Talk:Lendore Isles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of The World of Greyhawk Wikiproject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the World of Greyhawk campaign setting for the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents

[edit] Module Context

It's probably worth noting that the L series of adventures takes place here, and that the whole pre-2nd edition Lendore Isles area was the domain of Len Lakofka, for whom they were named. --Iquander 23:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Primary Sources Template

Application of the Primary sources template in this instance does not follow the Wikipedia:Verifiability guidelines. The primary sources are reliable, and do not fit any of the criteria for questionable sources. The editors who are applying these templates are trying to apply a standard clearly meant for non-fiction to a work of fiction. Smcmillan (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the sources given is that they are not independent reliable sources. --Jack Merridew 12:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
There are also no footnotes. I don't know what the references have to do with this article: assuming good faith that they have something to do with Lendore Isles, I think their relationship needs to be expalined. If Smcmillan can provide an explaination, I would be most grateful. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You both know very well that there is no secondary source material on this article by the nature of its publication, but that standard applies to a good amount of fictional content on Wikipedia. Given the history of your editing of World of Greyhawk content that doesn't really seem to be the issue, although I can't really tell what particular axe you have to grind. If you believe no content on the World of Greyhawk or any similar rpg setting should be included in Wikipedia then by all means come out and say so somewhere like Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not instead of engaging in disruptive editing under the guise of applying inclusion standards. Smcmillan (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not grinding an axe, I asked a simple question if you knew anything about the primary sources quoted in the article. If you don't, no problem. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Apparently I was wrong in my above statement. There is secondary source material on the subject of this article. -- Smcmillan (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I know all of the primary source material. However, what does the primary source template have to do with my knowledge of it? I will be happy to edit the content to explain the primary source material if you stop editing in templates that do not apply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smcmillan (talk • contribs) 19:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Footprints References

These references are primary sources written by the creator of the setting in the form of articles published in an online journal with editorial control. Despite them being primary sources I will argue that Footprints qualifies as a reliable source. It is indexed alongside the most reputable publications in the gaming industry at Pen & Paper which is primarily a industry website (the equivalent of a trade journal) solicited by a wide variety and number of gaming publishers with press releases. It is accepted as reputable by the industry. True Footprints may not qualify as a "most reliable source" as per WP:V but there is no claim that a source must meet those criteria to to be considered reliable. Also, if you have trouble finding a ref. source please discuss it on the talk page to give someone a chance to verify it before deleting it. Just because you can't find it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Thanks. -- Smcmillan (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to remove NoFootnotes Template

I believe I've addressed the problems pointed out by this template. If there are no objections I will remove it in a weeks time. -- Smcmillan (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There are 11 footnotes now, and the tag can go. However, the refs are largely to primary sources and they need to be reworked to use the appropriate templates and have a few more parameters added; I did a few of them. --Jack Merridew 07:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reformatting Jack. I was just about to come back and do this after working on another article. I'm still learning the best ways to format refs so you saved me some work. Like I said above I'll leave the template up until this Sunday just in case anyone else wants to comment. --Smcmillan (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to remove Notability and Primary Source templates

Secondary source added 1/8/08 meets requirements for removal of both these templates. I will wait a week for objections and then remove templates if consensus is reached. Thanks. -- Smcmillan (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As I just said above, most of the sources are still to primary sources. Please leave these tags for now and allow others to comment and review the sources. --Jack Merridew 07:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)