what will happen. The only article I didn't infobox was Fanhunter, since it lacks both a Pen&Paper entry and RPGnet reviews. Jonas Karlsson 22:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have been working on this simultaneously, last evening. I also added infoboxes and I did the fanhunter thing. The reason for its abscence is that it's a spanish fan work (despite a big one, it seems). I wrote an e-mail to the author about the required data, so lets hope he answers (and speaks english). The Ninja Burger infobox has been removed by who seems to be the designer of the game. Still I think it should be readded, as his argument, that it would rather fit into a text, misses the idea behind an infobox (which can contain the information, too, for quick reference). I suppose we should contact him on his talk page and clarify what to do. -- Genesis 13:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have a message almost typed up, but I won't have time to post it until maybe later tonight. To please everyone we could either split Ninja Burger RPG off to a separate page (I don't think we have enough information on the game to do that) or we could place the infobox to the right of the RPG section of the current page. I thought the box was clear, as the title said Ninja Burger: The Role-playing game (the actual title of the game), as not to confuse it with anything else. I'm sure the editor wants his game to have an infobox if he's informed why it's there and who put it there. Jonas Karlsson 13:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Espionage and Superheroes

Those two are done. I'll add Category:Historical role-playing games as next. Only three cats left, we are making great progress. (Although the other two are big chunks) -- Genesis 21:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical

Done, too. Going for Category:Science fiction role-playing games now. Will stop for this night, though. -- Genesis 22:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Science Fiction

Okay, it seems we finally have done this one, too. Now the infobox effort is reaching its finale: Category:Fantasy role-playing games -- Genesis 23:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All

We've done it! Practically every role-playing game that deserved an infobox has gotten one. Of course many might need formatting or additional information (or corrected ones, thinking of the designers...), but that can be done when the specific articles are beeing revised.

Thanks to everyone who helped, you have proven this WikiProject really is worthwhile. Genesis 20:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done everybody. Brehaut 21:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - very well done! Percy Snoodle 09:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions on goals

I've started this subpage for suggestions on new goals, questions on whether goals should be moved from long-term to short-term or vice versa, and so on. We can use this space for goal discussions and leave the front page clean and the general talk page for more general discussions. I'll move our other discussions here in a while. Jonas Karlsson 22:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding images short-term goals

Progress

Added cover images to Changeling: The Dreaming, Demon: The Fallen, Mage: The Ascension, Vampire: The Dark Ages, Vampire: The Requiem, Kindred of the East, Mummy: The Resurrection, and Hunter: The Reckoning. SeekerVI 21:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added cover images to Beyond the Supernatural, Bureau 13, Diomin, Forbidden Kingdoms, Little Fears, Masque of the Red Death, Revelation, Weird_War, and The Whispering Vault; couldn't find anything for Kalmo and Ravenloft has a logo. SeekerVI 01:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, SeekerVI! How about we go about the goal as we did with the infoboxes, one category at a time? It seems like you've worked your way through some WoD and some Horror articles, but are the categories done? Let's focus on Horror now and when it's done place it in a "done" list here on the discussion page, so that we know we're making progress. Or we could go in order on the page that lists articles with an infobox. What's easiest? Jonas Karlsson 18:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that the front-page "Short-term" and "Reached" goals are being used. That's good. I'm moving Horror to "Reached" and promoting two other categories. Jonas Karlsson 18:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added cover images to Teenagers from Outer Space and Gangbusters. Those are the first images I've added, so somebody should go make sure I did it correctly! Michael Bauser 19:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added cover images to Diana: Warrior Princess, Fanhunter, Ghostbusters RPG, HackMaster, HoL, Star Riders, and Underground. SeekerVI 06:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added images to Over the Edge and Ninjas and Superspies. Rossumcapek 08:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added cover images to Aberrant, Adventure!, Brave New World, & Trinity before uploading died on me. --SeekerVI 18:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cover images added to Big Bang Comics RPG, Capes, Champions, Golden Heroes, Heroes Unlimited, Marvel Universe RPG, Silver Age Sentinels, & With_Great_Power...; logos added to Marvel Super Heroes & Powergame. --SeekerVI 23:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where to get images

I'm a bit confused... Where are we allowed to aquire the cover images from? So, we may scan them ourselves, right? But what else? Can we just seek them via Google and name the page we found it on as source? And could we for example use images from pen-paper.net? That would make work much easier, but I'm not sure whether it's all okay... -- Genesis 11:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the GURPS entries i have been working on i just pinched small versions from the SJGames site. I think it counts as fair use (its also an option in the license dropdown when you upload the image) and i cant really see them complaining because its basicly free advertising. as an aside, if anyone needs diagrams drawn for any article i am happy to produce them to a spec Brehaut 11:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you conatced SJG about this to get a go ahead, or are we just assuming? If the later, I think it would be a good idea to contact them (I'm willing to do so if no one else wants to) KalevTait 18:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. But what about pen-paper.net? I'd really like to use that page, as they have a huge amount of book covers. They are basically doing the same thing that we do, using low res images to illustrate the entries. I'm just not totally sure whether it would be okay to take their files (maybe send an e-mail to the admin?) -- Genesis 11:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contacting the pen and paper admins is probably worth while yes. I cant see any reason they would say no either. - Brehaut 20:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just go to Google image search, myself, and don't bother to attribute the site, because, IMHO, the important thing to attribute is the publisher of the book, who really owns the image, and did the drawing or paid the artist, not the guy who held it over a scanner for 15 seconds. If the picture is just a straight-forward cover scan, the scanner can't very well complain ("hey, you're copying my copy of someone else's work..."). It's not the same as a photograph, or a drawing that they composed or made themselves. GRuban 14:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, totally forgot to mention it: pen-paper.net game me an okay ages ago ^^ -- Genesis 08:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roleplaying mechanics?

Perhaps we can put together an article that deals with general RPG mechanics? Dice systems, granularity, diceless resultion mechanisms, tag-based resolutions, etc., etc.? אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 22:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like that could easily grow to more than one article. But go ahead and start one, I'd be happy to add something. KalevTait 00:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to add a short section to Dice notation later this week after a bit of research. The Bearded One 06:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content along these lines would be well-used in expanding role-playing game system, rather than budding off a new article. Percy Snoodle 14:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article Gamemaster needs citiations, references, and general cleanup. I'll do what I can next week. The Bearded One (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested New Long Term Goal - correct spelling: "roleplaying"

See talk from Roleplaying game artilce for more info.
I suggest the Long Term Goals be updated to add the correction of the spelling of "Role-playing game" to "Roleplaying game" since most Roleplaying game companies use the term Roleplaying rather than Role-playing.
—Asatruer 20:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded :-) Percy Snoodle 06:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do feel it needs to be done with care, though. Someone moved the main RPG article into "Category:Roleplaying games", though that didn't exist. I think it would be far better done through WP:RM and WP:CFD than by hand. Percy Snoodle 11:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a funny quirk of the English language. "Role playing" to "role-playing" to "roleplaying" :-) I agree with this proposition, however I forsee the upcomming transition to be -very- messy. :-P I'll help however I can. אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 14:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_12#Category:Role-playing_games_to_Category:Roleplaying_games Percy Snoodle 09:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good articles

I think the first step towards getting a FA is to get several GAs. I'd like to recommend

Amber DRPG (a self-nom, I'm afraid)
Indie role-playing game (lacks images)
GURPS
Nobilis (a self-nom as I stubbed it, but the work's almost all other people's)
World of Darkness

I'm sure there are others; these are just the ones that came to mind. Percy Snoodle 14:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and of course:

Roleplaying game (needs reference-ifying)

Percy Snoodle 09:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Altered longeterm goal~?

3.Consistent naming: rename all "Foo (RPG)" and "Foo (Role-playing game)" pages to "Foo (role-playing game)". Note: This assumes 1) that just "Foo", without the parenthetical qualifier, is already used for another article (if it isn't, just use that), and 2) that Foo is a specific role-playing game, not an article about multiple role-playing games, or RPGs in general. The plural, "Foo (role-playing games)", is preferred for those. Category: Role-playing game terms has many examples.

How about a standard naming system for all RPG articles? Such as Foo (roleplaying game) with a redirect from the Foo article if there's nothing there. Then, if Foo the broadway musical becomes world famous throughout English speaking countries, Foo the RPG wouldn't have to deal with an identity crisis. -- SeekerVI 14:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be against Wikipedia policies; hovever, there's a debate going on about changing those policies WRT episode titles, so if that does come down in favour of more disambiguation, it would be sensible to make the changes you describe. Personally, I'm against increased use of parenthesised titles. Percy Snoodle 15:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To explain further, the guidelines are at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Deciding to disambiguate; the debate is at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Episode title RfC; and WRT is "with respect to". Percy Snoodle 11:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How would it be against disambiguation guidelines? I wonder what alternatives there are to parentheses. Maybe Foo - roleplaying game or a Wikipedia-wide bracket classification system with a specialized web browser and a new language to replace HTML. - SeekerVI 22:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AD&D, Rifts,Tunnels & Trolls, and Shadowrun

I will help out with article pertaining to these rpg's. I have all the original rule books for all of the systems above. They are the forefathers to D20 modern and D&D 3.5, therefore, making them the best.

Jake23482 12/20/06 12:43 pm. EST

Fair use rational for cover images

All the RPG articles with non-free cover images need a current fair use rationale added to them, I'm doing as many as I have time for, but it's more than I can handle. So here's a template if anyone else who wants to have a go (replace the XXXXXXX with the actual info, of course)

- SeekerVI (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

== Fair use rationale ==
{{Non-free media rationale
|Article=XXXXXXX
|Description=Book Cover 
|Source=XXXXXXX Derived from a digital capture (photo/scan) of the book cover (creator of this digital version is irrelevant as the copyright in all equivalent images is still held by the same party). Copyright held by XXXXXXX.  Claimed as fair use regardless.
|Portion=Front book cover only, a small portion of the commercial product.
|Low_resolution=Yes
|Purpose=The image serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject (the book).  It illustrates educational articles about the book from which the cover image was taken.
|Replaceability=There is no free equivalent of this book cover, so the image cannot be replaced by a free image.
|other_information=The use of the cover will not reduce the value of the original work or limit the copyright holder's rights or ability to distribute the original. In particular, copies could not be used to make illegal copies of the book.
}}
[[category:Book covers]]