User talk:Iquander

Thanks for standing against uber-deletionist, but he's been at it for months, & unlikely to stop. Reasoning with Gavin is like resoning with a brick wall. Furthermore, the amount of Greyhawk material (& D&D material in general) we want on here really doesn't meet Wikipedia's high standards for notability. However, the good news is that there's now an all-Greyhawk wiki hosted at Canonfire!, & a few of us have been working over the past few months to transfer all the relevent Greyhawk material from Wikipedia to the new wiki. Feel free to help out--it's much more rewarding (& productive) than fighting with Gavin.--Robbstrd (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm only objecting to his really egregious edits, like calling whole campaign settings or characters like Gord the Rogue non-notable. I don't really mind if he cleans up (or off) pages like Brandobaris and Telchuria. That kind of stuff belongs on a Greyhawk wiki anyway. Iquander (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, Gavin has actually slowed down. Stopped, no, but slowed down a bit. Of course, I don't doubt that this is temporary... Mikeblas and Pilotbob were never as active as he, so we're getting a *slight* respite at the moment, until it picks back up again I'm sure. BOZ (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dwellers of the Forbidden City has been nominated as well, in an especially ill-advised move. BOZ (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beltar is up for deletion, and Rod of Seven Parts is up again! BOZ (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] BOZ (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Dungeon Design Panel, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeon Design Panel. Thank you.

This is a trial of the AfD notification bot. If you found this message helpful, annoying or have anything else to say about it please leave a message at User_talk:BJBot, thanks! --BJBot (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Iquander. 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) 22:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would be really helpful is refs from some old books on commentary of D&D like dicing with dragons etc. I have most old white dwarfs but there were other mags which were outside the TSR loop which reviewed things Different Worlds comes to mind. There are refs we just need to get them. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Role-playing games/Notability#Reliable Secondary Sources - I don't know if it would be helpful, or harmful for you to weigh in here. Obviously your expertise could clear up the whole "were the magazines under Paizo independent sources or not" debate. However, some editors have been complaining that you were involved in D&D AFDs at all. Just noting this for you. BOZ (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They have? Where? Iquander (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just one person, but no one really seemed to care: User talk:Gavin.collins#Erik Mona → User:Iquander and User talk:FT2#Erik Mona → User:Iquander. BOZ (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh - guess you found that on your own anyway.  :) Well, that said, it's up to you if you want to weigh in on the RPG notability page regarding the magazines' "independence" under your watch. Some say hell no, some say hell yes, most say "uh, I don't know for sure". ;) BOZ (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've commented about the posts I made to others re an apparent COI. I asked others because I'm really not sure what the norm here is. I see that most of the stuff you added that you may have an interest in (or may not, I don't really know your work) was early in your wiki-editing. I was surprised to learn that an editor I'd noticed in passing and the subject of an article I had also looked at a bit were, in fact, the same person. I would suggest you make this a bit clearer to editors who wouldn't know who you were just from seeing your username. FYI, I had noticed your delete-opinion on the design panel AfD. Please note also that you don't have to actually do anything wrong to have a conflict of interest; the conflict is inherent in the facts.

I also am pleased to see you state that there are too many non-notable D&D stubs here — and I obviously agree. I would also like to suggest that you could help educate editors of D&D articles about issues such as Notability. My concern with this genre is that many editors of it seem to want to branch the articles out to a near-infinite number of tiny articles about every game variant, monster, spell, etc. That is unencyclopaedic; it is fandom. Wikipedia should have articles about the notable stuff; fan-sites — Wikia? — should have the minutia. --Jack Merridew 12:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the Dungeon Design Panel article, my first contribution to the Encyclopedia, was a clear conflict of interest. I didn't understand Wikipedia's rules at the time (or even if there were rules), so I just learned and moved on.

I can appreciate that you think I might be able to help other editors establish notability, and I have been doing my best to suggest places editors can look, even if I haven't had much time to edit pages myself lately (I am just about finished writing a book). Part of the reason I removed a couple of your notability tags (notably Tenser, Gord, and Mordenkainen) is that these characters truly are notable. All are household names to certain aspects of D&D fandom, and a case can be made that they have real world notability as well. Gord, for example, is the first ongoing fiction character based on a roleplaying game. Roleplaying game-based fiction is a huge segment of the science fiction genre. Go to your local Borders or Barnes and Noble. RPG fiction usually gets a whole sub-section of fantasy and science fiction. In most places this section is as large as the store's "humor" section. Gord is the first series solo character in this genre, and is hence (to use a word that gets thrown around too much here lately) "clearly" notable, but the trick is finding a mainstream source to prove it.

Here is another example. I have on my bookshelves a book called "Heroic Worlds," by Lawrence Schick. It was published in the late 1980s, during the tail end of the first real tabletop RPG "boom", when D&D had a Saturday morning cartoon and the game was being taught in after-school classes all over the country. It was not published by TSR or any affiliated entity. It has a survey of all the early D&D products with comments on their importance to the hobby, their downfalls, the quality of their art, etc. I plan to eventually go through that book and add relevant comments that help to establish notability, but it will take a while and there are probably not a whole lot of people who own this book and who also enjoy editing Wikipedia. There _are_ sources for a lot of this stuff, but much of it comes from the pre-internet days and must be hunted down.

I don't think any of the editors who work heavily on the D&D pages are furious at you, Gavin Collins, or Pilotbob because you target insignificant stub articles for deletion. The overpowering pace of these deletions and the indiscriminate nature of the targeting is what's so infuriating. The drive to get rid of the D&D pages is also offensive because those engaging in it do not show any assumption of good faith on behalf of the editors. Words like "fancruft" really are offensive (and are meant to be), and I keep seeing comments like "these pages will never be notable" or "all of these pages will eventually get deleted" after a Keep consensus in an AFD or "this is _clearly_ not notable" from a deletionist with a casual interest in the subject matter.

A lot of the editors have a lifelong interest in the subject matter, and have essentially been studying the importance of D&D and RPGs on culture (and sub-culture) alike for years and years. It may take some looking to prove the significance of a hugely popular adventure module published 20 years before the Internet, but it is possible, and I believe in good faith that editors are working on the problem.

You guys just don't have to be such dicks about it, is all. Iquander (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed response. I will look at the three you mention. I expect you have a huge library of topic-specific books and magazines. And I can also see you being too busy to cite thousands of facts in hundreds of articles. I have seen many of the same "references" copy-pasted at the foot of many articles. I view this only serving to give the appearance of having references; they are general in nature and are not associated with any specific statement in the article - hence the nofootnotes tags.

Your comment about the "indiscriminate nature" of clean-up tagging is probably due to editors such as myself not knowing the overall structure of the articles related to D&D. I see an article that's been tagged by someone else and been removed without the concern being address and I'll restore it - which gets it on my watchlist. And I might look at what else whomever has edited recently and may get more on my list. From your point of view, this looks indiscriminate. As to the pace, I see an issue that has gone unaddressed for a very long time and a need to catch-up.

Please don't think that there is some grand plan to delete stuff. I've had a few posts back and forth with Gavin; I have no idea who Pilotbob is.

re Notability: Too many of the "references" on offer are unreliable in the extreme; some trivial mention found via Google, or a self-published "review" on a fansite, or a primary source of some kind. In the end, rock-solid notability is established when some out-of-universe reliable source comments in a non-trivial way. You'll know it when you see it. I would encourage you to focus other editors on quality sources, not fan-centric things. Such references will be unassailable and will be permanent. --Jack Merridew 11:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death knight is up next, but not from the usual suspects! BOZ (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slaad is going on if you are interested, plus a number of others which are probably less notable. BOZ (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A

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) 19:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed regarding Gavin.collins. Since you had endorsed at least one summary in the prior Request for Comment, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plains of the Paynims, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plains of the Paynims. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. _{ZXCVBNM [TALK]} 03:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Nomination of

Pale (Greyhawk)

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Pale (Greyhawk) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pale (Greyhawk) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of

Stonehold

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Stonehold is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stonehold until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of

Ket (Greyhawk)

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Ket (Greyhawk) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ket (Greyhawk) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of

Greyhawk literature

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Greyhawk literature is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greyhawk literature until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of

Wolf Nomads

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Wolf Nomads is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolf Nomads until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of

Geoff (Greyhawk)

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Geoff (Greyhawk) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoff (Greyhawk) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of

Tiger Nomads

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Tiger Nomads is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiger Nomads until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Iron League for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Iron League is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iron League until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great Migrations (Greyhawk)

The article

Great Migrations (Greyhawk) has been proposed for deletion

because of the following concern:

Fails

WP:GNG

.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

deleted for any of several reasons

.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Plains of the Paynims" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect

Plains of the Paynims. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 28#Plains of the Paynims until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jontesta (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]