User talk:Iquander

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 30 Greatest D&D adventures

Hi Iquander, welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed all the additions you've been making to the various D&D module-related articles, which is most welcome. I hope you stay here at Wikipedia and make lots more value-added contributions. If you happen to be the same Iquander of the Greytalk mailing list and Paizo Publishing, I know you will have an immense set of knowledge to contribute to the encyclopedia, and it is exciting to have you here!

If you are that same Iquander, there's a small matter of Wikipedia guidelines that I should bring to your attention. Specifically, you may want to avoid adding references / links to Dungeon or other Paizo publications and Web sites. See here for a guideline on this, such as point #3 that you should not link to sites you own or maintain. The references to the "Top 30" article you have been adding don't technically violate this guideline, as they aren't "external links" per se, so I wouldn't advise doing anything radical like going through and removing the references you have already put in. But you may want to be careful here to stay within the Wikipedia spirit of NPOV. The standard / good Wikipedia practice in situations like this is to add a comment or suggestion to the Talk page of the article in question and allow other editors (presumably who can be objective) determine if the reference / link regarding your company or its products is proper for inclusion. Another similar guideline you may want to be aware of is Wikipedia:Autobiography.

I don't mean these comments in any way to put you off contributing enthusiastically to Wikipedia, which I sincerely hope you will do! If you'd like to respond to my message or ask any questions, please feel free to do so on my own User talk page. Again, glad to see you here on Wikipedia. Cheers! Fairsing 15:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Your message to me:Hey, I noticed you've been changing all of the 30 Greatest D&D Adventures references tags to "Erik Mona, James Jacobs, et al". That effectively removes all of the links I built that point to Dungeon Design Panel, which I think is an interesting little page (although probably more POV than other articles I will post in the future).

Any particular reason you did this? I'm still trying to get the hang of how to contribute to Wikipedia vis a vis dos and don'ts, so if there's something I'm missing, please let me know.

Thanks!

--Erik Mona Iquander 22:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually noted why I did so on one of the pages, I just didn't think to post something here--sorry for the trouble. Anyway, nothing personal on the change--I just think that "et al" is more formal & encyclpediac, plus I'm not sure a list of creators assembled for a single purpose (to write one article) is really within the scope of Wikipedia. I'd be willing to give it the benefit of the doubt, should the panel work on, & be credited for, more projects, but there are a number of folks on here that would call for its deletion immediately, based on the reasons I gave. You might consider changing it to "Category:Dungeon Design Panel" & then add the link to each creator's page, but I'm not sure even that would fly with some people. Like I said, nothing personal against you or any of the other creators, there are just certain conventions & such to be aware of on Wikipedia. I'll wait until you decide what to do before I add anymore "te al's." You'll also notice that i changed how the ref was written a bit. Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games has adopted the following format for references:

Books, modules, supplements, boxed sets, etc Author or editor. Title of product (publisher, date). Available online:URL, if applicable Articles in periodicals, or works within an anthology Author. "Title." Periodical or anthology title issue# (publisher, date). Available online:URL, if applicable Online sources Author. "Title." Available online:URL Anyway, thanks for becoming a Wikipedian, Erik. I look forward to seeing more of you on here. Cheers! Robbstrd 22:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

If you're not Erik, I apologize in advance (but really--who else goes by "Iquander"?). Anyway, it's good to see you on Wikipedia. You might want to consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games, or read up on some of the stuff that's already been hashed out over there. I've actually been considering starting a Greyhawk Wikiproject. Interested?--Robbstrd 01:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your July 6 message

Thanks for your note on July 6 on my talk page. All the factual detail about Greyhawk, its history, etc. is certainly legitimate for you to add in, and I noticed you've been making a bunch of additions over the past few days, which is great! Thanks for that, and for the many valuable contributions I know are to come in the future. In terms of your questions regarding avoiding the NPOV problems inherent in commercial conflict of interest situations, here are some of my thoughts:

• Referring to events / facts about the setting that have been published in a TSR/WotC-published module, sourcebook, rulebook, etc. is almost always going to be fair game. Where possible, please use a citation to indicate which publication you are taking your facts from. In general, we haven't done as good a job as we should have in this regard on the Greyhawk articles, and I'm as guilty as anyone of that, but it would be good if we could take this to the next level. This might be especially important for yourself, to avoid the error of inserting your own personal interpretation of Greyhawk history into the encyclopedia rather than what should be included: the "official" published history. Discrepancies in published canon (one official publication says one thing; another contradicts it) should be noted as such in the article rather than you (or any other editor for that matter) stating an opinion that one version is "correct" and another is wrong as fact.
• You are smart to avoid editing articles about yourself and/or Paizo and Paizo products, but if you see factual errors in those articles, or want to suggest additions to them, you can certainly add your comments to the article's talk page without any worries whatsoever, and let other editors make the call as to what to move into the articles themselves. I would recommend you also follow this policy regarding articles on publications for which you are an author, co-author, or have any direct financial interest (e.g. Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, Faiths and Pantheons, etc.).
• References to Paizo publications like Dungeon magazine or Dragon are probably a gray area. Certainly you should not create external links to Paizo-controlled Web sites (or other sites on which you are a key editor or administrator). You might consider avoiding references to current / recent issues of Dungeon magazine or Dragon, because that could potentially be interpreted as commercial promotion.
• Not to appear self-contradictory, but when in doubt, Be bold! Wikipedia will be greatly enhanced by your presence here and the knowledge you can contribute.

These are all just my own personal suggestions; I hope you find them helpful. Again, welcome to Wikipedia! Fairsing 22:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Greyhawk

I didn't want to edit your user page, but i thought I'd let you know that the link is dead. Oh, wait--I'll make a redirect!--Robbstrd 19:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion drive

I added a comment over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Mona in your defense. I doubt the article will be deleted, as the reasons given looks to be rather weak.--Robbstrd 22:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greyhawk article targeted for deletion

Baklunish Basin has been proposed for deletion. If possible, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baklunish Basin. Thanks. --Robbstrd 17:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of a Fortnight's Length

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Battle of a Fortnight's Length, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Gavin Collins 07:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ull (Greyhawk)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Ull (Greyhawk), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. Gavin Collins 15:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tenh

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Tenh, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. Gavin Collins 15:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Telchuria

An article that you have been involved in editing, Telchuria, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telchuria. Thank you. Gavin Collins 10:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Tenh

An article that you have been involved in editing, Tenh, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenh. Thank you. Gavin Collins 10:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion sprees

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)

• 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)

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)

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

[edit] Pilotbob must be bored on Christmas vacation

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

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

[edit] AfD nomination of Dungeon Design Panel

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)

[edit] Ongoing RPG notability/AfD situation

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

[edit] WP:COI

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)

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)

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)

[edit] More AFD fun

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

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)

[edit] Ull (Greyhawk)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Ull (Greyhawk), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Beeblbrox (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Ull (Greyhawk)

I have nominated Ull (Greyhawk), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ull (Greyhawk). 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Beeblbrox (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)